Talk:New antisemitism: Difference between revisions

• Talk:New anti-Semitism/archive 1
• Talk:New anti-Semitism/archive 2

Introduction

Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel expresses anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs.

This appears to be a false (or perhaps a misleading) dichotomy, as many would argue that some forms of opposition to the state of Israel do not express anti-Semitism in any manner. I believe I understand what is intended by "symptom or by-product", but the wording could surely be improved (assuming that this section of the text is necessary to the article at all, of which I'm skeptical). CJCurrie 03:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• On another matter, I apologize for the "who wrote this garbage?" comment. The phrase "closely associated with the left" can be read more than one way, and I (perhaps erroneously) assumed the less charitable interpretation [this is clarified below, in point (i)]. Sorry for the outburst. CJCurrie 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (update: 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

Hi CJ, I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the left, in the sense of emanating from the left, originating with the left, being identified with the left etc etc. This is according to all the literature on it. Do you have a source showing that it's closely associated with another point on the political spectrum? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified the intent of my previous statement in point (i) below. I was primarily concerned with presentation, not content. CJCurrie 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my recent edits

(i) My removal of The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism

I have two problems with this statement.

While it is unquestionably true that manifestations of the "new anti-Semitism" have been disproportionately (although not exclusively) associated with the left, this wording seems questionable. Writing "A is closely associated with B" could suggest or imply that "B is closely associated with A", which would be a POV violation in this instance (albeit perhaps an unintentional one). I'm not disputing the basic point, but the presentation could be improved.

"The Left and its opposition to Zionism" also appears dubious, for the simple reason that "the Left" does not hold a unified opinion in relation to Zionism: there are some countries in Europe where the established Left is more supportive of Israel than is the established Right. Rephrasing this as "the Left and opposition to Zionism" would convey the essential point without leading the reader to a potentially false or oversimplified conclusion. CJCurrie 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(ii) My tense changes in reference to the "old" anti-Semitism

As I noted in my edit, the "old" anti-Semitism has unfortunately not disappeared from history: there are still several pro-Nazi parties and organizations in Europe. One could argue that much of the contemporary anti-Semitism in the Arab world is also rooted in "old" motivations.

Applying the past tense to the "old" anti-Semitism suggests that it has been replaced by the "new anti-Semitism": a position which is at best contentious, and at worst inaccurate. (I recognize that this suggestion may not have been intentional, but the phrasing could still lead to this interpretation.)

I do not consider this change to be especially contentious. CJCurrie 19:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(iii) My removal of Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel expresses anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs.

I have already noted that I consider this to be a misleading dichotomy, and that I'm skeptical as to whether the sentence truly adds value to the article. If it is to be retained, I would recommend changing "expresses" to "is associated with". The former suggests causal responsibility; the latter would not. CJCurrie 19:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Add: I'm also skeptical as to whether "opposition to the state of Israel" can be identified in toto as "either A or B". It is indisputable that some opposition to Israel is closely linked with and supported by more general anti-Semitic beliefs; the controversy rests on whether or not all opposition to Israel is inherently linked (intentionally or otherwise) with anti-Semitism.

I do not believe the current wording accurately identifies the nature of the controversy. CJCurrie 19:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(iv) My addition of In contemporary discourse, it is often used to identify a form of anti-Semitism which is perceived to differ from earlier forms of anti-Semitism.

My rationale is as follows: the term "new anti-Semitism" can be used in both a general and a specific sense. The introductory sentence appears to make use of the general meaning: it refers to increases in anti-Semitic activity, but does not distinguish whether these are "old" or "new" in motivation. The article should clarify that the term can be used in different ways, and that its "specific" manifestation is the source of contention. CJCurrie 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(v) My adjustments to " A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the state of Israel and Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism."

This change was an afterthought. The sentence which follows names Tamar Gozansky from Maki as an example; my understanding is that Maki's position toward the State of Israel is complicated, and cannot be summarized simply as "opposition". I chose to remove the words "the state of Israel and" to ensure accuracy. I now believe that I can accomplish the same by changing "and" to "and/or".

As per (ii), I do not consider this point to be contentious. CJCurrie 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I should also clarify why I made these changes.

I was involved in a radical overhaul of this article page over a year ago, and helped design an introductory wording which (for a time) seemed to have the general support of all parties. I've not followed subsequent developments as closely, though I've reviewed the page from time to time.

I recognize that my editorial tone yesterday was unduly harsh, and I apologize for this. I do not, however, believe that the aforementioned changes should be dismissed out of hand.

I plan to return the changes from points (ii) and (v) to the article, as I've already noted that I don't regard these as contentious. I welcome debate on the other points. CJCurrie 19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

TreveX's edits

TreveX, I reverted your changes because I couldn't see how they were improvements. You seemed to be trying to cast doubt on the existence of the new anti-Semitism before we had even explained what it is. The intro does include criticism, but it shouldn't precede a description. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am simply trying to reflect the fact that the use of the term "new anti-semitism" is relatively controversial and has been regularly contested. Firstly, I would be grateful if you could explain what you find problematic about the inclusion of the following at the end of the introduction.

The term is somewhat controversial. Some commentators and academics have argued that allegations of anti-semitism are used to silence debate. It has been suggested that those who make legitimate criticism of Israel's actions or argue that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US middle-east policy are very likely to be labelled as anti-semites.[includes reference]

I deleted the sentence beginning "Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on..." as it is predicated in the belief that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic:

The sentence states that opposition to the state of Israel:

(a) Expresses anti-Semitism as a symptom or by product

(b) Is closely linked and supported by more general anti-Semitic beliefs.

