Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CJCurrie (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 7 September 2006 (→British report). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Length

The article is getting long, so it might be a good idea to discuss which sections we might be able to remove. Do people have any ideas about that? SlimVirgin 05:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My first option would be to remove the sections that aren't about NAS. // Liftarn

And they are? SlimVirgin 07:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Old anti-Semitism and muslim anti-Semitism. // Liftarn

Do you mean the section called "The far right and Islamism?" If so, that's impossible. Please be serious. SlimVirgin 08:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't suggest we should move an entire section, but trim (and possibly move) parts that are not about NAS. // Liftarn

Which parts of that section do you think are not about NAS? Jayjg 22:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We could move everything that is strictly anti-Zionist (like the David Duke speech) to the Anti-Zionism article. As a Jew who is against Zionism, I hate the idea of people associating me with Zionists. Anti-Semitism is an irrational hatred of a particular bloodline. Anti-Zionism is an understandable hatred of people who employ usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language and antisocial business practices to enslave those outside of their tiny group. Jews and Zionists are not the same thing. --Xosa 14:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Xosa -- "Anti-Zionism is an understandable hatred of people who employ usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language and antisocial business practices to enslave those outside of their tiny group." This is the language of classic and shameful anti-semitism, a precise example of the phenomenon the article discusses. Jlockard 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the language is shameful, it isn't aimed at Semites, so how could it be "anti-Semitism?" I certainly wasn't talking about myself. I've never employed usury, political manipulation, redefinition of language or antisocial business practices in my life, yet I'm a Semite. That's my whole point, and one of the points of David Duke: Jews don't do these things as a rule. We are good, hard-working people who give to greater society as much as we take. Saying that everyone who opposes Zionism also opposes Jews is incorrect and defamatory. --Xosa 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks while it might be a bit understandable to talk about these issue generally, Misplaced Pages talk pages are not here to serve such a purpose. I would kindly request that the discussion remain specific about article content and editing. Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Who was it aimed at then, and who is practicing "usury"? Jayjg 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zionists practice usury. I think they call it "banking." But Netscott is right; as this relates to the article, I think several things can be taken out or moved to the anti-Zionism page. For instance, David Duke specifically says that he isn't talking about Jews; his arguments are directed only toward Zionists. I don't think something like that could be any more clear. --Xosa 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zionists practice usury? Huh? Is it only Zionists? Do Zionists practice usury more than other, um, "peoples"? Jayjg 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question, or would you really like to know? --Xosa 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, Jay. CJCurrie 03:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. --Xosa 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying again

It would be good if we could discuss this seriously. There's some material it would be nice to add at some point e.g. a debate between Brian Klug and Robert Wistrich, but the article is currently so long I hesitate to add anything. I would like to get rid of (1) the ritual slaughter section, which I feel is weak and arguable; (2) the media and cartoons section, which I also feel is weak as written; and (3) the other commentators section (they should either be incorporated into the text or not mentioned, in my view, and the ones I feel don't need to be mentioned are Natan Sharansky and Michael Neumann. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin 03:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have given up editing this article, but I agree with your proposed changes. 1) agree completely 2)agree. Being Norwegian, I feel that the short remarks about "norwegian media" are more likely to create confusion than anything else. The facts are (almost) correct, but the complete lack of context only makes it weird. I think the whole Media-section could be removed. 3) I am not sure about how to handle this. I feel the critizism of the concept is now mainly linked to radical characters like finkelstein and chomsky in the article as it is now. pertn 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pertn. We do have criticism from non-radical commentators too (for the want of a better expression) e.g. Brian Klug and Steven Zipperstein. SlimVirgin 09:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious candidate for removal is the section on ritual slaughter: "Since the 1930s, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden have banned shechitaThe Swiss banned kosher slaughter in 1902 The bans are seen by some commentators as part of a "new wave of ugly, and sometimes violent, anti-Semitism sweep through the European continent."

