Talk:Universities and antisemitism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent Edits by 74.97.217.216

I reverted the edits made by 74.97.217.216 under the Canada and United States heading which seem to be borderline vandalism, the edit under the France heading does not seem to be vandalism but it is unsourced and possibly inaccurate. In general the article needs work in presenting a more general representation of antisemitism at universities in various countries, the present depictions seem to be narrowly focused and specific.--Wlf211 05:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

antisemitism and criticism

I am not seeing any attempt in this article to discuss the difference between criticism of Israeli policies (as regards internal and external policy regarding non-Jews) - which is a legitimate point of opinion - and antisemitic comment possibly derived from perceptions of Isreali policy. No mention is made of students often impassioned but naive acceptance of a position, in this and other cases. Whilst it is not in the scope of this article to mention other students, not necessarily Jewish, similarly zealous support for Israel there should, I feel, be some acknowledgement that dissatisfaction with Israel and its policies is not of itself antisemetic nor are all those expressing dissatisfaction (even extreme dissatisfaction) anti Jewish. I, of course, realise that those with an anti Jewish agenda find it easier to operate and disseminate their propoganda in such a climate. LessHeard vanU 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC) That, folks, is just how tough it can be to be a liberal - standards of freedom of speech and thought need be open for everyone, even those who would abuse it...

What, not even a discussion about a discussion? LessHeard vanU 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The silent treatment, perhaps... I too feel this article leaves out the fact that many young people (in Europe, at least) are highly critical to the policies of the Israeli government without necessarily being antisemitic (as in hate all things jewish or arabic), but spokespersons for Israeli embassies or jewish congregations are often quick to brand critics of Israeli policies as antisemites.

I see nobody wants to talk to me about it, so I will simply remove stuff from that doesn't seem to be anti-semitism. I repeat, criticism of Israel is not of itself anti-semitic! I realise that it is the Jewish State, and that anti-Israeli criticism is sometimes fostered by racist Jew baiters, but criticism (and subsequent demonstrations, etc.) is part of the democratic process. LessHeard vanU 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On the above basis I removed a paragraph that spoke of Pro-Palestinian/Anti-Israeli demonstrations (as well as "alleged" participation by followers of an anti-semite). I suppose someone will rv it back... LessHeard vanU 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Name and scope

First, this should be renamed to Academia and antisemitism. Second, we should cover older antisemitism in academia - for example, Nazis had even created an academic branch of antisemitism, see Walter Frank.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the proposed move above?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Insofar that the perception of the phrase Academia may indicate the faculty (the lecturers, professorship, etc) rather than the students, which seems to be the focus of the current article, I would suggest caution rather than haste in applying your changes. Contrarily, I would also note that there seems to be a lack of response to much posted on this page so you may as well go ahead... Just be aware that you may get many reasons why you shouldn't have after the event. LessHeard vanU 00:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose that move. Most of the examples in the media are about students, who aren't part of "academia," but the professors and the students are all part of "universities." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV notice

I do not believe that the current article is in any way NPOV. I'm not opposed to documenting actual instances of on-campus anti-Semitism, but I'm more than a bit concerned about this page's casual linking of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, and with protests against Israeli politicians.

I also believe that we should reference Norman Finkelstein's position, that some reports of on-campus anti-Semitism are based on misrepresentation and have been raised for political ends. CJCurrie 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means add a section on Finkelstein's views, so long as it's not the usual essay-length devotional piece. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with CJCurrie on both counts. Even the title is misleading; it should probably be something like "Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Universities" or "University Antisemitism and Criticism of Israel." The lead is poorly written, consisting of a couple of quotes, seemingly collected at random, which don't establish or introduce the subject but instead simply refer to it. The article as a whole doesn't present the RS discussion/debate about campus antisemitism, which has been copious, vexed, and varied since 2001; rather it confines itself to just giving examples of a subject the transparency and obviousness of which it takes for granted. Combined with the many unsourced statements and a tone of complacent original research, this makes for an article that reads more like a pamphlet or community bulletin than an encyclopedia entry.--G-Dett 00:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The title is not misleading. The article is about universities and antisemitism and the page is called "universities and antisemitism," which is kind of similar to the concept of articles about Saddam Hussein being called "Saddam Hussein" and articles about special relativity being called "Special relativity." I'd take your views about what's encyclopedic more seriously if you'd ever write any articles yourself. You're currently standing at 211 edits to articles in nine months. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slim, nice to see you here and hear your latest thoughts, which are usually lively if not always logical and on-point. Thanks also for the update from your continuing hand-count of my daily edits. Some might call this harassment or stalking; I prefer to think of it as connoisseurial devotion, every bit as flattering as your eager anticipation of the articles I'll be writing myself.

Your post doesn't give much else to go on, but I do have a response and a question. You make the surprising argument that choosing the proper title for an article on a controversial issue like this is as easy and obvious and unproblematic as naming a biographical entry after its biographical subject, or using the name of a scientific theory for the title of an article on that theory. It isn't. A better analogy would be an article titled "Arab Despotism," or "Dictatorial Regimes With U.S. Backing." Titles that embed an argument within them. Get it?

I'm not sure how to read your silence about the lead. Do you think it's a good lead?

Lastly, let me add that I'd take your views about what's encyclopedic more seriously if you were able to defend them compellingly – without nonsense, sophistry, question-begging, or venting of personal resentments. Thanks.--G-Dett 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Netanyahu

I would like to restore this as I've found a source, but if I do it against the wishes of other editors, I could be reported for 3RR. I'm therefore checking here first whether it would be okay. There are multiple sources available, but I picked this one as it's a review of the film and it's written by someone at another university — Vincent-Linderoos, Cathy. "Review of Discordia: When Netanyahu Came to Town, a film by Ben Addelman and Samir Mallal. CM, Volume XI Number 3, University of Manitoba, October 1, 2004. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to this being included in the article, as long as it clearly indicates that the charge of anti-Semitism was disputed. CJCurrie 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim, is this source a good foundation for our article's assumption that the Netanyahu imbroglio represents campus antisemitism? It's not clear to me, for one thing, that Cathy Vincent-Linderoos is "someone at another university"; the link you've provided describes her as a retired elementary school teacher. The review she wrote was published by CM Magazine, which specializes in reviews "of materials of interest to teachers, librarians, parents and kids." (Vincent-Linderoos recommends Discordia for 11th-graders and up.) In your edit summary you write, "if you want to add that the antisemitism was denied, go ahead, but none of the sources say that, so I don't have a source for it." But Vincent-Linderoos doesn't assert that the Netanyahu incident reflects antisemitism; in fact she explicitly presents that question as a controversial one about which she is agnostic:

In watching and understanding the issues portrayed in this video, the viewer is required to consider questions like the following: 1) Is pro-Palestinian sentiment the same as anti-Semitism? 2) Why are some Jewish students in support of the pro-Palestinian contingent, whereas other Jewish students revere Netanyahu? 3) Why did the announcement of Benjamin Netanyahu's lecture inflame the passions of the pro-Palestinian students? 4) Is speaking out against Israeli policy the same thing as anti-Semitism? 5) Where did freedom of speech and assembly figure into this story? 6) Does the film slant toward one side's position or the other? 7) Why and how did the events at Concordia capture the attention of the international media? 8) How did the university administration's involvement figure into Discordia?

Where do you get the idea that this movie review supports the assertion of antisemitism but not its denial?

Again, does this represent a solid source for the assumption that the Netanyahu incident reflects campus antisemitism?--G-Dett 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote this, I assumed that SlimVirgin was planning to include a reference to the Netanyahu protest as having been discussed within the context of debates over anti-Semitism within academia. Regretably, she has not done so. The current edit suggests that the Netanyahu protest was itself prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism, which it was not (the source document doesn't even make this claim). I'm serving notice that I plan to change this at the earliest opportunity.

I will not be amused if SlimVirgin uses her rather questionable "exemption" from the 3RR to claim her version as the default text. CJCurrie 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

CJ, pls don't be obtuse and legalistic. I have no idea what claiming the version to be the default means. You asked for a source that said the Netanyahu thing was regarded as antisemitic. I supplied one. What's the issue? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources you've provided do not identify the "Netanyahu thing" as anti-Semitic (and I noticed that you haven't actually identified it as anti-Semitic per se on the article page).

Anyway, I've found some newspaper sources dealing with the event, and will adjust the section as soon as I'm permitted. CJCurrie 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you not be permitted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

... under the restrictions imposed by the 3RR, is what I meant. CJCurrie 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What the section needs to do is briefly relate the event (not recreate it journalistically with breathless quotes from shocked officials), and then say that some viewed the incident as evidence of campus antisemitism, while others disagreed.--G-Dett 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is quit being such a numb-nuts. --140.247.125.126

Hey Harvard, get yourself registered. Love, Numb-Nuts--G-Dett 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I think the lead needs serious work. There are two distinct problems, one relating to WP:NPOV and the other relating to WP:LEAD. There is no indication in the current lead that the reports are disputed, or that the discussion surrounding them is largely political. That's the NPOV problem. The LEAD problem is that the bulk of the lead is given over to two examples that do not give an effective overview of the topic. They seem to have been chosen for their rhetorical charge rather than any heuristic value or general representativeness. Both are very personal accounts of professors, the first a subjective impression and the second an anecdote. I don't think our lead should zoom in so rapidly from its topic sentence into individual quotations, full-stop. But if it is going to, then the quotations we use should be well-chosen analytical generalizations providing some kind of overview.

Here's a skeletal proposal of what I think would be a more comprehensive and encyclopedic lead:

Antisemitic incidents on university campuses across North America, Europe, and Australia have increased markedly since 2000, according to a number of sources. Though the circumstances surrounding the reported incidents are disputed, many maintain that campus activism supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel has become a breeding ground for the New Antisemitism, creating an atmosphere of anti-Jewish intimidation which erupts periodically in hate speech and even violence. Others acknowledge that antisemitic incidents have occurred, but contend that commentators have conflated political anger with ethnic or religious hatred in an attempt to chill legitimate debate.

Feedback would be welcome.--G-Dett 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've said it elsewhere already: unless a decent review can be found to back up the article's thesis (that reports of antisemitic incidents at universities are increasing) it should not exist. Research papers are problematic - for any given thesis in the humanities there will be an assistant professor somewhere commenting on it in his bid for tenure.

Comments from journalists are right out. Regardless of what Faux News might want you to believe, the journalist's remit is to shape public opinion, not to comment on it. Dr Zak 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think G-Detts' proposal as reasonable providing the rise in anti-semetic incidents can be referenced. I also don't believe that the context of anti-semetic incidents need be noted in the introduction (although obviously in the main body) as the link between anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian (and/or other Arab group) sentiment is not established, nor forms part of the article heading. It is possible to be sympathetic to both the Israeli and Palestinian people, and to to be be anti (some) Israeli policy and pro Jewish, and lastly to be vehemently anti anti-semetic. I am. LessHeard vanU 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both LessHeard vanU and Dr Zak that the sourcing of the reported rise in campus antisemitism is crucial. That's one of the things my rewritten lead attempts to address.

It would be great to get further feedback, especially from other editors and especially in the form of concrete suggestions. After another day or so, I'll make the change. --G-Dett 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the subject heading should be included in the first sentence, suitably highlighted, as is common WP practice. I'm just not able to construct said sentence to be in keeping with the rest of the paragraph.... LessHeard vanU 12:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is an article lead the ideal place for impressions, anecdotes, and sensational rhetoric?

Slim, I explained here and here why I removed impressionistic anecdotes – which appear to have been selected at random – from the lead. You keep restoring them, saying only that you "disagree."[1] Can you elaborate a little on your reasoning here? I want to avoid an edit war at all costs.--G-Dett 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently attempted to move both paragraphs from the introduction to the section that concerns reported events in America. My rationale is that both paragraphs concern reported events in America.