Criticism of Israel isn't necessarlily anti-semitic, but this is stated as such in the intro! TreveX^talk 13:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

TrevelX, Please site a single source that says that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic - there are none! It is a common ploy of anti semites to claim that they are being labeled as antisemites because they oppose Israel - in fact it's the virulent focus on Israel and it's perceived shortcomings, to the exclusion of its other positive aspects and the flaws of other nations, that identifies one as an anti semite, e.g. the un is antisemitic not because it has objected to certain of Israel's actions, but because in world in which China has raped Tibet, Muslims in the Sudan are murdering black animists and Christians in the south of Sudan, women are mutiliated in much of the Muslim middle east, free speach is prohibited in most of the Muslim middle east, Afghanistan attempts to prosecute Muslim who want to become Christians, etc. etc. the overwhelming bulk of UN motions of censure for human rights violations are directed towards Israel. Therefor your attempted edit derives from an anti semitic impulse. Incorrect 15:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have lightly edited the intro to make the point that I made above.Incorrect 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

CHOO CHOOO! Here comes the logic train - last stop is you! I am not an anti-Semite. Your argument seems to be that I am focusing on Israel rather than other nations, which makes me an anti-Semite. You don't know anything about me, my opinions, interests and beliefs and almost certainly haven't checked what other articles I edit on Wikipedia. If I was going to write about the Sudan or Tibet, I wouldn't be doing it in an article about anti-semitism, would I? Your attempts to infer that I am an anti-semite have no foundation in reality whatsoever. TreveX^talk 18:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Often

(copied from SV's talk page) A suggestion for compromise:

The term, which first came into general use in the early 1970s, is used to distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism.

Would you agree to the insertion of the word "often" after the second comma? CJCurrie 03:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it seems like a very minor point to disagree with, so I'm sorry if I seem picky, but if it's only "often" used to distinguish etc etc, how else is it sometimes used? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article's introductory paragraph uses the term "new anti-Semitism" in a general sense: it describes an increase in anti-Semitic activities, but does not attribute this to a motivational change on the part of the culprits. I would suggest that this "general" usage should be distinguished from the "specific" usage (which is really what the article is about, and which does describe a change in motivation).

Recent manifestations of anti-Semitism may be "new" in a chronological sense, but also "old" in terms of motivation. I believe the introductory section should clarify this point. CJCurrie 03:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I was presenting it more as a point of deductive reasoning than a point of debate. But if a source is required ...

Here are some excerpts of a European Union report on modern anti-Semitism unofficially published by European Jewish groups, and reprinted in the Jerusalem Post on 3 December 2003.

"For many anti-Semitic incidents, especially for violent and other punishable offences, it is typical that the perpetrators attempt to remain anonymous. Thus, in many cases the perpetrators could not be identified, so an assignment to a political or ideological camp must remain open.

"Nevertheless, from the perpetrators identified or at least identifiable with some certainty, it can be concluded that the anti- Semitic incidents in the monitoring period were committed above all either by right-wing extremists or radical Islamists or young Muslims mostly of Arab descent, who are often themselves potential victims of exclusion and racism; but also that anti-Semitic statements came from pro-Palestinian groups as well as from politicians and citizens from the political mainstream.

[...]

In the extreme left-wing scene anti-Semitic remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and anti- globalization rallies and in newspaper articles using anti-Semitic stereotypes in their criticism of Israel. Often this generated a combination of anti-Zionist and anti-American views that formed an important element in the emergence of an anti-Semitic mood in Europe. Israel, seen as a capitalistic, imperialistic power, the 'Zionist lobby,' and the United States are depicted as the evildoers in the Middle East conflict as well as exerting negative influence on global affairs. The convergence of these motives served both critics of colonialism and globalization from the extreme left and the traditional anti-Semitic right-wing extremism as well as parts of the radical Islamists in some European countries.

More difficult to record and to evaluate in its scale than the 'street-level violence' against Jews is 'salon anti-Semitism' as it is manifested 'in the media, university common rooms, and at dinner parties of the chattering classes.'

This report, at least, suggests that contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism cannot be identified as exclusively "old" or new".

I would also direct your attention to this Ha'aretz article by Barry Kosmin and Paul Iganski from June 2003, and especially to the following passage:

Judeophobia in contemporary Britain is also not an organized conspiracy. It does constitute, however, an opportunistic coalition of interest for the new left, the far right and radical Islamists.

Similarly this entry, entitled "Old poison in a new cup", by Emma Kate-Symons from the 7 May 2005 edition of The Australian. Note that this article specifically uses the phrase "new anti-Semitism" to describe a diverse array of ideological positions.

The leader of Germany's Jewish community, Paul Spiegel, has called on mainstream German politicians to fight the new anti-Semitism exemplified by the popularity of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party. "The threshold for spreading anti-Semitic prejudice has changed significantly since 2000," he told Der Spiegel.

[...]

The most insidious manifestation of the new anti-Semitism is not coming from the extreme Right or the alienated Muslim immigrant community, says a growing band of Jewish leaders and academics. It is being nurtured by the influential mainstream western European media and intellectual elite: from the BBC to The Guardian, Le Monde and The Independent newspapers, and by academics from Britain to Germany.