Beside the other two sections listed by SlimVirgin, I would also take a look at Academia. Not that it should be removed, but it could be made shorter ("anti-Zionist graffiti appeared on the sidewalk"). --Denis Diderot 00:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I think your suggestion is reasonable. Probably we can move the discussion of whether the banning of ritual slaughter is anti-Semitic to the article on ritual slaughter (if it isn't already well covered there). The core of the NAS thesis is that anti-Semitism masks as anti-Zionism and that anti-Zionism encourages anti-Semitism: given that, it seems quite a stretch to discuss bans on ritual slaughter in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is not whether opposing ritual slaughter is anti-Semitic but whether it's seen to be so and parituclarly whether it's seen to be part of a "new wave" of anti-Semitism. Clearly, from the sources provided in the section, it is. As Jayjg said earlier:

It's entirely possible that the pretext given for banning kosher slaughter was preventing cruelty to animals; regardless, this is an article about New anti-Semitism. Thus, it reports what various sources discussing New (or contemporary) anti-Semitism have said on the subject. If you have some examples of people saying "the bans on kosher meat slaughter were not an example of modern anti-Semitism because..." that's great. But you certainly can't state as fact (as you have done) that prevention of cruelty to animals was the reason for the bans, nor can you argue with the sources based on your own feelings or beliefs about the incident. It pains me to have to say this yet again, but please review WP:NOR, particularly the part that excludes stuff if "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, several of the books on New Anti-Semitism refer to the anti-ritual slaughter campaign in Europe. If experts on New anti-Semitism cite the bans on kosher slaughter we would be remiss not to do so in this article. Farnsworth J 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you say which books? SlimVirgin 00:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to get to the library on Thursday. Farnsworth J 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit

I'm going to go through this at some point, maybe today, and try to tighten up the writing in order to shorten the length. I'll be looking out for repetition, any laboring of points, that kind of thing. I may also try to weave the Chomsky/Finkelstein arguments at the end into the main text, and if I do, I want to remove the critics/proponents section entirely.

If I remove something you disagree with, please bear with me rather than reverting, because I may end up reinserting it elsewhere.

I'll put the copy edit tag up so you'll know when I've started and finished. SlimVirgin 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tidied it a little; between this and the copy edit a few days ago, it's 24 kilobytes shorter. SlimVirgin 08:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work! Jayjg 17:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Meme?

This sentence's got to go: "The meme of a Zionist mastermind controlling the world's economy has been apparent during anti-globalization protests." The "meme" is a highly controversial concept scientifically. Also the use of the term "meme" implies the POV opinion that such ideas are "replicated". Thus the sentence reinforces the idea of a new virus-like spread of ideas amongst the anti-globalists. It is not referenced. In general, one should beware of the idea of a meme because it is a quite weak scientific concept, but even more because it is easy to use to stereotype the ideas of your opponents.pertn 11:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "persistent anti-Semitic motif"? Jayjg 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

much better pertn 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind which we say, but there's nothing wrong with "meme." It's not a scientific concept. SlimVirgin 01:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Left-bashing

We've been through this before, but I see that the current version has, in the lead paragraph "held to be associated with certain left-wing political views." I wouldn't have any problem even with "held to be sometimes associated with certain left-wing political views," (emphasis just to point out the edit, I'm not asking for italics in the article) but the statement as it stands suggests that "New" anti-Semitism is supposed to be strictly a phenomenon of the Left. Clearly this is not the case. Many of the cited Arab examples are not particularly "Left"; David Duke is about as far from Left as you can get. - Jmabel | Talk 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Right-wing anti-semitism wouldn't be new though, would it? Tom Harrison 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the point, which is also made in the lead; "classic" anti-Semitism has typically come from right-wing or fundamentalist religious sources. According to the sources, one of the main things that is "New" about New anti-Semitism is that it also comes from the left, which has traditionally opposed anti-Semitism. The other new thing about it is the odd alliance of unlikely bedfellows; the far left aligning with far rightists (like Duke) and fundamentalist Muslims. Jayjg 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you took the left out of new anti-Semitism, there'd be nothing new about it. SlimVirgin 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If we are to include David Duke in the article, then "sometimes associated with certain left-wing political views" would be more appropriate. CJCurrie 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it's more than sometimes. The presence of the left is both a necessary and a sufficient condition. The Islamists and David Dukes could become Judeophiles tomorrow, but if the left continued, we'd still have new anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, you should be aware by now that the premise of a "new anti-Semitism" is not agreed upon by all parties. Please don't assume the reality of the concept when discussing usage of the term.