I was reverted within minutes. Could someone please identify the flaw in my logic? CJCurrie 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good to have some quotes in the lead to show who is saying what, unlike the "some say this, others say that" tone of the first paragraph. By all means add some counter-balancing quotes. As a compromise, I removed one, so you need only find one other as balance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find a balancing quote, but my objection has less to do with WP:NPOV than with WP:LEAD.--G-Dett 17:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a terribly unhelpful citation. Instead of making clearer what the positions in the debate are and why people hold those positions we learn that some people are upset. Yes, you'd predict that, wouldn't you? Dr Zak 23:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Source needed

Could we have a source for: "Others acknowledge that antisemitic incidents have occurred, but dispute the extent of them, and contend that commentators have conflated political anger with ethnic or religious hatred in an attempt to chill legitimate debate." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll provide a source before the week's end. CJCurrie 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Nation article cited in the U.S. section is the source. There are many others if needed.--G-Dett 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'Jewish Federation of Northeastern Pennsylvania'

According to LessHeard vanU, this is biased, but is still somehow acceptable as a 'published source recording an event'. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not raving editorial screeds with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have removed the anecdotes for the third time as they are inadequately sourced and inflammatory, serving no clear purpose.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The JFNP may well be biased, and not as reliable as some, but they fulfill the requirement of a published source and there are no "more reliable" references available, either supporting or dissenting. I was not there, but I am inclined to believe that the events happened and that the people quoted said what they said; has the JFNP been sued for libel? Can you give examples on misinformation? Unless it can be stated (and cited) that the events and/or comments were fiction or misrepresentation then they fulfil WP's criteria. Since we are referencing that source the possibly emotive quotations are justified as reportage, although perhaps a general overview of the statements would be better with the reader being able to click the link.

Wikipedia does allow biased sources anyway, as US Treasury figures are used in articles regarding the US economy and record company sales records for their artists. Do you believe them to be the most reliable and free from influence?

I shall not revert you, as I don't do revert wars, but it is likely to be re-added by other persons (along with the usual anti Israeli/pro Arab comment = anti semitism nonsense). If there are no better or more reliable sources for the events, which have happened, then the JFNP fulfills WP's criteria as a source. LessHeard vanU 21:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(Um... my edit summary meant to say that the JFNP hasn't been proven as unreliable... oh, well! LessHeard vanU 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

You haven't cited any policies or guidelines, and you cannot seriously think that government or corporate figures compare to a self-published editorial article from five years ago. For politically charged issues, one does not prove a dodgy source incorrect, but finds corroboration from multiple, credible alternative sources. If corroboration does not exist, then the material should not be included.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:ATT

Primary and secondary sources....Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

I have read the rest of the section, and those above, regarding reliable sources and I don't believe that it is proven that either JFNP is inherently unreliable (I cannot comment on their editorial control nor your contention that it is a self-published work) or that the incidents did not happen nor the individuals said what they did. Your interpretation of politically charged seems to question the validity of the comments, whereas I believe the term would cover whether the comments were made (fact over bias). As previously suggested, I believe the gist of the comments could be reported with a link for anyone who cares to read further.

FYI, I would usually take the word of a self published enthusiast/zealot over the soundbites and interpretations of Treasury Officials and Record Company Execs any day. The zealot is usually an amateur liar at best... ;~) LessHeard vanU 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your mistake is believing that sources must be 'proved' unreliable. That is not supported by any Wikipedia policy, otherwise we'd be swamped with 'sources' from fringe websites. This source has no indication of editorial oversight or fact-checking, and is heavily dependent on personal opinion and rumour.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been to the site in question, and perused the home site of the author Mark Silverberg. I can see that it is a self published site with no independant editorial control. However, the author appears to be an accredited professional in his field, of some standing, and has posted reviews of his material. That the site is biased is undoubted, and that those reviews come from sympathetic bodies is obvious. It appears that Mr Silverberg puts a pro Israeli/Jewish (vehemently anti Arab/Muslim) slant on major topics relating to Middle East matters and other subjects. I see nothing that indicates that the facts are misrepresented or fiction. As such, as a source for facts (not interpretation, though) it is reliable. In the absence of any better source, it should stay. LessHeard vanU 11:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does this facts/interpretation dichotomy come from? I have never heard of such a thing on Wikipedia before. The 'not proven untrue' standard you are applying isn't a Wikipedia policy, at least partly because Wikipedia deals with verifiability, not truth.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about editorial judgement; If Mr Silverberg noted an anti-Semite demonstration involving individuals chanting insults to Jews I would have no problem in using that information in that article, but I would not include his assertion that it was part of a arab financed strategy designed to undermine western democracy. My judgement is that the reportage side of that source is reliable, but not his interpretation of the how and why of the event.

I see we are not going to agree on the standard of verifiability of a single source. My position is that one publication quoting several involved people who are saying much the same thing happened at one event, then that one source (as it is the only source) should be considered reliable. Sometimes there will only be the one record of an event and, in the absence of any challenge, it is the default source. As long as the bona fides seem okay, it is then a reliable resource.LessHeard vanU 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The source (which is scarcely a 'publication') does not quote several involved people talking about one event. It is a laundry list of unsourced anecdotes compiled by someone with every reason to exaggerate or misrepresent, failing all our guidelines of what makes a reliable source. There seems to be absolutely no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines for your counter-arguments.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) You know what? I think I'm going to concede on this one. The page isn't good enough, though the home page would have been okay if that had been source. Likewise, if the relevant publication that was the source were mentioned/linked in the cited page (so it could be checked out) it would have been sufficient. My points about singular sources for fact still hold, I feel (although you will doubtless still disagree), but the paucity of the linked page does not help. I doubt that User:Slimvirgin will agree to the paragraphs being removed, so perhaps the two of you might want to talk some more about it before getting into a cycle of deleting and reverting... LessHeard vanU 21:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

David Duke, Holocaust deniers etc.

If David Duke broke into your house he would be guilty of breaking and entering. He may be charged with burglary. The fact that he is anti Jewish is irrelevent. Only when he breaks into a house and daubs a race/religion hate message is his anti-semite background relevant.

He may participate anti Israeli demonstrations, and he may produce leaflets that support Palestinians (none of which is illegal, BTW). The fact that he himself is anti Semite is irrelevant, since demonstrating against Israel or supporting Palestinians is not de facto anti semitism. Unlike the following paragraphs in the section there is no evidence of anti Jewish abuse and behaviour. It is therefore not relevant to the article subject.

It is not WP's place to interpret motive, but only to provide examples. LessHeard vanU 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the source provided it because he's a notorious anti-Semite being allowed to operate on-campus; ditto with the Holocaust denier that you keep removing too. Or are you saying Holocaust deniers may not be anti-Semites? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that a Holocaust denier could not be anti-Semetic. From the brief time I spent at David Duke's article he is undeniably anti-Semetic. Either party participating at an anti-Israeli demonstration is likely to do with their anti-Semetic stance. However, and this is the point I am trying to make, it doesn't necessarily follow that the demonstration against the policies of the Israelis is of itself anti Semitic.