The most celebrated example caused a storm of criticism last week after Britain's Association of University Teachers voted to boycott Israeli academic institutions over Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.

[...]

A growing body of academic literature and even fiction supports Jacobson's claims. In The Return to Anti-Semitism, Gabriel Schoenfeld is scathing of the European establishment for giving fuel to the new anti-Semitic fires.

For Zuroff the new anti-Semitism is being driven by the minority Muslim population in Europe and by the politics of the Middle East, the extreme Right and by the extreme Left's success at penetrating mainstream media and political opinion with its anti-Israel biases.

CJCurrie 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following your point. You objected to: "The term, which first came into general use in the early 1970s, is used to distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism."

You want to write instead that it is "often used to distinguish." My question to you is: do you have a source that sometimes or ever uses the term "new anti-Semitism" to refer to something other than "a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purposed, and its place on the political spectrum, from the old anti-Semitism ..."? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The third reference listed above specifically identifies "new anti-Semitism" in Europe as being grounded in several ideological sources, one of which is the "old" anti-Semitism. Specifically, The leader of Germany's Jewish community, Paul Spiegel, has called on mainstream German politicians to fight the new anti-Semitism exemplified by the popularity of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party. The other sources do not use the term "new anti-Semitism" specifically, but are for all intents and purposes arguing the same point. CJCurrie 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (update: 05:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

But is it Paul Spiegel who is saying that, or is it the reporter for the magazine? Do you have a link? I have maybe eight books on my shelves here about the new anti-Semmitism. Every single one defines it as our article defines it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article does not indicate if the definition is from Spiegel or the reporter, though I'd argue that it qualifies as an "acceptable" source one way or the other.

In any event, I'm not disputing that the term "new anti-Semitism" is normally used to define a perceived attitudinal change within contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism; I'm simply noting that the term can be applied more broadly, and sometimes is.

Perhaps I can suggest another means of resolving this situation:

(i) The introductory paragraph of this article identifies "new anti-Semitism" as referring to an increase in anti-Semitic activities and beliefs.

(ii) The second paragraph identifies the term as referring to an attitudinal change.

(iii) As noted in the sources cited above, not all contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism are grounded in an attitudinal change.

(iv) If the article is to deal only with attitudinal changes, would it not make sense to remove the introductory paragraph? CJCurrie 05:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't follow. Rather than going back and forth like this, I'd prefer it if we did sourced-based research, and that we use people who have written or commented on the new anti-Semitism extensively, rather than a reporter for The Australian. I can back up everything in the article with a knowledgeable source (and if I can't and no one else can, the material should be removed). Therefore, can you please say exactly what you want to add and provide a source who says that exact thing? And then we can judge specifics, rather than exchanging our own views on the talk page (because our own views don't matter). So if you want to add that it's "often" used to describe X, please supply a good source showing that it is sometimes (not just once by a reporter) used to describe Y or not-X. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what Currie is trying to point out here is that the term "new anti-semitism" is not always and exclusively used to refer to left-wingish anti-semitism grounded in anti-zionism.

Take this article from ADL. It is entitled 'the new anti-semitism' but refers extensively to a resurgence of anti-semitism after 9/11. This includes the old-style Islamist anti-semitism, which has simply become more prominent. Succinctly, the term "new anti-semitism" can refer to:

(a) Anti-semitism motivated by anti-zionism and coming predominantly from the left wing.

(b) A resurgence in old-style anti-semitism.

TreveX^talk 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think I've found a suitable source to back up what Currie and I have been saying. It's from an article on Jonathan Sacks' website:

We are now living through the fourth mutation. Today’s anti-Semitism has three components: The first is anti-Zionism, the notion that Jews alone have no right to a nation of their own, a place in which to govern themselves. No. 2—all Jews are Zionists and therefore legitimate targets like Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl. No. 3, Israel and the Jewish people are responsible for all the troubles in the world, from AIDS to globalization. Put those three propositions together and you have the new anti-Semitism. I am concerned that, unlike in Britain, tolerance has not been the default option in Europe for the past few centuries.

Found another one: You should be aware of this, but this is a serious issue. We now face a resurgence of antisemitism on a global scale, communicated by the internet, e-mail, tapes, and videos, lowtech and high-tech. Work that one out. This new antisemitism, I call it the fourth mutation.[1]

So we can see that the new anti-semitism can also be characterised as a resurgence of the old-style anti-semitism. Sacks is saying that anti-semitism has adapted, but it is still grounded in the old anti-semitism, even if it does draw on anti-zionism. TreveX^talk 13:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what Currie is trying to point out here is that the term "new anti-semitism" is not always and exclusively used to refer to left-wingish anti-semitism grounded in anti-zionism.