Regardless of whether it refers to anything in the world, we can still say what the concept is. SlimVirgin 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Second, if NAS-proponents interpret an alliance between David Duke and radical Islam as a credibile manifestation of the concept, then the presence of the left is plainly not a necessary condition. CJCurrie 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They don't. Were it only the far right and Islamists, a new concept would likely not have developed. Of course, we'll never know. SlimVirgin 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, there is almost nothing that is "agreed upon by all parties", including anti-Semitism itself; for the purposes of this page, it's reasonable enough to discuss the phenomenon in the way the various reliable sources discuss it. Regarding your second point, on top of SlimVirgin's cogent point, alliances between Nazis and Islam are not entirely new; see, for example, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Jayjg 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, whatever happened to the revised introduction we were working on a while ago? CJCurrie 02:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't quite right. We need to find wording that gives due emphasis, or else that quotes one of the main thinkers. I'd prefer the latter, but you didn't like the idea of quoting someone. I think the kaleidoscope quote sums it up, for example. SlimVirgin 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's odd that you didn't raise any objections at the time. The revised version may not be perfect, but it's still much better than the current wording.

Could I suggest putting the revised version into place now, and making further adjustments if and as required? (For what's it's worth, I'd be willing to accept the "kaleidoscope" quote now if we make it clear that this represents only one interpretation of the term.) CJCurrie 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Let me tweak it around a little. SlimVirgin 18:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the link I was looking for. Is there any reason why we can't substitute this for the current version? CJCurrie 02:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious assumption here, when anyone uses the word anti-semitic, everyone knows it reffers to hatred towards jews and most left-wing groups have nothing against jews, but against Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.169.199 (talk • contribs)

Big assumption. Who says that the left wing is immunized from bigotry? --Leifern 17:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the draft intro that CJCurrie and I have discussed. I'd personally like to see more emphasis on the left as they're the key to the concept of new anti-Semitism but this intro treats them as equal to the far right and Islamism. However, I can't see how to tweak it in that direction without going too far. Do any of the regular editors of the page object to this intro being inserted? SlimVirgin 18:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and inserted it. SlimVirgin 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

McShane report

I don't know, Ben. You pick out the absolute key aspect, for the purposes of this article and for that section in particular, of the newspaper article about the McShane report, namely the alleged left/Muslim alliance — and those are the very words you choose to delete.

I wouldn't bother fiddling with it. The report itself will be released soon and then we'll have more material. SlimVirgin 07:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - you are acting based on prejudice. SlimVirgin? The next sentence says far-left and Islamist and I didn't delete that one -- thus your claim above is just sort of strange. If you read the article, the use of criticism of Israel as pretext was mentioned in the context of the left and the boycott in particular. My summary is more accurate than what was there -- you converted a nuanced statement in the original source that some criticism was acceptable and that only sometimes was criticism used as a pretext to spreading anti-Semitism to a simple over-generalizing statement that the left and the Islamists use criticism of Israel as a pretext to spreading anti-Semitism. From my perspective you removed a whole lot in your version. --Ben Houston 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to retain the allegation that the left and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a pretext, which is one of the main topics of this article. Yet that's the part you've decided to remove. SlimVirgin 08:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your second statement: I didn't remove that criticism of Israel was used as a pretext -- check the edit history. You are behaving strangely. --Ben Houston 08:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You removed the words "... accuses left-wing activists and Muslim extremists of using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for spreading anti-Semitism." This is from the Observer. There is no need for you to change it. You are not the source.