If the demonstration includes acts of anti-Semitism in the manner of language, banners and targeted assaults then it falls within the scope of this article. If it is a protest against the actions and/or policies then it doesn't. The only anti Israeli protest that would fall under the heading of anti-Semite would be that of the existence of the State of Israel, otherwise it is a politically derived protest.

As for "...being allowed..." access, racists and anti-Semites have the same rights as other citizens. As long as there is no legal reason to keep them away then they have the right to participate in "peaceful assemblies". That is both the problem and beauty of democracy, the right to free expression of thought (within the law) no matter how reprehensible that thought may be.

In a nutshell, David Duke and Holocaust deniers are anti-Semitic. Their participation, however, in an anti Israeli demonstration does not make the event anti-Semitic, and should not be included in this article. If they participate in anti-Semitic activity at an anti-Israeli demonstration, then those incidents can be included (but that doesn't include distributing a pro-Palestinian leaflet, as supporting the Palestinian is not an anti-Semitic act.) Anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment are seperate matters. LessHeard vanU 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking further about your comment regarding DD's being permitted access to campus'. If he were invited by the members of the faculty or a student group who are aware of his views then his attendance is evidence of anti-Semitic sentiment, although I would still suggest that the event may not be and it is incorrect to write of the event in those terms in the article. If he just turns up, uninvited, and hands out leaflets that contain no anti-Semite material (even though his intent is to enflame hatred for Jews and/or the Jewish state) then my position remains as above. If the leaflets contain anti-Semite (rather than anti Israel) language then this does need to properly cited, and the leaflet dropping rather than the protest at which it happened regarded as the anti-Semite act. LessHeard vanU 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Walter Frank

Not sure why this is under see also? If he is relevant, maybe put him into the article for reference. Anyways,--Tom 19:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable, I suppose, in that he was an Academic in Nazi Germany who taught anti-Semite theory. I'll put it in.LessHeard vanU 20:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No source for the first sentence?

This is a pretty serious problem. Does anyone have a source?--G-Dett 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say, "It is covered in the article" but I realised it isn't. Perhaps the lead should be amended to "evidence of anti-semitism" until a decent cite can be found? LessHeard vanU 20:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

But we'd still have the problem of citation, no?--G-Dett 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, wouldn't the examples (which are cited) in the body of the article be sufficient? The intro is only that, it shouldn't replicate the full article.LessHeard vanU 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I think I see what you're saying. So how would the revised first sentence read?--G-Dett 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How about

Evidence of antisemitic incidents on university campuses across North America, Europe, and Australia have increased markedly, since 2000, according to have been recorded by a number of sources.

(original text struck through, added text in bold)? The evidence is presented in the body of the article. As commented, if a cite can be found for an increase it can be returned to the intro and should also be expanded upon in the main text. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. "Evidence...has been recorded." --G-Dett 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool. You are the grammarian, you write it! (big grin!) LessHeard vanU 22:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded pompous LessHeard vanU. (sheepish grin...)--G-Dett 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Columbia University Middle Eastern Studies Case

The whole academic freedom debate at Columbia needs to be added to this article. There was significant harassment of students that professed any proIsrael views by their professors; most sources acknowledge that these attacks bordered on antisemitism; see Dershowitz for the full explication of that viewpoint.

The Columbia case and various other recent campus anti-Semitism cases are also discussed in both the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' 2006 report on Campus Anti-Semitism, which is downloadable from www.usccr.gov, as well as in my recent article on "Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," which appears in this February's issue of the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal http://www.wm.edu/so/borj/volumes/15/vol15iss3.html. Klmarcus 20:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to add the usccr.gov link, with a brief overview, that would be great. I don't think you should add your own article (possible conflict of interest) but if you add "see talkpage" to your edit summary a third party might review it and decide to add it in themselves. LessHeard vanU 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed unsourced history section

This section also seemed out of place in relation to the rest of the article. Thanks, --Tom 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff... LessHeard vanU 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Msa sfsu poster.jpg

Image:Msa sfsu poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Anne Frank and reliable sources

I do not believe that a blog entry from the Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism should be considered as a reliable source for this article. Quite apart from the fact that blogs generally aren't considered as reliable sources, there is nothing to suggest that this is a notable organization.

I could add that there's no way for me to independently verify that the tank display was part of the UCI event.

I might also note in passing that the Anne Frank image was almost certainly intended to draw a parallel between her sufferings and those of the Palestinian people under occupation (which does not automatically mean that the artist was comparing Israelis to Nazis). While I believe the image was misguided and in poor taste, I don't think it was intended as any sort of mockery of Anne Frank's memory. CJCurrie (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel and/or its policies is not anti-Semitism

I have a different issue with the section in the article; there is no evidence of anti-semitic activity (anti Jew rhetoric, anti Jewish slogans, harassment or assault on people because of being Jews, other anti-Zionist activity) in the matter of the UCI hosting the Muslim Students League "Israel:The Politics of Genocide" - the only noted "alleged" incident is the portrayal of Anne Frank wearing a symbol of Palestinian resistance, but this is a perception advanced by pro-Israeli commentators. It is obvious that the event is anti-Israeli - or specifically the alleged conduct of Israeli policy as it effects Palestinians - but negative viewpoints regarding the State of Israel or its policy is not of itself anti-semitism. Unless specific agreed anti-semitic activity (Blood libel, comments regarding Jews as people or culture, defacing of Jewish - not Israeli - symbols or property, and assault on Jews) can be provided by reliable neutral sources then I suggest that the section should be removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I (and other sensitive to antisemitism) would argue that the image of Anne Frank has become, as you put it, a Jewish (not Israeli) symbol and that her image was, as you put it, defaced. All over the world, the image of Anne Frank has become the human face of the 1 million or so Jewish child victims of the Holocaust. It was for this reason that the image was chosen by the antisemitic demonstrators at UC Irvine. Make no mistake, by choosing Anne Frank as the means with which to demonstrate, the demonstrators were attacking Israel's Jewish character.

The issue of whether equating Israelis with Nazis is antisemitic or not is not an argument I feel like getting into right now except to say that all institutions that study and combat antisemitism (such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Yale Initiative for Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism) as well as governmental institutions (such as the European Union and U.S. Congress) all agree that it is clear antisemitism. --GHcool (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would consider myself sensitive to antisemitism, having participated in many Anti Nazi League events in my youth, but I am sure you were not hinting on my possible viewpoint. I did not either say the image of Anne Frank was "defaced" - I said used. Notwithstanding the above, while the sensibilities of some observers may have been offended, and some of whom declared aspects as anti-semitic, the major aspect of the MSL event was regarding the Israeli policy regarding Palestinians and its effect upon the Palestinian population - and while also upsetting the sensibilities of many observers, including those who made the accusations of antisemitism, this was a political driven agenda and not one of race or culture. Put it another way, "Destroy the State of Israel" is a political creed, while "Kill the Jews" is cultural and racist. While both viewpoints both are abhorrent, the former does not advocate the murder of a culture, religion or people, while the latter encompasses all of those, plus the consequent destruction of the one Jewish state and every Jewish community existing and is therefore antisemitic. The goal of the MSL/I:TPoG is more obviously directed toward a variant of the former with only one incident being noted that might even hint toward a mindset to the latter. The event itself cannot be considered antisemitic since there is so little evidence of antipathy toward Jews or Jewishness outside that of the expressed viewpoint regarding Israel and its policies toward Palestinians. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, to clarify, I did not mean to imply that you are insensitive to antisemitism. On the other hand, I fear that you are not a reliable source on 21st century manifestations of antisemitism to say for certain that "Destroy the State of Israel," the abuse of of the memory of the Holocaust, the comparisons of Israelis and Nazis, etc. Thankfully, numerous reliable sources verify that all of the above are antisemitic as well as anti-Zionist.

Secondly, you did list "defacing of Jewish - not Israeli - symbols" as an example of "specific agreed anti-semitic activity." I'm sure that you would agree that Anne Frank is a Jewish, not Israeli, symbol, and that she has been, in a sense, "defaced" or at the very least, misappropriated. In my view (and in the view of most people sensitive to the topic), the use of Anne Frank in that way was an example of antisemitism, but perhaps you're of the opinion that it was just an example of self righteous ignorance. Surely you don't believe it was a valid and thoughtful political statement on the troubled and complex relationship between the State of Israel and the Palestinians.

Thirdly, "Destroy the State of Israel" means "Destroy the Jewish state and replace it with a Muslim state under Sharia law" or, at the very least, "Destroy the Jewish state." It is the state's Jewish character that must be destroyed. Some even interpret it as "Destroy the Jewish state and all of its Jewish citizens" (though this is a more common interpretation in the Middle East). It is not the democracy or commitment to the rule of law those who say "Destroy the State of Israel" are hoping to destroy.

Fourthly, "Destroy the State of Israel" is as cultural as it is political. Does Israel not have a culture as rich as any other nation? If someone said "Destroy China," would we not raise an eyebrow? I certainly would, even though I am a critic of specific Chinese policy regarding the Tibetans and their relations with Sudan (both of which are incomparably worse than the "Israeli occupation"). The reason is that China is not only a country, but also a distinct culture that has enriched the world. The same standard must be applied to Israel. --GHcool (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

re Anne Frank, "misappropriated" possibly - but even that interprets that the symbol of innocence being crushed beneath callous tyranny as being belonging only to the Jews, whereas gentiles also take lessons of the inhumanity in oppressing a section of society from her story. I recognise that the use of the image of Anne Frank by the MSL was deliberate, in that no one people or culture is more worthy of sympathy or recrimmination than another - but not defaced; there is an implicit recognition of the suffering endured by what Anne Frank represents, otherwise transposing it to the Palestinian cause would not be of any effect.

"Destroy the State of Israel" can mean many things, but not everything is apparently an aim to destroy the international culture of Judaism. Removing Israel can mean simply reconstituting Palestine, which contained more than just Shi'te Muslims - there being Jews, Maronite Christians and other faiths present. Destroying the Israeli State can mean to remove the current system that which only recognises Jewish citizens as having full rights and suffrage, and denying same to others who have dwelt within the current borders for generations. While the most active in opposing the Israeli constitutional entity may be financed and otherwise be allied to fundamental Sharia inclined parties, it is not certain that such a nation would replace a Jewish one - not all Palestinians are Muslim, let alone of Fundamentalist Shi'ite (and I don't think Egypt, Lebanon, or even Syria would be comfortable with another Iran being placed). Destroying the State of Israel does not even address the presence of Jews outside of Israels borders.

Israel is not the repository of Jewish culture - indeed, its culture can be considered as the product of immigrant Jewish cultures from Europe, East Europe, and America (and elsewhere) than the indigenous Jewish culture that existed in Palestine until 1948. My own culture is very well informed by Jewish culture, the British political system having many famous Jewish politicians - including a Prime Minister - with prominent Jews in industry, entertainment, and social life. Jewish culture exists separately from Israel, and had previously flourished (or at least survived within some countries) in other nations before the founding of the modern state.

I am sorry, but I do not see the argument made that criticism of Israel, or its policies, or the support of the Palestinian cause is inherently antisemitic - Israel is not the epitome of Jewish existence, but more the manifestation of a desire for Jewish culture to have a home for itself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is basically irrelevant now that we have agreed on a compromise. You're welcome to disagree with me, but I believe that if you knew the facts, you would be more likely to agree with me. For example, most Palestinians are Sunni, not Shiite.

Most importantly, however, your post above shows a fundamental misunderstanding or ignorance of the Arab citizens of Israel. In Israel, Arab citizens enjoy the same rights and freedoms as Jewish citizens including the right to vote. There are several Arab political parties and even an Islamic fundamentalist political party in the Knesset (Israeli parliament). Legally, there is no difference between a Jew and a member of any other religion or race. It is a canard. --GHcool (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the Anne Frank display was considered antisemitic even by UC Irvine lenient standards.[2] --GHcool (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Anne Frank and reliable sources (part two)

My explanation for this edit is as follows:

(i) Two of the sources provided were from blogs. One of these was the same non-notable "Orange County Independent Task Force on anti-Semitism" blog that I removed yesterday. If GHCool believes that this source has some encyclopedic credibility, perhaps s/he could provide a defense on the talk page before restoring it.

(ii) The second blog source was "The God Blog", operated by Brad A. Greenberg and hosted by the Jewish Journal. I can see nothing to indicate that this is a suitable encyclopedic source and, in any event, Greenberg doesn't actually comment on the image (he conveys the Orange County group's commentary, which is not the same thing.) An actual article from the JJ would probably be an appropriate source, but I don't believe they've published one.

(iii) The third article, from StandWithUs, is appropriate for inclusion. Reading their summary of the matter, however, I see that they did not describe the image as anti-Semitic, but as "offensive". I have changed the wording accordingly. I have also added that StandWithUs is a pro-Israel campus advocacy group; I do not believe that this description is in any way contentious, and I trust that it will not be removed.

(iv) I've always believed that Wikipedia editors should write articles in a detached manner, and avoid sensationalism. I do not believe that the phrase, "as though her death at the hands of the Nazis are somehow comparable to the present day plight of the Palestinians" meets this standard.

On a more general level, I'd like to invite GHCool to discuss issues pertaining to this article on the talk page, rather than risk this situation escalating into a full-blown edit war. CJCurrie (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC) revised 03:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC) and 03:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I just changed the wording slightly for NPOV, but otherwise, CJCurrie's edit is fair. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A question on sources

Is anyone aware of credible newspaper sources pertaining to the current events at UC Irvine, aside from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article that we're already using as a source? Unless you count the campus newspaper, I haven't found anything. CJCurrie (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's one, but its a little old. --GHcool (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with sources

I've changed the wording pertaining to Malik Ali. Here are my reasons:

• We only have one source indicating that Malik Ali referenced anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in his recent speech; this is an opinion piece in the UCI student newspaper, written by a third-year English major. As reliable sources go, this doesn't rate very high. If we're going to make serious charges against a (semi-)public figure, I'd prefer to have something more than this.

• The New University's news coverage of Malik Ali's speech does not make any reference to these conspiracy theories. It's possible that the authors consciously left out the most controversial aspects of his speech, but without proof this is only speculation. All things being equal, I'm inclined to give a news piece more journalistic weight than an opinion piece.

I should clarify that I'm familiar with Malik Ali's past outbursts, and that I am emphatically not a supporter or defender of his beliefs. I have kept a reference to the student's criticism in the article; hopefully, others will regard this as fair coverage. CJCurrie (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's another reliable source: Enjoy. --GHcool (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

::I rv'ted. Talk follows here. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC) (wrong place. see below)

Nomination: Worst Page Ever (black star)

Hi, I suggest this article for the label "Worst Wikipedia Page" (black star) ever. Didn't know it could come to this. Would I meet a (improving, reflecting, etc) Wikipedian ever here?-DePiep (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Zionism?

The text says now: The report describes how "tensions and incidents on campus often peak around students' union votes concerning Israel and Zionism, (...). Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism (see There is no word for it yet). So we will delete the statements. -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No anti-Semitism so rm from article

On York University, Toronto: the fine of the two students is described the daily bulletin. It does not mention anti-Semitism at all, so the point does not belong here. Removed. -DePiep (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing sourced material from the article.[3][4][5] Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not doing that. I'm waiting for someone (could be you) to talk here. So the question is: please point out where the claim of anti-Semitsm is (here on Talk, by now), and we can create a consensus article-text. I rv now, we're not supposed to throw edits. -DePiep (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Here are sources describing the York University indecent as anti-Semitic:

1. "York University has reprimanded two students who took part in a mob that barricaded Jewish students in a Hillel lounge while yelling anti-Jewish and anti-Israel slurs" (emphasis added). - Jerusalem Post, May 25, 2009. Note too that the Post categorized this article under "Anti-semitism" [sic] (emphasis added).
2. "Jewish students allegedly were subjected to anti-Semitic slurs and physically intimidated" (emphasis added). - JTA, Feb. 13, 09
3. "Wednesday night was the second time last week that police were called regarding anti-Semitic acts at York University" (emphasis added). - Jerusalem Post, Feb. 15, 2009

All of the above are properly cited in the article.

Your revert here is your 2nd revert of this material. You are advised not to revert again or else you will be reported as violating WP:3RR. --GHcool (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I rv'ted. Talk follows here. -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are both currently in breach of the 3RR rule on the article. If the sources that GHCool has say anti-Jewish or antisemitic abuse was there and it was an event at a uni, I can't see what logic we are applying to keep it out. Saying 'talk' but providing no discourse is hardly fair play DePiep. Of course, the merits of this article are somewhat odd. What makes antisemitism in a university any more notable than antsemitism at the local dog racing track? --Narson ~ Talk • 22:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Narson, The logic (you're missing) is that he did not visit this Talk at all. Just first reverting and editing, and THEN steering up to that editors are "both" up to 3RR. If yo know him too well, please do good works elsewhere. Schjaloom. -DePiep (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Talk follows here was 'I will be posting up the reasons in a moment'. Sorry, I read it as 'start from here'. It appeared rather unresponsive taken from that view. A language snafu. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't get your humor (if there is, I'll never do). I started this talk 29 June 2009!, see top. OK? Then, before the talk by GHcool 21:15, 5 July, GHcool already cycled 3 edits (I rv'd, pointing to this Talk). And then You came here, saveing something/someone. From here go ahead. Counting GHcool from 0. Great idea. -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not making much sense. Please don't misrepresent your actions. You reverted again and again and again and again and again. All before my post here. That is 5. (There was another but it was a successive revert and so not counted). GHcool made the same number of reverts. You also appear to believe I'm part of some group or conspiracy (and keep saying weird things to me, like Schjaloom [Shalom?] and Futzpah). If you have issues with my behaviour, be open and state them or make a complaint. If you have issues with the 3RR, take it up at the 3RR talk page. If you want to play by your own rules, go make your own wiki. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Well, the sources are GREAT. e.g.

re *1. (jerusalempost): Categorised "anti-Semitsm" by the JP itself - wauw, what a source. What does JP know about Toronto?. There was some shouting, sure. So York is anti-Semitic? Please move on.

re *2. (JTA) A pro-Israel JTA writes there was an anti-Israel protest (please read again). The Hillel@York, a Jewish club by and for choice, get comments. Then JTA writes protest against Hillal is anti-Semitic??? One source writing from third hand related sources=no source.

re *3. The source you mention writes: "accusations about York and anti-Semitism were "categorically false""(!).

I conclude: 1st source not serious, 2nd source claiming being against a Jewish club=anti-Semitic (???), the 3rd is even freeing!: Just rumours, one source only, etc: no antisemitism proven. If this is the best proof, then, luckily, there is no anti-Semitism at York-Toronto. Happy all of us.

Just to be clear: accusations of anti-Semitism should be founded very well, or be left away. It's not a free talking. -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand chunks of that. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the phrase "Jewish students allegedly were subjected to anti-Semitic slurs and physically intimidated" found in a report does indeed make it an anti-semetic event, regardless of the fact that an attack could be against the club without necessarily being anti-semitic. Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're 'pretty sure' that a phrase means something. Great. And you picked the best phrase available. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's called sarcasm, I would think you'd be familiar with it. If you can bring in a load of sources saying it definitively wasn't an anti-semetic attack, feel free. If not, back off: Wikipedia works on Verifiability, not truth. Ironholds (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sarcasm is a nice exit for you. And then write I don't get it. I also don't get I (or someone else) should find sources to disapprove something. The sarcasm may be too much for your mind. Anyway, I won't back off. Maybe I might check your sarcasm again. You could use a check. -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please try and avoid personal comments. I'll reiterate - wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. If you can find some decent sources which say the attacks weren't anti-semitic in nature, fine. If you can't, your edits won't be accepted since they violate standard wikipedia protocol. Ironholds (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

re Narson: a pity you don't understand, but in the end GHcool gets his way without Talk here. Feeling great? Flutzpah. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the 'free' you kep referring to is. Free of what? Freeing what? 'by and for choice, get comments'? --Narson ~ Talk • 23:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

DePiep is committing an ad hominem fallacy. His/her arguments take the form of "Sources owned-and-operated by Jews cannot be reliable because Jews are always liars. Therefore, the sources above are invalid and the verbal and physical abuse against Jews at York University wasn't anti-Semitic." I would suggest that DePiep abandon this line of argument. --GHcool (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly that view has been aired on wikipedia before (And sadly by some very established wikipedians), but might it not be better to allow DePiep to explain himself? If he holds that view, then it is a view he is entitled to (though obviously wider consensus would overrule him). One never knows, with the English as a Secondary Language issues, there is a certain level of confusion and crossed wires that will occur. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a view DePiep is entitled to. One can have one's own opinion, but one cannot have one's own facts. DePiep is entitled to be a bigot, but he/she is not entitled to say that sources owned by Jews must be false. --GHcool (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that I don't plan on engaging in judging or telling him what he should think, were that the case. Simply that wider consensus deems such sources realiable and does not apportion reliability on ethnic grounds. DePiep is able to argue for himself though. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edit Warring

Universities_and_antisemitism#United_Kingdom

The section listed above begins as follows:

In the UK, the "Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism" reported that the far-right British National Party says it is active on 15 British campuses.

So I added the following:

The relevance of this fact is dubious, however, considering how the British National Party has Jewish members, and even an elected Jewish Councillor in the Essex town of Epping.[16]

Reference #16 takes one to an article (one of many I could have cited; I specifically chose the source that I did, due to the nature of this article) from The Jewish Chronicle, which notes the fact that the BNP has an elected Councillor (Patricia Richardson) in Epping who is Jewish. Wikipedia's own article on the British National Party notes the fact that the BNP explicitly advertises the fact they have Jewish members, and an elected Jewish public official (a fact also referenced in the Jewish Chronicle article). While the BNP certainly does have an anti-Semitic history in previous decades, under the leadership of Nick Griffin there has been a tremendous effort to move the party away from that stance. Of course, just as in any far-right, European political party, there are some individually anti-Semitic members of the BNP, it is also very true that such people have been strongly discouraged in their efforts to promote such ideas, and a great many are known to have left in order to join parties more amenable to their belief systems, such as the British National Front, and the British People's Party. Furthmore, the BNP has taken an explicitly pro-Zionist line with respect to foreign policy, with party chairman Nick Griffin, MEP even going so far so to issue a statement in support of Israel's actions in the Gaza War of last December & January (this fact is also noted in the Jewish Chronicle article which I cited).

The bottom line is, the article was overtly stating that BNP campus organizing constituted an anti-Semitic phenomenon within British society. My edit doesn't even claim that statement is false; it merely points out that in light of the totality of the facts, its not clear that such is the most accurate & useful way to portray BNP on-campus organizing. And it clearly isn't. My edit makes the paragraph of which it is a part more NPOV than was previously the case. And it is sourced. And it reflects what our own article says about the BNP. It is a solid edit, and it should not be be reverted a third time. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a reverted a third time, while I wrote the above remarks. I will wait to hear back from those who disagree with my edit before I re-submit my edit to the article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is poorly sourced (The only mention I could find in that article was that the BNP was trying to abandon its antisemetism). To get from 'They have a Jewish councillor' to 'They are not antisemetic' requires synthesis, and synthesis that is ignorant of history. Almost every source I find about the BNP trying to abandon antisemitism seems to have large blocks of text of them being condemned by Jewish groups. If an edit of the nature is to go in then it should simply state that the BNP has been trying to abandon antisemitism.

You say you arn't directly going against the other statemet, yet your edit calls it dubious (I don't see any source saying that it is dubious, just your synthesis from the source). --Narson ~ Talk • 11:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (EC)

Very well; I shall find a more neutral-sounding way to word it. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For now, I've removed the entire sentence on the BNP. The source states that the youth wing of the BNP, the Young BNP, is active on 15 campuses across the UK, but it makes no mention of antisemitism. Presumably the only thing connecting the Young BNP to antisemitism on college campuses is its relationship with the BNP. If there's a source that says the Young BNP or the BNP has disseminated antisemitic material on college campuses or engaged in antisemitic behavior, feel free to add it back into the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording from "dubious" to "unclear," and added three more evidentiary citations (for a total of four; two citations for the purpose of indicating that the BNP has Jewish members, and two for the purposes of indicating the BNP has a Jewish elected public official, although I believe that technically, all four citations made the latter point). This has been swiftly reverted by User:Nishkid64, and in such a manner that the BNP is not mentioned at all in the section. I do not object to the BNP's not being mentioned in the section, but I suspect others will. In the event Nishkid64's revert is itself reverted, I believe the article should be reverted to my most recent edit. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I still fail to see why the BNP having a Jewish councillor is relevent, that they might say it proves they arn't antisemetic is a relevent claim, but that they have Jewish members by itself proves nothing without synthesis on our behalf. I have no real problem with the BNP reference being removed. The BNP Youth are anti-anti-antisemetic (in that they attack groups like Searchlight) but being agaist those who are against antisemitism is not really proof of much, we would require citations. I've never heard anything antisemetic from them at least so yes, I would agree. That they are in a report about antisemetism implies much, but we need overt statements. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted Kevin's edits for the same reason Nishkid has given - to make up arguments yourself is synthesis. We can say X and Y, if we have sources for X and Y, but we cannot say X equals Y, or is opposed to Y, or is dubious because of Y, unless the sources support such a comment. I support the removal of both halves. Ironholds (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Recentism tag

I've added the {{Recentism}} tag since antisemitism at universities has a long and deplorable history, involving far more severe events than discussed here. Most such events happened decades ago, although the kind of intra-student-body antisemitic events described here also happened in the early 1990s when I was an undergrad, although usually with no connection to Palestine solidarity activism. A very short list would include:

• Summary exclusion of Jews from faculties and student bodies
• Maximum quotas for Jews at major universities
• Anti-Jewish or exclusive-of-Jews societies (fraternities, secret societies, etc.)
• Universities as places to research "scientific" antisemitism (and, if I'm not mistaken to gestate the "language stock" theory that transformed anti-Jewish religious sentiment into racial antisemitism)
• Expulsion of Jewish scholars from Axis country universities (and the subsequent impact of those scholars on the American academy)

And that's just a short list with a US and Europe focus.--Carwil (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Those topics are indeed interesting and worth covering properly in the encyclopedia. Can I ask that if you have good sources to cover them, could you add the information in the first instance to History of antisemitism (briefly). Itsmejudith (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"How about this"

Well, User:CJCurrie, I undid your deletion (with es: "What about this?"), and you undid it again. That is edit warring, and I let you go away with that for now. But to be clear, and inviting you to improve this Wiki project: I do not know what history there is with this quote here on WP. I do not need to know. I only saw the edited text and your es. So I say: that quote (you may repeat and repost it 10 times), is not encyclopedic. Also, you did not start a talk -- I did here. And clearly you only keep reverting (you even say you do so: "An anon deleted the previous wording (more than once) for unknown reasons".). -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the hostile tone that has crept into what amounts to a fairly minor dispute.

Here's what has happened: an IP has deleted one section of this article a number of times over a period of several years. I do not know the IP's motivation for doing this. One possibility is that the IP objects to the naming of the SPHR leader (SPHR being a relatively small organization) as undue and unwanted publicity. I've attempted to deal with this possibility by removing the person's name while retaining the basic information -- hence the "How about this?" edit summary.

The IP and I have not been involved in an "edit war" by any reasonable definition (a small number of deletions and reversions have taken place over a period of several years, and the IP has never given an explanation for removing sourced information). Btw, I think this editing history is quite relevant to understanding what has transpired here.

You have said that the material is not encyclopedic. Up until now, no other editor visiting this page has made that assessment. I disagree with the assessment, and I don't understand your rationale for making it: the text in question is sourced, is relevant to the subject matter, and has been in the article for several years. If you wish to clarify your objection, please do -- but you may wish to seek consensus before removing the information entirely.

And please assume good faith. I've never had any hostile dealings with you in the past, and I hope we can avoid hostility here. CJCurrie (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You 2nd reverted an edit without starting a talk (remember I started this talk). So did you revert that last edit, or are you editwarring and talking? -DePiep (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

When I reverted your edit, I explained my actions in the edit summary. I stand by what I said at that time. I suppose I could have taken the matter to talk, but I didn't really regard the matter as serious enough to be an "edit war" situation. I'll ask again if you wish to clarify your objection to the disputed text. CJCurrie (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd revert instead of starting a Talk is edit warring, irrespective of your thoughts about that. Even more so when there were earlier reverts, as you stated. Also, the way to proceed is that first you revert your own 2nd edit, and then you discuss with arguments. -DePiep (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"victimized by a racial slur"

Really? 67.1.189.102 (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I reworded it. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to add settings for an archive bot to work

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Universities and antisemitism/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

This might clear out dead discussions and improve accessibility.

Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained a no where near excessive 77 KB Gregkaye (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Outdated

It looks like this page hasn't seen any real updating since 2009. There's been many more events since then if I remember correctly. I going to tag the article and things can be discussed here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Adar 5775

The article looks like OR from the title onwards. -DePiep (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, DePiep, there needs to be some updating, citing, expansion, and general clean-up, that's all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Adar 5775 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not object to updating. I state that this article is OR. -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's better if you point out specific examples of problem spots. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 23:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Recentism (which could coexist with "outdated" in this unusual case)

I'm writing to support the Recentism tag, which directs editors to fill in the historical coverage on this page. We have a section "20th century" with limited geographic coverage that barely scratches the surface of university involvement in antisemitism prior to the 1960s. Systematic coverage of quotas on Jews, academic buttressing of antisemitic racial theories, purges of Jewish academics, etc. deserve space here. The United States, Germany, France, and the Soviet Union are glaring by their absence from coverage in this section.

While I'm skeptical about some "new antisemitism" claims, there are definitely both incidents of antisemitism on campus and new claims that pro-Palestinian scholarship and activism constitute antisemitism (something that is both notable and rejected by many RSs) since 2010. I have no opinion on whether an update tag is needed for these things, but it doesn't actually contradict a recentism tag.--Carwil (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. The article is not neutral, and tends to present a viewpoint, one that was prominent in political discourse of the end of the last decade. I just found that the report of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism is wrongly summarised to say something different from what it actually says. Our article says that University College London invited speakers from Hizb-ut-Tahrir. The report says that the speakers were invited onto the campus, but it is clear from the context that it was not the university that invited them, nor even the Students Union, but a group of students. I will correct that passage now. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Universities and antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100507161712/http://www.ottawacitizen.com:80/Machete+used+attackers+students/2766537/story.html to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Machete+used+attackers+students/2766537/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Haphazard lists of antisemitic incidents

Haphazard lists of recent incidents are not appropriate for Wikipedia as discussed at [6]. I am going ahead and removing these incidents. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure this article should exist

I'm not sure this article should exist--that it presents enough of a different/more specialized information than other articles on anti-semitism. It would seem to make more sense to simply move this material over to other antisemitism pages where it would be easier to maintain. Not marking this for deletion yet, but the article looks to be a mess which would be easier to maintain on other pages. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)