This is the general point I was attempting to convey. I might note that the introductory paragraph of this very article uses the term in a different (chronological) sense. CJCurrie 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Image

The image shown at the top of the article is a poor example of anti-semitism. The image itself claims the "Jews" it portrays as "counterfeit" suggesting they are, in fact not Jews. The poster takes issue with Israel and Zionism, and claims the war was largely done in the interests of Israel and greed on the part of both America and Israel. As much as others would wish it so, objection to the state of Israel's actions and to Zionism in general are not anti-semitism. Since the image goes so far as to even exclude Jews from its critism, it is not an example of anti-semitism and should almost certainly be removed. The use of said image is rather inflamatory but ultimately makes claims of new anti-semitism appear far weaker than I believe they actually are. - Kuzain 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking over this article more closely, I can see that it has a number of problems. Half the section on cartoons is devoted to describing a case in which a cartoon against Sharon is claimed as anti-semitic. - Kuzain 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the original-research cutline that someone had added. The image is a very good example of the themes of the new anti-Semitism. The figure in red wears an American flag, Nazi symbol, and Magen David. Two figures in blue, apparently Jews wearing hats with the Magen David, peer out from behind him, the reason for the evil, smirking, with the words "No war for Israel" above their heads. Much of this symbolism is discussed in the article, so it's highly appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the image is an instance of anti-Semitism, but I'm puzzled as to why the caption was removed. CJCurrie 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Add: I suspect that the "Counterfeit Jews" phrase refers to the canard about Ashkenazim being the descendants of Khazars, and not "real Jews". Please note that I am not endorsing this belief, nor am I questioning that the poster's message and crude caricatures are a clear instance of anti-Semitism. I'm simply unsure as to why the caption was deleted. CJCurrie 00:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If that is what it referred to then I would agree that it fits. I'm not well versed in anti-semitism or the beliefs related to it so it seemed confusing. I just viewed it as demonizing Israel and claiming it manufactured the war. And while I would agree that the claim is baseless, I don't agree that a strong dislike of Israel is the same thing as anti-semitism. - Kuzain 07:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the image is one of the best illustrations of the main themes of the New anti-Semitism, i.e. the demonization of the State of Israel and the idea that Israeli machinations are behind everything that happens in the world and is detested by the New anti-Semites. Pecher ^Talk 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that some of the editors on this page are getting their own views mixed up with what we're supposed to write about. We have to published what reliable published sources have said about the new anti-Semitism, no matter how strongly any particular editor disagrees with the sources (so long as they really are reputable). It's no use saying "But that's nonsense." Anyone who feels that way must write to the source objecting, but not to Wikipedia, because all we're doing is reporting; or else find an equally reputable source who says it's nonsense, and then we can quote him or her. But we can't weasel word what sources say just because some editors don't like it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We have to published what reliable published sources have said about the new anti-Semitism, no matter how strongly any particular editor disagrees with the sources (so long as they really are reputable).

I direct your attention to the Australian quote, noted above. CJCurrie 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This was one reporter writing in a magazine. Can't you find equally good opposing sources i.e. people who have studied the new anti-Semitism (or, as they see it, the lack thereof)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuredly I can. But my point is that that the term "new anti-semitism" is not always and exclusively used to refer to left-wingish anti-semitism grounded in anti-zionism. CJCurrie 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. Please bring your sources to talk and let us know exactly what they say, so long as they say it about the "new anti-Semitism" explicitly, which is what this page is about. Once we know what the sources say, I'll be happy to collaborate with you on getting something well written and well-sourced on the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with the introduction

The term new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.

The term, which first came into general use in the early 1970s, is used to distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism. The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism, and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

The problem is as follows:

(i) Modern anti-Semitism emanates from different sources, including the radical right, the radical left and radical Islam (see sources noted above).

You can't base such a broad statement on one article from reporter, compared to the many books by experts. You'll have to find good sources for that statement, who talk about the new anti-Semitism specifically, and then attribute your statement to those sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

All three articles noted above make this claim. Beyond which, are you seriously suggesting that I'm required to source a claim that the radical right is involved in anti-Semitism? CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(ii) If the "new anti-Semitism" refers to "the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse", then the term cannot be restricted to a motivational shift from older to newer forms of anti-Semitism.

What does that mean, and who is your source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of sources, it's a matter of logic. This very article defines "new anti-Semitism" in two different ways, in the first two paragraphs. CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(iii) If the "new anti-Semitism" refers to "a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism", then it cannot be defined generally as the sole source of modern anti-Semitic activity.

Again, are these your own arguments, or do you have sources? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See above. CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The only solution I see to this problem is the acknowledgement that the term can be used in more than one sense. CJCurrie 00:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the solution is for you to find good sources for the edits you want to make. Please stick to NOR and V. As for my revert, I'm not ignoring your citation requests. I've made a note of them and I will find sources or remove the sentences you highlighted. I can't do it right now, however. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in playing "dueling sources": I'm not a newcomer to this debate, and I'm quite aware that "new anti-Semitism" is usually defined as a motivational shift within anti-Semitism. I've provided evidence documenting an alternate usage, however, and I've also noted a flaw in the logic of the introduction. I've provided a source for the first point, while the second is not a matter of research as such. Your suggestion that I "find good sources" seems to miss the point entirely. CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How can it miss the point? You appear not to have read any of the source material on the new anti-Semitism, yet you want to edit the page, based on no knowledge, just your own opinions. That's not good enough. Please find some decent sources (not The Australian), and come to the talk page with them and with the points you want to make. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rest assured that it pains me to use a Murdoch paper as source material, but the fact remains that The Australian is a "quality" journal (perhaps the only one of its type in his empire). In any case, my comments on the logical flow of the introduction are unrelated to sources. I've said numerous times that the introduction to article uses two definitions of "new anti-Semitism". I'm still awaiting your response, and I would reiterate my request that you maintain a level of decorum. CJCurrie 01:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Query

CJ, what does edit mean?

It is argued these new forms should be distinguished from the old-style right-wing and Islamist anti-Semitism, which is motivated by religion, racism, racial theory or nationalism. The term 'new anti-Semitism' has also been used, however, to refer to the resurgence of such historical anti-Semitic beliefs or to characterise modern anti-Semitism as a development or "mutation" of old-style anti-Semitism.

Isn't it contradictory? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• (i) I didn't write that particular edit.
• (ii) It's only contradictory if you believe the term cannot have two meanings.

Read it. It's bad writing. Why would you revert to that? I'm getting the impression that your only concern is that the intro be anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist, and to hell with sources and decent writing. Please show me I'm wrong, because that would be deeply depressing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the cited passage is weak on style, but my understanding is that you were only asking me if it was contradictory. I'd be quite happy to clean it up, if that's your concern. I see you haven't commented on my response.

I can assure you that my concern is not that the intro be anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist, and I'm curious as to how you've reached this hypothesis. CJCurrie 01:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"They claim that those who ... argue that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy are very likely to be labelled as anti-Semites." Who are "they"? This sounds very like the claim that anti-Semites do make. You're also trying to defend the left again by saying NSA is "usually" used in this way — but not always, though the only counter-example you've cited so far is The Australian.

"They claim that those who ... argue that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy are very likely to be labelled as anti-Semites." Who are "they"? This sounds very like the claim that anti-Semites do make. You're also trying to defend the left again by saying NSA is "usually" used in this way — but not always, though the only counter-example you've cited so far is The Australian.

I didn't write that section either. As it happens, though, there's a concrete answer: "they" refers to "some academics and commentators". This would be pretty flimsy on its own, I grant, but a source was provided: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html ("new anti-Semitism" is specifically referenced). CJCurrie 02:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, you've been arguing these points for weeks. You've had time to read the literature by now. It isn't fair to engage in this disruption without having done the reading. I mean no disrespect by saying that, but please see how frustrating this is. I don't turn up at, say, New Testament (about which I know practically nothing) and start reverting because I don't like what it says. If I've read almost nothing about it, it would be disruptive of me to turn up there and revert, revert, revert to my preferred intro. But that's what happening here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, you've been arguing these points for weeks.

My first edit in the current discussion occurred four days ago. Are you confusing me with someone else?

It isn't fair to engage in this disruption without having done the reading.

Look over the page history; I've been involved in these discussions before. More to the point at issue, I'm not taking issue with the general definition of "new anti-Semitism", and I'm not questioning the primary thrust of the article. I'm questioning the exclusivity of the standard definition, and I'm drawing attention to an apparent logical flaw. I don't need to read "x" number of sources on the new anti-Semitism to raise these concerns, and, with respect, I would appreciate a more direct response.

I'll pose the question directly: do you not see a contradiction between the first two paragraphs? CJCurrie 01:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• (iii) You left out the sentence which reads "In modern discourse, the term is usually used to describe ..." before the first sentence. CJCurrie 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You're being disruptive again. Find sources for what you want to say, and write more carefully, please. The intro, in particular, has to be well written. Please bring your sources and edits to talk, and don't revert to contradictory nonsense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

SV,

Your last response was extremely uncivil. I have explained the rationale for my changes several times, as well as explaining why I find the current introduction unsuitable for the article. Your only response has been to call for sources, even when this is entirely beside the point of my objections. I have made an effort to keep this discussion civil, and would request that you do the same. CJCurrie 01:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'll note that points (i), (iii) and (iv) from my original objections have not yet been answered. CJCurrie 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please just find sources. This is a well-sourced article, and it'll be better sourced still because you have requested more of them. Therefore, you must find equally good counter sources. Then it'll be a great article. It won't be a good article if you start adding your own opinions or those of one reporter at The Australian. Any edit that is challenged must be sourced, and the burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to make the edit. See V and RS. As for the photo cutline, it is pure original research and as such is completely unacceptable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about sources, what source is there for the following?

The term new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.

This seems to confuse "new anti-Semitism" with modern or contemporary anti-Semitism. CJCurrie 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what "modern anti-Semitism" is. This is about "new anti-Semitism"; the old right-wing form is the other form of it that's routinely referred to in the literature, as the intro explains. Anything you want a source for, list it here, and I'll find one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try again ...

As long as we're talking about sources, what source is there for the following:

The term new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.

This seems to conflate the "new anti-Semitism" with all contemporary occurrences of anti-Semitism. CJCurrie 01:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Make a note here of all the points you feel still need sources, and I'll find some and add them to the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic: do you believe the introductory paragraph conflates the "new anti-Semitism" with all contemporary occurrences of anti-Semitism, or not? If not, why not? CJCurrie 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect, but this is starting to feel like trolling. This isn't Usenet where people swap their personal opinions. This is the talk page of an article that must be source-based. Therefore, we discuss what the sources say, who the good ones are, how we can best use them, which points on the page still need sources. And above all, we read the sources ourselves so that we know how to edit the page. What I think about the international resurgence of anti-Semitism is irrelevant. If you want me to find sources, leave a list here, and I'll do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for that first remark, which was unfair. I'm feeling frustrated and shouldn't take it out on you. I think I'll stop editing this page for the evening. Sorry again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing the remark.

My response: I've raised an objection to the logical flow of the introductory paragraphs, and have solicited a response from you several times. I'm not soliciting your opinion; I'm asking you to address an apparent discontinuity in the argument. I've also requested a source for the first paragraph on more than one occasion. You have not responded to any of these requests. I have no intention of providing a list of unsourced assertions; the first paragraph is the only section that I wish to focus on for the time being.

Perhaps I can best explain the character of my objection in this matter:

(i) Some published sources have identified the "old" motivations for anti-Semitism as contributing to the current increase in international anti-Semitic activity. A recent European Union report (cited in the Jerusalem Post article up the page) is a prominent example, and I believe it to be a sufficient example for our purposes.

(ii) If the "old" motivations of anti-Semitism are contributing to the current increase in anti-Semitic activities, then it is not correct to identify the "new anti-Semitism" as bearing sole responsibility for this increase.

(iii) Therefore, the introductory paragraph is not correct, unless the term "new anti-Semitism" is defined in a more comprehensive manner than is usually the case.

I would request that you address my concerns.

Please note that I did not intend for this discussion to become a personal conflict. I have great respect for the work you have done elsewhere on Wikipedia (most notably on the Lyndon Larouche page), and I'm somewhat puzzled as to why we cannot seem to overcome this particular impasse. CJCurrie 04:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note also that I was very close to adding a "Disputed" tag to the article a short time ago. I've refrained from doing this in the hope that we can reach a mutually agreeable choice of wording.

I would invite other Wikipedians to contribute to this discussion. CJCurrie 04:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: pecher's point on "sourced" statements in the opening

By Pecher's argument it would be legitimate to write the following, without any qualification, in the opening of the New Anti-Semitism article because it is sourced:

The New Anti-Semitism is a myth[2]

Sourcing a POV does not make it NPOV. I have no problem including the viewpoint that the new Anti-Semitism is a left wing phenomemon as long as we make clear that that is a POV and not an objective fact. The version that several editors are insisting upon violates NPOV in several ways 1) it implies that the new Anti-Semitism is a fact b) it implies that elements of the left are anti-Semitic because they are anti-Zionist (see begging the question). Let's avoid refering to opinions as objective facts, ok?Homey 22:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, please restore the part of the intro you've made invisible, because you've decimated it and made it senseless. The new anti-Semitism is associated with the left by everyone who has written about it substantially. Who associates it with anything else? Now, if you want to say, "according to ..." that's fair enough (so long as it's accurate, and doesn't give the impression that only a minority do), but to remove it entirely is pointless, and leaves the intro making no sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I was trying to come up with a formulation that would attribute the viewpoint but individuals kept reverting it to the status quo ante bellum rather than assist in coming up with NPOV attributive language. So in lieu of any willingness to compromise it's better, I think, to remove the contested passage altogether until a solution can be met. Now if pecher etc agree to stop reverting and actually help to come up with language that is acceptable to everyone we can proceed. If editors continue to refuse to actually deliberate and try to reach a solution perhaps it would be best to lock down the article and get a mediator in here. I know there's always a tendency to see one's own view as universal, objective and correct. Perhaps editors who are proponents of the new anti-Semitism theory can agree to put that tendency aside as per our NPOV policy?

SV, if you could suggest language that attributes the view in question rather than suggests it's an objective fact I think that would go a long way towards resolving this and would discourage pecher et al from rejecting any attempt at compromise? Homey 23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone did come up with a good compromise, Homey, which was CJCurrie's: "The new anti-Semitism is associated with elements of the Left that oppose Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland." This is unarguably correct. But in any event, the intro can't stay as it is, because it makes no sense now. I can't restore it, because I've already reverted three times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it does not say who makes the association. In fact, simply saying one is "associated" with something implies that the association is an objective fact rather than an accusation. For instance "Freemasons are associated with a conspiracy to take over the world" vs "Some right wing conspiracy theorists accuse Freemasons of plotting to take over the world."Homey 23:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone did come up with a good compromise, Homey, which was CJCurrie's: "The new anti-Semitism is associated with elements of the Left that oppose Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland." This is unarguably correct. But in any event, the intro can't stay as it is, because it makes no sense now. I can't restore it, because I've already reverted three times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it does not say who makes the association. In fact, simply saying one is "associated" with something implies that the association is an objective fact rather than an accusation. For instance "Freemasons are associated with a conspiracy to take over the world" vs "Some right wing conspiracy theorists accuse Freemasons of plotting to take over the world."Homey 23:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who has written a book or paper about the new anti-Semitism (that I'm aware of) associates it with the Left. 23:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Every book or paper that makes the association that I'm aware of is written by a person or group who is sympathetic to Zionism. Should we not state that as well? I guess you can argue that those who contest the term are also "associating" it with the left despite the fact that they are disputing the association.

In any case, you're dancing around my point. What is your objection to using the word "accusation". Is it false or inaccurate? Do you not see why "associated with" can be misleading? Homey

How about: "Elements of the Left that oppose Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland are subject to accusations that they are proponents of "the new anti-Semitism". Those who make this accusation include B'nai Brith, Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Sacks, Warren Kinsella and others who are associated either with support of the state of Israel or with conservative causes. Conversely, X and Y argue that the application of the term "new anti-Semitism" is an attempt to discredit critics of Israel through guilt by association by conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism despite the fact that many left-wing anti-Zionists are opponents of anti-Semitism."Homey 23:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that's well poisoning. It's not only people associated witih conservative causes. Homey, please read the literature. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"No, that's well poisoning. It's not only people associated witih conservative causes."

It's those who are either supporters of Zionism or supporters of conservative causes. I'm fine with just limiting it to supporters of Zionism. Can you cite me an example of a proponent of the term who is neither a Zionist nor a conservative?

And I think a stronger example of poisioning the well is saying the New Anti-Semitism is "associated with" some elements of the Left rather than saying that some on the left are accused of (the new) anti-Semitism by some supporters of Israel. Homey 23:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an odd question and it depends what you mean by "Zionist". Are you saying that people who support the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are to be marked in some way as such before being used as sources? Because that in itself plays right into the point the intro is making (or made before you deleted it): that the new anti-Semitism is associated with those on the Left who oppose the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland. So for us to "mark" our sources as split into though who do and those who don't would be ... unencyclopedic is the best thing I can say about it. And what happens if we don't know whether a source does or not?

All that matters about a source surely is that they've written about it seriously i.e. in some depth. I suppose I'm also worried about the question because it indicates you haven't read the literature.

I can offer you Nick Cohen of the Observer, though I don't have a cite to hand because not all his material is online. He's just written a book about how to save the Left (not published and I don't have the title), and has launched a new "beyond socialism" manifesto for the Left. I'm not aware that he's ever said he does or doesn't support Israel as a Jewish homeland, though I know he's a supporter of the Palestinians, but is worried about the resurgence of anti-Semitism among the Left. Shalom Lappin of King's College, London and supporter of the Israeli peace movement. There are so many others, I'm finding myself reluctant to continue, because this is almost an offensive question. For most of the writers I'm looking at on my shelves, I've no idea whether they're "Zionists" or not, because so many of them have never said and you can't easily tell from the writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to clarify at this stage that my "associated with elements of the Left" edit was provisional, and was made in the expectation that further changes would follow. CJCurrie 23:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the version that I endorsed at the beginning of the discussion: The term first came into general use in the early 1970s. In contemporary discourse, it is often used to identify a form of anti-Semitism which is perceived to differ from earlier forms of anti-Semitism in its rhetoric, professed purpose, and position on the political spectrum. The "old" anti-Semitism is usually associated with the Right, and is motivated by racial theory, religion, and nationalism. The term "new anti-Semitism" is more frequently associated with the Left, and opposition to Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland. [1] [2] [3] [4] This usage of the term is controversial, and critics contend that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

I would now suggest that "frequently associated with the Left, and opposition to" should be replaced with "frequently directed toward elements of the Left that oppose". "Toward" could perhaps be replaced with "against". I also have doubts about the "general use" claim, as noted below. It may not be necessary to explain the sources in detail in the introductory paragraph. I'm open to other adjustments. CJCurrie 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (updated: 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

Another comment on sources

According to the article, the term "new anti-Semitism" first came into general use in the early 1970s. The only source provided for this assertion is Arnold Forster's "The New Anti-Semitism" (which was actually co-written with Benjamin Epstein, but never mind ...)

It may be worth noting that (i) this book is a polemical piece, (ii) its publisher, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, cannot be described as a neutral party on the issue of whether or not a "new anti-Semitism" exists, (iii) there is no evidence that this book propelled the term into "general use". CJCurrie 23:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a book title. The publisher is unlikely to have used as a book title something that didn't exist and that no one would understand. That is therefore an indication that the term was in use in the 70s. Please stop trying to downplay as sources those who support Israel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop speculating as to my motivations.

As it happens, I have a copy of the original hardcover version in front of me right now. The word "ANTI-SEMITISM" is written in red diagonal bold text across the cover; the word "new" appears in much smaller text at the top, and is the same colour as the backdrop. I had to strain my eyes to even see it the first time.

I would hazard a guess that the authors were creating a neologism. I have no proof of this, of course, but neither have you demonstrated proof that the term was in use in the '70s. CJCurrie 23:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not speculating as to your motives. You seem not to like the term personally and want to disassociate it from the left, which you've been trying to do since February, posting 35 posts to this talk page saying exactly the same thing. I keep asking for sources showing that those who've studied the new anti-Semitism associate it with anyone else, but you can't produce any (unless you want to add that it's associated with Islamism too, in which case I can find you sources).

You say above that the ADL shouldn't be used as a source, though you don't say why, but presumably because it supports Israel. I'm therefore not speculating when I say you are downplaying sources because of their support for Israel, or was there some other reason you opposed the ADL as a source?

All I'm asking is that people put aside their personal views and concentrate on what is being written about the new anti-Semitism by those who study it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not speculating as to your motives. You seem not to like the term personally and want to disassociate it from the left

I was just talking to someone about the proper meaning of "irony", the other day ... CJCurrie 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

which you've been trying to do since February

This is the second time you've made this assertion. It was incorrect the first name, and remains incorrect now. I contributed to a separate discussion about the "new anti-Semitism" over a year ago, but my first post in the current discussion was made five days ago, and I was offline for one of those days. I'm puzzled as to whom you could be confusing me with. CJCurrie 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You say above that the ADL shouldn't be used as a source

No, I'm saying we shouldn't pretend it's a neutral source. CJCurrie 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that people put aside their personal views and concentrate on what is being written about the new anti-Semitism by those who study it.

It occurred to me late last night that there's a hidden fallacy in this request. Consider this:

(i) The term "new anti-Semitism" is itself contentious.

(ii) Most authors who oppose the term reference it only for purposes of criticism.

(iii) Therefore, most authors who study the "new anti-Semitism" in detail will do so from a standpoint which supports and upholds usage of the term.

(iv) Therefore, most published works which address the "new anti-Semitism" in detail will support and uphold usage of the term.

(v) This position represents only one side of the argument.

(vi) Therefore, concentrating on "what is being written about the new anti-Semitism by those who study it" will leave a distorted view of the discussion (counter-intuitive though that may seem on first blush).