I'm sick and tired of you accusing me of prejudice and of acting "emotionally" or "based on my feelings," which you've never explained, so I'm going to say this once and once only. Take careful note. I care ONLY that articles are well-written, sourced to intelligent sources, and informative. I don't actually care if the sources are left-wing, right-wing, no-wing, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, none of the above. I would like editors to read serious sources, and then use them properly, quoting them carefully, attributing carefully, reflecting carefully what they say. That's what I try to do myself. I don't always succeed, but I do always try. Do not accuse me again of doing anything else. SlimVirgin 08:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation about me removing that phrase is simple wrong -- you need to check the diff of my edit, which you can do here: . To be completely specific, I changed the phrase:

"and accuses left-wing activists and Muslim extremists of using criticism of Israel as a 'pretext' for spreading anti-Semitism" (emphasis added)

to this similar and more nuanced phrase:

""The report, while it emphasized the right to criticize or protest against Israeli government actions, states that criticism of Israel sometimes 'provided a pretext' for spreading anti-Semitism" (emphasis added)

Both versions mentioned criticism of Israel as providing a pretext for spreading anti-Semitism. The original source actually says this:

"Though emphasising the right of people to criticise or protest against Israeli government actions, it says 'rage' over Israeli policies has sometimes 'provided a pretext' for anti-semitism." (Original)

Check for yourself. I have inserted almost the exact sentence from the source into the article -- it may need quotes around it now though. From my perspective, you are accusing me of distorting the source because I quoted it more accurately. That does seem strange to me. --Ben Houston 08:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben, you removed the phrase left-wing activists and Muslim extremists from the article, which was, of course, the whole reason the article was referenced in the section about the left. The newspaper report itself states, in its very first sentence

A group of prominent MPs, alarmed at the rise of anti-semitism in Britain, will accuse some left-wing activists and Muslim extremists this week of using criticism of Israel as 'a pretext' for spreading hatred against British Jews.

Your change was not "similar and more nuanced"; rather, it was "POV pushing and whitewashing". To remove the phrase in the first place was bizarre enough; to then continually claim you had not removed it, goes beyond bizzare, into the realm of the absurd. Jayjg 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg? You are accusing me of removing something I didn't remove -- please note clearly that I didn't modify the sentence in the summary that reads: "McShane described what he called a 'witch's brew' of anti-Semitism involving the far left and 'ultra-Islamist' extremists." Your claim that I, an in attempt at "POV and whitewashing", removed the connection between left-wing and Islamists from the summary is simple wrong and shows that you haven't even read the short summary of the article that we are discussing.