CJCurrie 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

There is clearly an ongoing dispute about the introduction to this article and its sources, accompanied by quasi-edit warring. Currie and myself have made every effort to provide numerous reliable sources for our edits. This tag was reverted once already. There is clearly an ongoing dispute. btw I am not attempting to engage in 'hit and run tagging', as was suggested in the revert description. TreveX^talk 23:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence "Controversy regarding new anti-semitism is..."

I have removed the following sentence because it is predicated in the assumption that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. This has already been discussed above but no source or defence for this sentence has been forthcoming.

Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel promotes anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs.

TreveX^talk 23:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Disgraceful

Some of the editors on this page should be ashamed. You've destroyed the intro, and now your well-poisoning (and completely inaccurate) claims don't even match the sources given. Or do you intend to start deleting reliable sources too? I can't edit because I'd revert 3RR otherwise, and you almost certainly have CJC, because you were the one who was reverting against me: 3RR covers any undoing of any editor's work, in whole or in part. This is just bad editing, pure and simple, regardless of POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree: this article now is a mess, intentionally or not. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Status of term

Posted to SV's talk page and copied here:

I am simply saying that we should be clear to distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity. "New anti-Semitism" is not an agreed upon fact. It is a theory that originates with one political point of view and it is predominantly that point of view that argues the term is valid. I think that when we are speaking of contestable subjects we are remiss if we pretend that a source is "objective" rather than reflecting one or another of the sides of the dispute. It is important to distinguish between polemics and objective work. That doesn't mean we can't use polemics as sources but we can't use a source as a cover for the fact that an assertion is a POV and not an objective fact.

I don't know if every single writer who asserts there is a new Anti Semitism is a "Zionist" per se. However, I think it's valid to say that view that there is a new Anti-Semitism originates with and is predominantly supported by Zionists just as it's fair to say that those who argue there were WMDs in Iraq are predominantly supporters of the Iraq war.

My point isn't so much that "New Anti-Semitism" is a Zionist phrase as it is that it is not an objective fact and should not be treated as such by the article. It is a POV, it is contestable, and should be treated as such. I would make the same arguments if an article on Zionism is racism stated "Zionism is associated with racism", gave a few sources and failed to mention that those sources are all anti-Zionist and that "Zionism is racism" is POV and not a fact and that it is an assertion put forward predominantly by opponents of the state of Israel's right to exist.

My problem is not with the use of "Zionist sources" or "anti-Zionist sources", it's with using a POV source to suggest that an assertion is a fact and NPOV rather than a POV opinion.

I'm a bit suprised that you are disputing that using a term like "associated with" is misleading in the case of new-anti Semitism and "the Left" and does not suggest that the accusation that elements of the Left are anti-Semtic is valid. The use of it in the article is almost a literal example of guilt by association. Homey 01:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as objectivity. According to lots of people, there's no such thing as anti-Semitism, period, but we don't start that article by qualifying it as only a term used by such-and-such.

NPOV says we describe majority and significant-minority published opinion; stress on "published." That's why I asked how much of the literature you've read. The term is very far from being used by only one point of view. You can't edit in your own opinions to articles. You can only repeat what the literature says, and it very firmly, without exception that I can find, agrees that the new anti-Semitism is a real phenomenon, and associates it with the Left. These are books and articles written by people with many different POVs, largely academics and well-known journalists.

The intro you put up is factually inaccurate and doesn't even reflect the sources after the sentences. That's why I'm surprised.

Rather than us exchanging personal views, which are irrelevant, can you say how much of the literature you'd read, and which papers/books you're relying on, and then start quoting your sources, please? If we stick very closely to what reputable sources are saying and give references with all our edits from now on, it will make for a more intelligent article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, could you decide whether to reply here or on our talk pages, so I don't have to copy to both? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro you put up is factually inaccurate

This is from the intro you support: "The new anti-Semitism is associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland."

SV, you have not replied to my comments that "associated with" is misleading since it implies that "the Left" is guilty of anti-Semitism. The sentence is also factually inaccurate as it makes a blanket statement that "the Left" opposes Zionism, when many leftists actually support or are Zionists and that "the Left" as a whole opposes the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland when, in fact, many leftists supported Israel from its inception.

Do you concede the inaccuracies I have pointed out? Will you correct them?Homey 01:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I want to clarify that I was careful not to violate the 3RR, and that I'm not impressed with the outburst at the top of the "Disgraceful" section. CJCurrie 01:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you couldn't have violated it, given you were reverting against me, and I would violate it if I continued editing. A "revert" is undoing any editor's work, not just reverting to an earlier version of a page. See WP:3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There were three occasions (20:20, 20:27 and 22:46) in which I added minor changes that I regarded as non-contentious, in an effort to create mutually acceptable wording. I also removed a superfluous sentence at 23:58, and corrected a spelling error at 23:05. I did not consider these changes to be "undoing" anyone's work, and I'll note that SlimVirgin endorsed the second minor change not long ago. My interpretation is that none of these changes were "reverts" in the technical sense; if I'm mistaken, please correct me and I'll avoid the error in future. CJCurrie 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But now you keep undoing the new header! A revert for the purposes of 3RR is undoing any other editor's work on a page. If you do that more than three times in 24 hours, even if you're making different edits each time, and whether or not the undoing is in whole or in part, you can be blocked. Do not remove this header again. This section is not about the contents of the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)