Why not actually talk about what the actual issue is instead of engaging in hysterics? I used a nuanced sentence within the article as the basis of my summary while you are proposing using simpler take on things that is used in the lead paragraph. That said, I still didn't remove either of the two core claims that you and SlimVirgin have just accused me of removing. --Ben Houston 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at your edit. You removed the phrase left-wing activists and Muslim extremists. This, in fact, is the "core claim", the unusual alliance underlying New anti-Semitism. I can't be more clear than that. It's hard to know what to make of the rest of your comment, except that it would be helpful if you focussed on article content, and avoided hyperbolic language. Jayjg 18:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: The summary mentioned it twice and I removed only a duplication while also adding more contextual information. The only way you your accusation of my "whitewashing and POV" makes sense is if you assume people stop reading half way through the summary. This set of false accusations is based on SlimVirgin's initial misreading of my change and your apparently blind support for her. The accusations have become nothing more than a charade. Your inability to understand my last comment shows that discussing this with you in particular is not useful. --Ben Houston 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't need you to "modify" what sources say; or to add your own "nuance." We need to quote or closely paraphrase the sources which is what I did. And anyway, as I've told you more than once, there're no point in editing this section because I'm going to rewrite it when the report becomes available, so you're wasting your time. SlimVirgin 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't modify what the source said, the nuance was in the original. I think this makes a prefect trifecta of false accusations -- that's an impressive accomplishment considering I only edited one sentence. Its pretty funny actually. To echo the recent words of User:6SJ7, there are clear WP:OWN issues with this article. --Ben Houston 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You removed something that the source had said and replaced it with your own words. Perhaps the problem is that you don't read the sources before editing. Whatever causes it, please don't do it again. SlimVirgin 03:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your authoritatively worded statement that I "removed something that the source had said and replaced it with own words" is almost a lie, the question is are you intentionally telling a mistruth or are you confused and unable to consider alternatives. --Ben Houston 03:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben, whenever you edit the article or post on talk, it turns into a long saga of claim and counter-claim. The sole aim here is to write an article that uses authoritative sources, and to write up what they say without adding any spin to it. Personal opinions about anti-Semitism, accusations on talk, and all the rest, have no place here, and I have no interest in them. SlimVirgin 03:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me falsely of things that I didn't do. But I am also attacked for responding to these accusations. It is a funny situation which seems from my perspective to be designed to be unfair towards me. --Ben Houston 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Incident report filed here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#How_does_one_deal_with_false_accusations_and_WP:OWN_on_a_sensitive_topic.3F --Ben Houston 15:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of the above, writing an article without adding any spin, three points. One, what is the rationale for juxtaposing the establishment of this inquiry with the proposal for an academic boycott? There is no such reference on the inquiry's website, or on BBC news online this morning. Two, I do not think it is accurate to say that this inquiry was set up by Parliament. It was set up by a cross-party group of parliamentarians. That it has been taken very seriously by distinguished members of the British State and establishment is clear from the details about participation that have been included. Three, I do not think that the "witch's brew" commment by Mr McShane is in the report but was made in a Radio 4 programme last weekend. Oh, and I hope since you are not interested in personal opinions about anti-Semitism you will assume that this edit and any others I may make are offered in good faith, and not jump to conclusions as you and another admin did last month. Itsmejudith 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly and government sources

I thought it might be helpful to list the scholarly and government sources we use in this article, in response to a few editors who have turned up here without reading the article to complain that it isn't sourced. "Where are the sources?" one of them asked recently. Here they are. (In addition to the following, we use several well-known journalists and other writers. Full list here.) SlimVirgin 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have 118 footnotes citing 76 separate sources.

Scholarly sources:

• Michael Barkun, professor of political science at Syracuse University
• Yehuda Bauer professor of Holocaust studies at the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• Anne Bayefsky, professor of law at York University.
• Phyllis Chesler, professor emeritus of psychology and women's studies at the College of Staten Island.
• Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Irwin Cotler, professor of law at McGill University.
• Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard University.
• Todd Endelman, William Haber Professor of Modern Jewish History at the University of Michigan.
• Jack Fischel, chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania.
• Manfred Gerstenfeld, director of the Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism project, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
• Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University.
• Brian Klug, senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet's Hall, Oxford.
• Norman Finkelstein, professor of political science at DePaul University.
• Edward H. Kaplan, William N. and Marie A. Beach Professor of Management Sciences at the Yale School of Management, Professor of Public Health at the Yale School of Medicine, and Professor of Engineering in the Yale Faculty of Engineering.
• Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University.
• Baruch Kimmerling, professor of sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• George Michael, assistant professor of political science and administration of justice at the University of Virginia's College of Wise,
• Earl Raab, director emeritus of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy, Brandeis University.
• Edward Said, former professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University.
• Charles A. Small, Director of Urban Studies at the Southern Connecticut State University, and professor with the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University.
• Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University.
• Pierre-André Taguieff, philosopher and director of research at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
• Joseph Telushkin, National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership.
• Robert Wistrich, Neuberger Professor of Modern History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and head of its International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism.
• Steven Zipperstein, professor of Jewish Culture and History at Stanford University.
• Laurie Zoloth, Director of Bioethics, and professor of Medical Ethics and Humanities, Northwestern University.

Government reports/special inquiries:

• France: "Chantier sur la lutte contre le racisms et l'antisemitisme," chaired by Jean-Christophe Rufin, president of Action Against Hunger and former vice-president of Médecins Sans Frontières, October 19, 2004.
• Israel: Coordinating Forum for Countering Antisemitism, headed by Deputy Foreign Minister Rabbi Michael Melchior, set up in 2001.
• UK: "All Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism in the UK," chaired by Dr. Denis McShane, former Europe Minister for the UK, September 7, 2006.
• U.S.: "Report on Global Anti-Semitism," U.S. State Dept, 2004.

The major issue isn't the sources but rather the frequent misquoting or selective quoting of them in order to create a one-sided presentation. It's a standard technique of propagandists. The problem with this article is that one person is forcing everything to be perceived through a distorted lens. That said, it fairly easy to notice that the main writer of this article is pushing an agenda. Dave Winer once said that one of the biggest issues with Misplaced Pages is that many articles are written with people with agendas and that more people need to be aware of this. --Ben Houston 13:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Give me one example of my "frequent misquoting or selective quoting." And do not accuse me again of "pushing an agenda." You are being incredibly offensive. SlimVirgin 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great suggestion from incident report

Guy just made a great suggestion in response to my incident report. My issue with the article is the same issue that SlimVirgin and Jayjg have with my edits -- they are disagreements about the accuracy in which the reports are summarized. The solution, Guy suggests, is to move towards more full quotes from these reports which should reduce the importance and thus need to concern ourselves with these subjective summarizes. --Ben Houston 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea- readers can draw their own conclusions, we don't need to do it for them. Friday (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid direct confrontation with SV / Jayjg -- I would like to avoid the perception that I am provoking them -- I am doing to work on flushing out the criticism section using fully quotes. --Ben Houston 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But you are being deliberately provocative; you gave notice that you would do this several weeks ago. It's not a good idea to overuse quotes, because then the section will turn into a list of quotes rather than a narrative, which is what many of the badly written articles on Misplaced Pages are like. SlimVirgin 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that I would attack the article many weeks ago but rather that I would attempt to address what I feel are balance problems with the article. I do not plan to give up. --Ben Houston 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Another source for British report

Haaretz article. --Ben Houston 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't need it. We have the report itself. SlimVirgin 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But they are useful in backing up how we describe the report. Without third-party commentary, it can become easy to draw original conclusions or inadvertantly push a certain point of view by emphasizing parts or ideas that didn't receive emphasis in the press or in general. (This isn't necessarily me endorsing the Haaretz article, as I'm not familiar with that paper.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, and I've been extremely careful to report accurately on the parts of the report that directly concern our article. As I said below, criticism of the report will be added if and when people publish any, which will take some time. SlimVirgin 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

British report

I've added the material from it that's directly relevant to our article. I'm looking out for criticism of the report and will add it when it arrives, but it could be a few days or longer before the serious commentators get a chance to review it. SlimVirgin 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy in quoting

In a recent edit, SlimVirgin added the following image to the "Left and anti-Zionism" section:

In fact, this is not accurate. The quoted text appears only once in the course of the report, and in the following context:

"158. We heard evidence that contemporary antisemitism in Britain is now more commonly found on the left of the political spectrum than on the right. Professor Cesarani submitted that this has made it harder to define and contest "because it no longer has any resemblance to classical Nazi-style Jew hatred, because it is masked by or blended inadvertently into anti-Zionism, and because it is often articulated in the language of human right".

The committee does not offer an opinion on Professor Cesarani's views. Its only recommendation in this section is to advise the Electoral Commission to establish a "contract of acceptable behaviour" for candidates to exercise due caution "when addressing issues such as racism, community relations and minorities during political campaigning."

In other words, the quoted text is a misattribution and has no business being in the article.

I hope that a further review of the British report will not result in the discovery of similar misattributions. CJCurrie 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1. "Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism" Template:PDFlink, September 2006, p.32.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics