Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Cat antisemitism

Hi User:IronDuke,

It has to be un-controversial. See the very lengthy discussion here. If you're not sure, check the policy here. Because it is controverisal to associate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, it's best to leave the category out. Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Uncle Bungle, thanks for the link. I think it would be more a propos if we were discussing whether a specific individual were an antisemite, and whether to put him in the category of AS people, or whether to put Anti-Zionists in such a category. But we're not doing that. Anti-semitism is virtually always controversial. But what isn't controversial is whether notable people have linked it to AZ (or the AZ folks themselves have). That's not something we can disgaree about, or is a matter of POV. It's just true. IronDuke 20:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is almost always controversial, I agree, but this article has to do with political zionism more than racism. I've got no doubt that someone researching anti-Semitism will find their way here via "new anti-Semitism". I understand that notable people have associated AZ with AS, but thats a controversial association (which the article asserts), and WP:CAT is clear. With these points in mind, I think it would be better to have the category removed. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 20:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that the association can at times be controverial. That's not at issue here. But do you think there's any doubt about the fact that the subject of AS is raised in the article? IronDuke 20:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has an entire section dedicated to it, therefore it belongs to the Cat. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article has an entire section dedicated to it, however, the association between AZ and AS is rather contested. Should anti-Zionism be categorized as anti-Semitism, I have to say, no. Per WP:CAT, unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. We're talking about the article (and related idea) as a whole, not the section, so no, it does not belong to the Cat. --Uncle Bungle 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how it works. By putting an article in a cat, we are not equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. It is uncontroversial that AZ is a part of the discussion on AS. Other examples of articles in that cat are Anti-Semite and Jew, Anti-Defamation League and Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does Anti-Isreali redirect to this page that pretty much states that if you have legimate concerns with the way the state of Isreal conducts itself you are an anti-semitic racist. Either seperate Anti-Isreal and Anti-Zionism or make this page less biased, btw oh so many statements on this page need citations, just worried that if one spent the time to do it it will just be erased, as much constructive criticism on any page that has anything to do with the Jewish ethnicity, Judaism, or Isreal is (perhaps this page would also be better if the distinction between the three were made).

opposition to one of the opinions above

This is an opposition to the MR./Mrs. opinion sited in one of the sections above. There is a huge difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. If you wanna go back in history you can find find that the word semitic refers either to Jews/Arabs, thus Arabs cannot be anti-semitic, but most of them are anti-zoinist.

Second, when someone is anti-semitic he is against all the jews (and also Arabs consequently), but when someone believes in anti-zionism then he/she is agains jews who went to palestine and agree that Israel is a country that should be built by force. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A J Damen (talk • contribs) 18:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I'd consider that to be only half true. Yes, an anti-zionist is opposed to Israel in its current form, and not necessarily anti-semetic, but I would argue that anti-semetism relates only to world Jewry regardless of whatever quasi-relavent link there might be to Arabs. A similar cultural/linguistic bond exists between the English and the French. Is anglophobia applicable to Frenchmen? -- User:Wozocoxonoy 13:30 GMT 31/01/07

Rights verses claims in the first sentence.

I saw a number of edit reverts so wanted to try the idea that "rights" are defined somewhere else (and thus should be stated as to where this right is derived from) whereas you can make your own "claims" without need of any {{fact}}s. For the intro it needs to be snappy and short so also removed the (bracketed bit) about Palestine as it'll only gather revert edits. Ttiotsw 00:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A good change, much better than the hack job I did ;) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 12:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Related to the point made above: the article explains anti-Zionism as something that is motivated by Arab discontent, either practical or ideological, and anti-Semitism. I think that there should be a section which explains opposition to Zionism on the plain logical basis that it is a claim only, and, whether framed in terms of a 'claim' or 'right', the reasons given for that putative claim/right really are (to betray my own opinion on the matter) lacking to the point of absurdity considering that the claim/right is one as substantial as to a homeland or State.

neologism

Without a clear definition of what 'anti-Zionism' is, there is always going to be a great deal of contention as to what content is acceptable for inclusion. There isn't a single reference which addresses the specific phenomenon of 'anti-Zionism'. The article cites a number of references to different individuals and organizations, with writings on Zionism, Israel, and opposition to both for various reasons as perceived by the author. The sources are, though generally reliable, often politically motivated on one side or the other.

This collection of opinion amounts to original research, with topics and quotes collected from a wide range of sources. The sources have all been selected to back or refute a particular point of view. For example, "Types of anti-Zionism", near the introduction, describes what is qualified for inclusion in the rest of the article. There are four "types" mentioned in this section, and many more introduced throughout the article (Jewish anti-Zionism, Soviet anti-Zionism, etc). Who has decided these are the types of anti-Zionism? Thomas Barnett alludes to one (without explicitly stating what is written for the article), and the others are completely unsourced.

I have been involved with this article off and on for almost two years. It is in desperate need of a cleanup. I do not know how this can be accomplished without a clear indication of what the article is about.

If there is a single scholarly work on anti-Zionism is a specific phenomenon, someone please let me know.

Thank you and regards, --Uncle Bungle 05:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request, based on the same sentiments. Looking on Google and Dictionary.com, I can't find a single definition of anti-Zionism other than here and on a geocities website of a clearly very pro-Zionism group. From my little looking into this article, it seems that it is basically simply a discussion of opposition to Zionism, which has been labeled "anti-Zionism." As far as anti-Zionism as an established and recognized movement of its own, I can't seem to find it.

If that's the case, we could still have an article, but it seems it should be clear about what it is: a neologism for opposition to Zionism. Then we could explain the various forms of opposition to Zionism, noting that some opposition takes extremist forms, in addition to whatever else is relevant. I would generally say the article should not pretend anti-Zionism is an established movement then, however, but simply discuss it as opposition to Zionism, in the various counties, shapes and forms. Mackan79 21:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Having given it a little thought, my feeling is that the article should probably be rewritten as an article on opposition to Zionism, not an article on the term anti-Zionism. This is based on a few things 1. From Google searching, the far and away primary usage of the term seems to be to criticize anti-Zionism, and to paint it as anti-semitic. 2. I believe most opposition to Zionism has a rather more specific basis than "anti-Zionism." Labeling all opposition to Zionism as "anti-Zionism" misses the point that it may be pro-something else. 3. While anti-Zionism as such may exist, I'm not sure it justifies an article by itself. If it does, it would probably be a short one.

I'm not sure that means changing the article's title, but I think the substance should refrain from pretending that anti-Zionist is an accepted phrase by people who object to Zionism in one form or another. That would mean describing opposition to Zionism more and anti-Zionism less. Other thoughts? Are there other articles on more specific objections to a Jewish state? Mackan79 14:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Israel redirects here. I think this article should have the title changed to "opposition to Zionism" and focus specifically on opposition to politicial zionism, not the state of Israel. After more than a centurty of active political Zionism, someone must have surely written and published a comprehensive work on opposition to Zionism which can be used for a foundation. --Uncle Bungle 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps opening the article up for a request for comment would help generate some input from other contributors. Comments? --Uncle Bungle 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Passer-by reverts edits

Perhaps Random Passer-by could explain why he saw fit to remove my edits. Yehoishophot Oliver 00:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and you'll probably understand better. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. I wasn't advocating, I was simply developing the explanation of the reasons for the opposition to bi-nationalism. Yehoishophot Oliver 06:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I understand. Not quite being a Zionist myself, I support Oliver. --Chussid 06:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. King never said it

The alleged statement by Martin Luther King Jr., "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism," has never been accurately sourced. In fact, it is hotly disputed whether Dr. King visited Harvard anytime in 1968, the year in which his speech was supposedly given. See [1]. Please remove the reference to this statement, or provide a verifiable source for it. 190.30.70.57 05:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to point out to you that electronicintifada.net is an extemist website. It has a clear anti-zionist bias in its purpose, per the title page, and refuses to see the other side. Anyone can post anything on the internet. That does not make it true. I would not trust this website as reliable. Until we get a reliable source, the quote stays.--Sefringle 08:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you have that completely backwards. Until we get a WP:RS, the quote needs to go. We can discard all of the rhetorical crap in the electronicintifada article; but the factual issues remain - the sourcing for the quote is extremely shaky, and there's no evidence he was in Boston or Cambridge during the period in question, which is pretty well documented. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was we have a reliable source for the quote, and unless that source is proven unreliable, the quote should stay.--Sefringle 20:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what King said or did not say but the bigger issue here is this:

• Do we need a WP:RS source to tell us that when people critisize "Zionists" or ""Zionist regimn" or "Zionism" they mean the homeland (or the right to a home land) of the Jewish people ?
• Has any one of you <b? ever spoken with Arab speaker about Israelis or zionists ? they use one name for all : "Yahoud" (in Arabic - a jew). so even if King did not say it the issue need be clear on the article anti-Zionism - is in many cases - anti-semitism. maybe we should have a section titled "When anti-zionism is not antisemitism ?" I can write this section. Zeq 15:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That might be a bigger issue, but that's not what we're trying to straighten out here; the question of the authenticity of that quote is a serious one. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to clarify something, and that is the difference between anti-zionism and criticism of Israel. Anti-zionism is opposition to the existance of Israel. Critizing Israel can occur without being anti-zionist, meaning without wanting to wipe Israel off the map. If you want Israel wiped off the map, which is the definition of anti-zionism, that is a clear antisemitic belief in my opinion.--Sefringle 02:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The source is “The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel” by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24. As for the Electronic Intifada link, the author doesn't state that that specific quote is actually false, he just questions it based on some statement in the Harvard Crimson and other dark mutterings and speculation; most of his article is about other authors, other actual fake quotes, and a polemic about Israel since King's time. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Seymour Lipset was an ardent Israel supporter and his claims are unverifiable, since they were conveniently made after King had passed away. A source does not suffice; it must be a verifiable source (which is what I asked for in the first place), and the Electronic Intifada article provides enough elements (e.g. the lack of a single 1968 reference to King's alleged speech at Harvard that year) to cast doubt on the whole story of his equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism. Surely the Harvard Crimson would have reported on a speech by Dr. King? If it did, surely some pro-Zionist site would have come up with a scanned version of the relevant Crimson article, in rebuttal of the Electronic Intifada site? This is not a matter of "anyone writing anything on the Internet"; it's a matter of a website doubting that Dr. King spoke at Harvard in 1968 and of no-one being able to prove that he did. --200.117.49.56 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

California State Senator John Lewis personally knew Martin Luther King Jr. He also makes a similar claim here. Here is another reliable source for the quote. Or is he bias and unreliable too?--Sefringle 03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well...Lewis (he's a Georgia state senator, incidentally) doesn't say he actually heard King say that. He very well could be drawing it from the same source.(Anyone here from Georgia? His website basically doesn't allow anyone not from GA to email him; I was thinking of just asking.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. In that case the wikipedia John Lewis article is faulty and presents false information. We might want to change that.--Sefringle 05:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my own brain fart there. He's a Georgia congressman. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Congressman Lewis' quotation of King is nearly identical to Lipset's and has the same problem as the latter: it makes mention of a Harvard speech by King that is not documented anywhere else. The King quote should go because (a) it comes from partisan sources, and (b) a reasonable, well-grounded doubt has been cast on it.200.43.26.153 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well grounded? I don't call doubt based on extremist websites like electronicintifada.net to be well grounded doubt, especially since they never explicitly say it is fake. Instead they mainly focus on how Dr. King isn't a reliable source. And Congressman Lewis' quotation is not the same, because he is very different. Lewis would have had the opportunity to varify whether or not Dr. King actually said it.--Sefringle 01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that EI is extremist is your POV. Moreover, as I'm becoming tired of repeating, they raise the point that no other source exists confirming King's alleged speech at Harvard. Harvard has a newspaper and it didn't report on King's speech -- very curious, since King was a celebrity by then. Even if you consider EI to be extremist, this is a fact. Nobody has come up with DIRECT evidence of King's speech. It's all hearsay from people with an axe to grind. All we rely on is an Anti-Defamation League booklet, and Lewis' probable quoting thereof.200.117.181.207 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, dispite the fact that it is wrong. see here[2]. MLK made a speech at harvard. EI is extremist because it specificly says on their home page "The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at electronicIntifada.net, publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective. "[3] From that there, we can assume that they won't publish the zionist perspective, or provide a balanced, accurate report on Israel or zionism. Instead they will attempt to invalidate their arguements. From what I have read of their articles, this seems to be the case. I doubt John Lewis has something to prove by supporting zionism, and he did know MLK personally, so he would have been able to varify that this was MLK's view. --Sefringle 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you found the only thing that matters, as far as I'm concerned: proof that King was a Harvard in the spring of '68. I withdraw all my reservations about including the quote. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• so king was invited to harvard in '68 to speak about the vietnam war of all things [4]. this doesn't look too promising... what we need is a transcript of the speech, or some other corroboration, given that the authenticity of the quote is disputed. (personal communications generally aren't acceptable.) ⇒ bsnowball  09:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Above you said that you don't think King was at harvard in 68. Now he was there (and we have a reference to his statement, while at Harvard in 68, that anti-zionism is anti-semitism), and you say that it isn't enough. Even the original source was enough. Now it has been corroborated. --Meshulam 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lewis wrote: "During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, 'When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.'" The topic of his speech may have been Vietnam, but if King was answering a question then the topic of his speech is irrelevant. HKT^Talk 04:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• sefringle, that's a bit of a leap from 'palestinian perspective' to 'extremism', where is your actual evidence? you appear to claim that any perspective differing from your own, on this particular issue, is extremism. ⇒ bsnowball  09:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "electronic intifada" sounds pretty extreme. It isn't merely "the palestinian viewpoint."--Meshulam 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• finally, so what if king believed anti-semitism & criticism of zionism or israel are the same thing? logically this conflation is false, and factually it is not true of all such critics. at the very least we owe it to his memory to work out if he was misinformed/biased enough to fall for this. then if he was we have to wonder if it's relevant, as its only dodging a question by accusing the speaker of racism.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to give information, not to judge formal logic and objective Truth. According to Dr. King, anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. That's fairly relevant to an article about anti-zionism. --Meshulam 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

what? of course we need to check whether what we put in the articles makes sense & is actually related to the subject. as pointed out the mlk quote does neither as it's uninformed opinion used to avoid a question, it does not convey any information about the subject, only about king (if it's correct, sorry but i'll leave that argument as it's only a distraction). also, meshulam, please stop lying about sock ("Above you said...") it doesn't advance the discussion, & its effectively an admission that you don't have an argument.  ⇒ bsnowball  07:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by sock, but everything I said after the statement "above you said" is true: At first, you were convinced that the speech never happened. Now we know it happened, and you'resaying "well, that doesn't prove that he said this line." Except that it has been reported that he said the anti-zionism comment in reputable journals, and only now on some extremist website is there anything that says otherwise. So I view those contentions as irrelevant. What's left? Having lost the debate about reliable sources, you now say that the statement is irrelevant. That's not true. Dr. King is an important figure in American history. What people remember about him is his dedication to civil rights and equality. And when confronted by someone about Zionism, he told that person that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Its entirely germaine (on point in every way). And it isn't to us to apply formal logic rules to a statement in order to exclude it on the grounds that (according to you) it doesn't make sense. King thought it made sense, apparently. It goes in. --Meshulam 14:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Chabad-Lubavitch Anti-Zionism

I removed Chabad-Lubavitch from the list of currently Anti-Zionist Hasidic groups, as this is patently false and contradicts other articles on Wikipedia (Haredim and Zionism, for example). It's true that the Lubavitchers were originally Anti-Zionist, but they have been enthusiastic supporters of Israel since 1948. Zionism has been a focal point for tension between Hasidic groups, especially the virulently anti-Zionist Satmarers and the pro-Israel Lubavitchers, so listing them together is a fairly significant error. Here is Chabad's official position on Israel, and a quick Google search on the subject will yield thousands of results listing the various programs and aid efforts the Lubavitchers run in and for Israel. -- JennyGCoon 21:42, 31 December 2006

The person who added it is an extreme-right wing Lubavitcher with great Kach-like sympathies, making it even weirder. I have to ask him why he added it. I just don't understand Lubavitch and Zionism. By the way, note that their pro-Israel stance to the outside world is just for the purpose of kiruv. The Rebbe zt"l was quite strongly opposed to especially religious Zionism. He was just concerned for the safety of the Jews in Eretz Yisroel. If there had been no danger from the Arabs, he would probably have supported dismantling the entire state. According to Lubavitch, the state is the least bad thing we can have right now, so we have to maintain it. A view that definitely has merit. But to portray them as being Zionists? Not quite. Ask any (serious) Lubavitcher whether he is a Zionist and he will tell you you are insulting him. --Chussid 15:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense.

1. Chabad is not pro-Zionism, it's anti-Zionism, Zionism being defined as the belief that Jews ought to set up a secular state during the time of exile. This can be backed up by numerous statements of the Rebbe Rashab, the Previous Rebbe, and the Rebbe.

2. Nowhere in the link Jenny provides is this contradicted. It doesn't speak about the insitution of the state or the government there at all. It simply speaks of how Chabad runs programs for the benefit of the Jews living in Israel, not for the benefit of the state. There's no comparison.

3. What Chussid writes: "Ask any (serious) Lubavitcher whether he is a Zionist and he will tell you you are insulting him" is accurate. I have returned Chabad to the list. Yehoishophot Oliver 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I've removed links to the most obviously non-reliable sources. Personal propaganda sites apparently run by a Private Mail Box in Brooklyn do not meet Wikipedia standards. Please bring reliable sources that back up these claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats the difference between Jews Against Zionism and the Jewish Virtual Library, or one of a score of other partisan internet sites whose authors are unknown but pushed as a WP:RS? --Uncle Bungle 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization. It has a public Board of Directors. The authors of its articles are known, as is its executive director, Mitchell Bard. Who publishes "Jews Against Zionism"? What is known about that "organization", aside from the address of its Post Office Box? In what verifiable way does it differ from millions of other personal websites? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why do you bring up the Jewish Virtual Library here? I don't see it quoted anywhere in this article; or have I missed a reference? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I only mentioned the JVL as an example of the myriad of random websites cited as sources and viciously defended. It is not cited in this article. There are JVL entries without sources, but the problem is not limited to the JVL, which was merely cited as an example. --Uncle Bungle 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, ok. Well, the obvious differences between JVL and "a myriad of random websites cited as sources" has been explained to you now. Also, please remember that Talk: pages are for the discussion of specific article content, not therapy sessions where one beefs about whatever happens to be bothering them on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Want to chop the whole thing and let your original question ride? It's fine by me if it's fine by you. --Uncle Bungle 04:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No need; I've discovered the original Talk: page on which you started going off about this. I'll comment there. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted, twice by now. If you delete this as 'unreliable sources', please be objective and delete the others as well. If you delete this website again claiming that it is an 'unreliable source', I am going to do exactly the same with pro-Zionist sources such as truepeace.org and standwithus.com. By the way, it says at the bottom of every page on jewsagainstzionism.com that the address is Wilson Street 183 in Brooklyn. --Chussid 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've explained why jewsagainstzionism does not qualify as a reliable source; your argument seems to be "but other sourcespare unreliable too", which is not good enough. Jewsagainstzionism is a personal propaganda sites apparently run by a Private Mail Box in Brooklyn, and as such does not meet Wikipedia standards. Please find reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That website fail WP:RS and should not be used in this article. It may be used only in an article about itself, that is, if it warrants an article in WP, which I doubt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, now User:Yehoishophot Oliver has restored the paragraph, unsourced, with the claim that "these groups' opposition to zionism can be confirmed in their respective articles." Not only do Wikipedia articles not count as reliable sources, but in any event most of the articles in question don't even mention the various groups position on Zionism. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the article that we should source some lone anonymous website like Jewsagainstzionism, on the grounds that we would source a reliable website like JVL, which is not referenced in this article anyway; and I'm definitely skeptical of the logic that if Jewsagainstzionism is not accepted then "I am going to do exactly the same with pro-Zionist sources". Gzuckier 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Equating Anti-Zionism to antisemitism not scientific

The whole section on the correlation between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism requires major rewriting -- if not complete deletion.

When Kaplan and Small find "an almost perfect correlation between anti-Zionist attitudes and frank anti-Semitism" they're concluding that both phenomena usually go hand-in-hand -- NOT that they're the same thing. (To understand this, think that you can also find an almost perfect correlation between crashing your car into a tree and driving drunk -- and they're not the same thing.)

Counterexamples of the equation anti-Zionism = antisemitism abound, but I don't see them cited here. No mention whatsoever is made of such well-known personalities as Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, who can be accused of being anti-Zionist zealots, lefty loonies, etc., but NOT antisemites.

The heading "When anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism" should be removed because it gives the impression that Wikipedia agrees with the ideas ascribed to "some" in the paragraph below it. Alternately, it could be reworded to "When anti-Zionism, according to some, is not anti-semitism", but I think we all agree that it would be an awkward heading, so let's better remove it.

Also, the contents of such paragraph is highly debatable: "Some say that when critism against Israeli policies or the occupation of the Palestinian territories does not cross the line to object to Israel's right to exist it should not be regarded as anti-Semitism." This is a non-scientific claim. The definition of antisemitism used must be coherent with that given by Wikipedia: "Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution."

"Crossing the line" and denying Israel's right to exist does not automatically mean being hostile or prejudiced against Jews as a group, any more than denying Scotland's right to be an independent country automatically means being hostile or prejudiced against Scotspeople. Please see [5] to get a very clear example of someone who is totally opposed to Israel's very existence, yet is fully compassionate about the tragedy of the Holocaust, clears Israel of the odious Nazi analogies and is himself a Jew.

Wikipedia is about information, not about making points. It is a pity that this article uncritically presents viewpoints, such as the equating of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, without a hint of supporting evidence; or that it instructs its readers about when to consider someone an antisemite. Please rewrite this section to meet elementary scientific criteria, or delete it altogether.200.82.50.232 04:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I Agree with the statements above. The section is definitely a problem the way it is now. Feer 01:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it unscientific, it's downright offensive. As a queer, politically liberal feminist Jew who does not consider herself a Zionist, I am EXTREMELY offended that I would be called an anti-semite. Dylan Slade 15:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling it unscientific is WP:OR. Formal logic (logical though it may seem) cannot overturn proper sources under WP:RS. That having been said, the fact that you are "queer" and "politically liberal" and a "feminist" and even a "Jew" who "does not consider herself a Zionist" is irrelevant to this issue entirely. --Meshulam 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Guess it was innapropriate of me to give my $.02 in this situation. Sorry, I get carried away sometimes. Dylan Slade 01:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

'unscientific'? meshulam these are silly word games. the 'scientific' source (k & s) is fine, the problem is that muir lies about their report with the claim about an 'almost perfect correlation', furthermore this lie is contradicted by what we quote from k & s. meshulam, you really do need to learn something about elementary logic, or maybe you are deliberately wasting time? sorry i can't work out which i should assume in order to assume good faith.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All of your insults notwithstanding, you appear to have missed my point. I did not say what is scientific or not. I said that our job on wikipedia was not to judge how scientific something is, but rather to report it. The fact that such a study took place, the findings (including statistics, etc.) and the conclusions reached by the "scientists" who made the study should be reported. If someone has refuted any of the claims that muir (or anyone else) made, and if his findings comply with WP:RS, then by all means that should be reported too. As it is, I could care less what the conclusion is. My position from the beginning was merely to comply with Wikipedia policy. (On a side note, I know that some of the neturei karta pages have been held not to comply with WP:RS, something that I understand but do not agree with. However, the sites have been deemed fit for use when presenting what the faction of NK represented on the specific site believes. NK has done a good job of rebutting the claim that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism, and I'm shocked that nobody has brought them in yet, on this issue). --Meshulam 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

kaplan & small is the scientific paper, we quote that, it doesn't establish any correlation. muir offers a tendentious interpretation of that paper, specifically her claim k & s "found an almost perfect correlation between anti-Zionist attitudes and frank anti-Semitism" is total bullshit. you can check this by reading the k & s paper. my point is muir should not be there because she lies about the k & s paper. this is why i think it should be removed. real simple stuff.  ⇒ bsnowball  17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Kaplan & Small study

I've added a comment on the Kaplan and Small paper which concludes that most anti-zionists are also antisemites. These two authors DO NOT conclude that anti-Zionism is itself antisemitic and their study does not aim at resolving this issue; and they say so clearly and explicitly. I've quoted the relevant sentences from their article.--200.117.33.225 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Please discuss this on the Talk:Zionism and anti-Zionism (resources) article.--Sefringle 06:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? It is shared between several articles, some quite long. There is a room for improvement and expansion, though. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The article looks like an ending of another article. It does not look like an article, and only provides links and resources. Usuaully this is found at the end of an article, and that is where it belongs.--Sefringle 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

See Holocaust (resources), Antisemitism (resources). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Almost perfect correlation" not so perfect

The claim "They [i.e. Kaplan & Small] found an almost perfect correlation between anti-Zionist attitudes and frank anti-Semitism" should be deleted. It is literally quoted from the highly partisan Diana Muir article (reference 19) and it is not accurate.

I've taken the trouble to go over K&S's study and nowhere do they find an "almost perfect correlation". In fact, what they state is:

It is noteworthy that fewer than one-quarter of those with anti-Israel index scores of only 1 or 2 harbor anti-Semitic views (as defined by anti-Semitic index scores exceeding 5), which supports the contention that one certainly can be critical of Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. However, among those with the most extreme anti-Israel sentiments in our survey (anti-Israel index scores of 4), 56% report anti-Semitic leanings.

In other words, more than 75% of moderate critics of Israel are not antisemitic, and even among the most radical detractors of the country, fully 44% don't harbor antisemitic sentiments. That doesn't qualify as the "almost perfect correlation" that Muir (but not Kaplan and Small) finds.

I still believe the section on anti-Zionism and antisemitism should be completely rewritten or deleted altogether. To begin with, and if nobody objects, I'll delete the sentences which have been picked up from Diana Muir's inaccurate article. 200.82.66.34 00:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

npov, well now that you mention it...

i believe it's customary to explain an npov tag somewhere here... but since you mention npov, just above the disputed paragraph, surely everything from "They argue either that the Holocaust represented excessive persecution" to the end of the section can go? this is the article on anti-zionism, and the section describes/states the views of religious anti-zionists. the views of 'religious zionists', lehavdil, go in the relevant article, wherever that is. at most a see also might be appropriate, maybe.

on j n z perhaps it would help if the n y t cite were sourced directly to the paper. but more generally, no-one is claiming j n z is non-partisan, but why should it not be used as a source on satmarer & other anti-zionist pronouncements on zionism. is there r s for their inventing such quotes?  ⇒ bsnowball  14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's JAZ, not JNZ. JNZ is an NK website. JAZ was founded by the Satmar Rov - see my latest addition to the section. But I also don't see the point. I also don't understand Jayg and Humus' pushing for 'WP:RS' because it would be a 'mailbox'. As I have pointed out before, at the bottom of every page it says that they are located at Wilson Street 183 in Brooklyn, NYC. Is that a PO Box? Does not seem like it to me. I can't go there to check, since I am B"H in Yerushalaim Ir HaKodesh. But if Jay and/or Humus, both of whom live in the USA, are so eager to denounce JAZ for being an anonymous PO Box organization, I wonder whether they have visited Wilson Street 183 and concluded that it houses a post office? Or are they perhaps simply lying? --Chussid 15:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(a) Suggesting other editors are liars is a personal attack; please desist. (b) You're wrong and they are right. The address is listed as 183 Wilson Street, PMB 162. PMB means private mailbox -- in other words, a private post office box. Other addressees at 183 Wilson St. include "Babyhues" at PMB 112; "Keep In Touch Inc"; and "Digital Medical Billing" at PMB 111. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter already, we have a source for JAZ having been founded by Rav Joel Teitelbaum zt'l. See the article. --Chussid 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MPerel: your edit summary is total nonsense. www.jewsnotzionists.org has a link to www.nkusa.org proudly standing on its front page, and you call them 'Satmar, not NK'. www.jewsagainstzionism.com recently sent out an email strongly condemning the idiots who went to Iran recently (the guys behind www.nkusa.org) and you call those 'NK, not Satmar'. My dear, it is PRECISELY the other way around. Please spend at least SOME attention before you make a total fool out of yourself, which is what you did with your edit summary. --Chussid 22:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I warn you now for the second time against personal attacks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, I don't know why people only warn against personal attacks by one editor, in a dispute where rules are clearly being broken all around. I don't think this is the way to make people feel welcome on Wikipedia. Chussid should not make personal attacks, but other editors should not revert his multiple changes with curt explanations in the edit history. Any normal person in Chussid's position would find this behavior extremely aggravating and would very likely resort to personal attacks, which is exactly why this kind of behavior is not allowed. Mackan79 18:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And the 'reasons' they give are totally outrageous. These same people DO consider www.truepeace.org which ALSO does not give any names or an address of the person(s) behind it a 'reliable source'. Because it fits in their Zionist thinking pattern. JAZ does not. If you ever wanted to know what Jews who oppose Zionism go through, you are having a nice view of it right now. --Chussid 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Incitement to riot is not an excuse for rioting." Just because you're bothered about something does not give you the right to cross the boundaries of civility. A discussion can be heated and honest without being incivil -- and that's what we require here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I fought against having the JNZ page declared unreliable elsewhere, and I lost. But, the TruePeace link is being brought to show the POV of the very group that TruePeace represents: Lubavitch. Even if it is delcared an unreliable source elsewhere, it still is perfectly acceptable for that purpose. Daniel575/Chussid needs to learn to yield to a consensus. --Meshulam 16:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between using TruePeace to show the Lubavitch view and using JAZ (*not* JNZ, please don't confuse them) to show the Satmar / TA / TAY / Dushinsky / Vizhnitz / Munkatsh view. They are used in exactly the same way. There are 2 options: 1) allowing both; 2) removing both. Nothing in between. --Chussid 02:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Because JAZ does not speak for Satmar Chassidism. And there is no question that it does not speak for any other group of Chassidim. All TruePeace purports to be as a vehicle tolet people know what the Lubavither Rebbe has said about the state, and that is how it is used here. The two are very different. --Meshulam 04:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please give some evidence that *any* of these websites are organized or run by any reputable organization or reliable source. That includes "Jews Against Zionism"; what evidence is there that the current website is connected in any way with anything the Satmar Rebbe did. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's start here:

1) http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/slideshow/2006Nov9nyc.cfm . The sages of Satmar-NY sitting at tables with the address of this website.

2) Next we have a source which says that JAZ was founded by the Satmar Ruv. http://www.jbuff.com/c100203.htm .

3) Next we have http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/news/newsletters/jaz051305.htm which attaches the names of 4 leading Satmar rabbonim to JAZ.

4) And once more a whole row of Satmar sages with the address of this website: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/protests/NewYorklApril2805.cfm (you also see the logo of the CRC (=Satmar) several times there).

5) http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/protests/protestpics/nyc042805/cap062.jpg Logo of the CRC, for anyone interested.

6) http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/protests/protestpics/nyc042805/cap090.jpg CRC = TorahTrueJews.org.

7) http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/protests/protestpics/nyc042805/cap088.jpg another.

8) http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/protests/protestpics/nyc042805/cap033.jpg a few people. Just to clarify: NK does not have this many people anywhere outside of Jerusalem (and even here you'll be hard pressed to find so many NK supporters).

9) http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/protests/protestpics/nyc042805/cap087.jpg another few Satmar rabbonim, with the address.

10) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/Traditional_Jews_Appalled_by_Connection_to_Israel.pdf signed by Rav Meisels of Satmar, Rav Weberman of Montevideo and Rav Weberman of Satmar in the name of TTJ.

11) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Mid_East_Impasse.pdf another one.

Now please again tell us your lies, or are you finally going to recognize the truth? That website does represent Satmar. It does represent the CRC. Your denial does not change that fact. Or are you now going to claim the above photos are faked? --Chussid 10:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are a bunch of pictures of Hassidim on the website, nothing more; most of the pictures are about "CRC", which you claim is "TTJ". The one reference to Jews against Zionism is about something Teitelbaum did decades ago, there's nothing attaching it to this specific website. The PDFs are about TTJ, not this website. And if you continue to violate WP:CIVIL I will take you to the Admin noticeboard. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? These are pictures of the leadership of Satmar/CRC sitting in front of big postures with the address www.torahtruejews.com (which redirects to www.jewsagainstzionism.com, in case you didn't know). I am getting quite sick from your behavior against me, and if anyone is going to drag someone to the Admin Noticeboard, it is me dragging you there. --Chussid 15:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Very few of the pictures actually refer to the website, most of them are just signs advertising it. A very small number are pictures of unidentified Hassidic Jews sitting in front of or standing around those signs. Please bring some real, verifiable evidence about this website, and who runs it. Thanks. Oh, and aren't you the guy who claimed that "All Haredi poskim forbid using the Internet for non-business purposes.? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

These rabbonim can all perfectly read English. They are sitting there because that demonstration was organized by them/TTJ/JAZ. I am getting nauseatic from your behavior. Please keep this on-topic. --Chussid 15:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a bit ridiculous; some long chain of inferences we are supposed to accept and make in order to assume that therefore the website is actually run by Satmar. Please provide real verifiable evidence about who runs this website, and please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is you who is getting ridiculous. I have brought articles with the names of senior Satmar/CRC leaders, pictures of great Satmar/CRC leaders sitting on a platform full of www.torahtruejews.com and www.jewsagainstzionism.com links, a source which says that the Satmar Rov founded 'Jews Against Zionism'. And you just dismiss all of this without any reasons. I do not see any use in continuing any discussion with you and am contemplating further steps. --Chussid 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You have provided a small number of pictures of unidentified Jews sitting in front of or around some signs with URLs on them, and an article claiming that decades ago Teitelbaum founded an organization called "Jews against Zionism". You must be joking if you think this is evidence that this particular website is run by Satmar. If it is, why doesn't it make that claim? Why doesn't it actually name who is behind it? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The makers (webmasters) do not want the website to be identified as 'Satmar', because in much of the Jewish world, that will lead people to automatically dismiss the website as belonging to an irrelevant group of extremists. Like it or not (I for sure don't like it), you cannot deny the fact that the vast majority of American (and non-American) Jews do not particularly like Satmar. So to get their message across to the greater Jewish world (which is the focus of JAZ.com), they have to avoid characterizing themselves as a Satmar website. -Chussid 16:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the name of the Assistant Editor is Russel Waxmann. See http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/news/newsletters/jaz050703.htm . So there goes your 'name of who is behind it' demand. --Chussid 16:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, the website is officially not a Satmar site, but unofficially it really is. And the very famous Russell Waxman is somehow associated with it. Can you tell me a bit more about Russell Waxman? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I've blocked one of the reverters for 3RR and protected the page in case the situation continues with others. Please try to reach an agreement about the issues, and let me know when the page can be unprotected. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to justify each of my changes and reverses. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case with other contributors, who seem to be focused on proving their points rather than writing an accurate article.

I don't understand why my latest changes have not been preserved, even if I don't see them reverted in the History page.

It's discouraging to see people quoting the most partisan sources rather than the objective ones. Case in point, the Kaplan & Small survey I've been referring to. Instead of quoting the actual survey, which is available on the web, some contributors prefer to quote from a heavily lopsided interpretation of the same. Another example is Martin Luther King's quote, which appeared in just one partisan source (which is an ADL booklet, not an independent magazine as erroneously claimed) and has since been challenged.

Since I've not broken the 3RR, I request authorization to re-introduce my latest changes. 201.252.217.129 18:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Which user account are you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an user account; I just edit the page from my computer and sign with the usual four tildes. 200.117.129.3 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this page protection necessary? The individual allegedly responsible for the problem is now apparently blocked. Meanwhile, we have an entire page that many people are editing on many different issues. I don't see how the disruption here has been great enough to completely block editing on the page. Mackan79 18:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Can the page protection please be removed? Blocking the user plus blocking the entire page indefinitely seems very unnecessary.Mackan79 15:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Threats

The above discussion ("npov... now that you mention it") is closed. I was unable to convince Jayjg of the site's authenticity, so I gave up. Instead, I reconstructed the entire section, using only reliable sources. The sources I used are all scientific publications, from universities. After reconstructing the section, using only reliable sources, I received an emailed threat from Jayjg, who is a very senior administrator here and also a Jewish Zionist. He threatened to permanently ban me from Wikipedia. This just for the information of the community. This shows what his real objectives are. His objective is not to maintain WP:NPOV - it is to censor anything about Haredi Jewish anti-Zionism. He is completely obsessed with deleting anything even remotely inferring that the vast majority of Haredim (especially Hasidim) have always been and still are strongly anti-Zionist. Now that I have completely re-written the section, and he no longer has any ground to complain of WP:RS, he falls into plain threats. I am quite shocked. I did not think that a former distinguished member of the Arbitration Committee could go this low. --Chussid 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is asur to reveal the contents of mail to a non-recipient. You may have missed that lesson because while it was being given, you were busy on the internet, which according to you ins asur according to all poskim. I can't imagine what threats he made, but I imagine it had to do with exposing the fact that you are a sockpuppet for Daniel575, and have already been permanently banned from Wikipedia. --Meshulam 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent summary, except for the fact that I didn't threaten him at all, I merely asked him to retire his sockpuppet and not create a new one. I wonder if someone also missed a lesson or two about "motsi shaym ra". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Haredim

The Haredi section is poorly written, and is full of rambling, confusing, and run-on sentences. It seems more like a list of people who are anti-Zionist than an actual honest account of the Haredi relationship with Zionism (which is portrayed, if imperfectly, in the Haredim and Zionism article). I think it should be scrapped. --Meshulam 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• meshulam, that para in the source contains this sentence: "All Orthodox Jews, and notably the Hasidim, strongly opposed the Zionist movement from its inception, and while some Orthodox groups later embrace[sic] the Zionist cause, many groups remain resistant." so can we rv your 1st excision? furthermore your "historical anti-Zionist conceptions, inclinding isolation", could be misinterpreted as an attempt to justify your, somewhat tendentious, claims above. & should haredi anti-zionism be ignored here because of the other article?
• re the rest, obviously i know nothing about the 'threats' or whatever they may actually be, but if anyone has reason to suspect sock/evasion why can't they just collect evidence and report it as appropriate? "has similar views to a recently banned user" is not a useful contribution to a debate & certainly not a case for sock.  ⇒ bsnowball  20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in you speculating on this matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the first exclusion, it seems that two difference sentences in the article contradict one another. Why chose one over the other? Indeed, in Haredim and Zionism, there is reference to a sefer Eim HaBonim Semeichah that has a very uncharacteriztic outlook on Zionsim (seemingly in favor) that is undoutedly written by a respected Haredi rov. There is plenty of reason to keep out a statement as blatantly POV as the one that I erase. Furthermore the "historical anti-Zionist conceptions..." statement is a direct quote, and is a far cry from what Daniel575/Chussid was claiming the article said. I have made my opinion clear: the entire statement should be removed for being superfluous and incorrect. But if it must stay, at least it should comply with Wikipedia's standards. --Meshulam 03:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Bsnowball, can you say why you're removing that material, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

per discussions above, #Dr. King never said it & "Almost perfect correlation" not so perfect for instance. if i'd meant some other talk page i'd have said so.  ⇒ bsnowball  20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what your last sentence means. As for the King quote, you cite Electronic Intifada as your source for claiming the quote isn't properly sourced, but EI itself isn't a reliable source. Also, you removed a lot of sourced material other than the King quote. Can you explain why, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't EI a reliable source? Maybe because it is partisan? I'm not interested in their conclusions, but in the facts: they point out that there's no independent confirmation of King's speech at Harvard. This is quite a good point, given King's status as a celebrity in 1968.

But if we're going to question EI, can't we also question the original source for the King quote? The reference given in this article is "Encounter magazine" -- a magazine that, according to Wikipedia, was covertly financed by the CIA, and was, thus, more likely to reflect the CIA's POV rather than the truth. 200.117.181.207 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet. Wikis are not reliable sources.--Sefringle 02:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Here's another source: [6] that claims that Encounter was financed by the CIA.200.117.181.207 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Until 1964. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to this [7] source , "The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel" was "a booklet published by The Anti-Defamation League in 1969". Which is confirmed by this other [8] source. The ADL is hardly an impartial source with regard to the subject of the present article, so we'd better drop the King quote.200.117.181.207 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a totally different source alltogether. Encounter Magazine is not the same thing as the ADL packet. Besides, it still doesn't answer for John Brown's comments to the SF gate. That is just a third source of the quote.--Sefringle 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Diana Muir

I have removed (twice by now) the following paragraph:

A formal, academic survey of attitudes towards Jewish people and Israel was recently conducted among 5,000 participants in ten European countries. Kaplan and Small of Yale University published the results in the Journal of Conflict Resolution. They found an almost perfect correlation between anti-Zionist attitudes and frank anti-Semitism. People who believed that the Israeli soldiers "intentionally target Palestinian civilians," and that "Palestinian suicide bombers who target Israeli civilians" are justified, also believed that "Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind," "Jews have a lot of irritating faults," and "Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want."

This paragraph has two problems:

1) It's quoted verbatim, and without acknowledgment, from Diana Muir's article that is referenced only later in the section.

2) Diana Muir's article is not reliable. It talks about an "almost perfect correlation between anti-Zionist attitudes and frank anti-Semitism", but nowhere in their survey do Kaplan & Small draw such conclusion. On the contrary, their assertions are far more nuanced: in the case of moderate critics of Israel, just 25% show anti-semitic leanings, and even in the case of the most extreme detractors of the country, fully 44% do not harbor such sentiment.

My stance, thus, has been this: since we do have access to Kaplan & Small's survey, complete with their own conclusions, why don't we better quote directly from it? If someone thinks that K&S's survey supports Muir's assertions, then please quote from the original article, not from Muir's interpretation of it. I personally have not been able to find any reference to an "almost perfect correlation" in K&S.

I don't know if there's any Wikipedia rule about the preferential use of sources, but I believe original sources should have priority over interpretations of those sources. Thus, I have removed Muir, who seems to be making partisan claims, and replaced her with Kaplan & Small, who are the very scientists who conducted the survey. 200.117.181.207 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We use secondary sources wherever possible because of the difficulty of choosing which interpretation of the primary-source material would be most valid. See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But K&S already interpret themselves in the conclusions to their survey, which are quite clear and understandable. Why do we need anyone else's synopse of their article, if we can quote theirs? 200.117.181.207 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall that they do, but I'll take another look. Please don't keep on removing sourced material. It'll be regarded as vandalism, especially given you're an anon, and you risk being blocked or the page being protected. Also, you're in danger of violating our 3RR rule, which would also see you blocked, so please read it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm most aware of the 3RR, but please note: I'm justifying each and every of my reversals. It would be vandalism if I didn't give a reason.

And please -- the revert war can't go on without anyone fixing the problem that Muir's first quote is not placed between inverted commas and is unacknowledged. As you know, this is a very serious violation. 200.117.181.207 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

that muir's 'interpretation' contradicts the k & s article had already been pointed out by 200.117 before any of us removed it. please follow the discussion. further, your implying other editors of vandalising in an 'edit war' in which you are involved isn't the type of behaviour one expects from an admin. please try and set a better example by engaging in discussion of the points at issue.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you may find it noteworthy that Muir's interpretation was originally plugged wholesale into the article, without a source or any reference to Diana Muir, as if it was a direct paraphrase of the K&S study. You seem to be arguing as if it was placed there in good faith. I think, on the contrary, there is evidence which indicates that it was placed there as a distortion or partisan plug. I do have a personal bias because I was the one who pegged Muir in the first place.

Anyway, I'm glad you guys have gone on to source and encapsulate her quote, and provide a good, neutral digest of what the study actually says. Cheers. Emoticon 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's what Kaplan and Small say:

ABSTRACT

[B]ased on a survey of 500 citizens in each of 10 European countries (for a total sample of 5,000), we ask whether those with extreme anti-Israel views are more likely to be anti-Semitic. Even after controlling for numerous potentially confounding factors, we find that anti-Israel sentiment consistently predicts the probability that an individual is anti-Semitic, with the likelihood of measured anti-Semitism increasing with the extent of anti-Israel sentiment observed.

CONCLUSIONS

It is noteworthy that fewer than one-quarter of those with anti-Israel index scores of only 1 or 2 harbor anti-Semitic views (as defined by anti-Semitic index scores exceeding 5), which supports the contention that one certainly can be critical of Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. However, among those with the most extreme anti-Israel sentiments in our survey (anti-Israel index scores of 4), 56% report anti-Semitic leanings. Based on this analysis, when an individual’s criticism of Israel becomes sufficiently severe, it does become reasonable to ask whether such criticism is a mask for underlying anti-Semitism.

These paragraphs very clearly and concisely express the authors' thought. They provide nuanced statements, indicating that the "prediction" that an anti-Zionist will be an anti-semite holds true only for the most extreme detractors of Israel, and then by no means in all cases. I suggest that they be quoted textually.

It's better to let the authors speak for themselves, instead of being subjectively interpreted by a journalist with an axe to grind.200.117.181.207 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I added K&S's summary of their own paper, but left Muir's assertions essentially untouched, fixing the lack of attribution and making the necessary minor adjustments.Abenyosef 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada as a reliable source

I have added a paragraph indicating that Dr. King's quote's authenticity has been disputed, citing an article from Electronic Intifada: [9] "Israel's apologists and the Martin Luther King Jr. hoax", by Fadi Kiblawi & Will Youmans. The article casts doubt on the assertion that Martin Luther King ever spoke at Harvard in 1968, as alleged by the present Wikipedia article.

The article quotes "The Harvard Crimson" as claiming: "The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago--April 23, 1967" ("While You Were Away" 4/8/68).

Some other Wikipedians have questioned EI as a reliable source. Since I'm not based on EI's POV, but on the facts they cite, I would like to ask:

Is there any evidence that the Crimson quote in Electronic Intifada is wrong, or a forgery?

I don't believe so, because EI is closely monitored by CAMERA, for instance, and such a big factual error would have been exposed.

If the Crimson quote is correct, then there's reason to doubt that King spoke at Harvard in 1968, independently of EI's POV.Abenyosef 05:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The source itself does not wp:rs. The fact that you have done some original research and are therefore (surprise pf surprises) convinced of its authenticity does not change the fact that the site does not meet wp:rs.--Meshulam 05:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

EI's status as a non-reliable source seems to stem from your own original research. Is there a black list of unreliable sources? Or why do you claim EI is so.Abenyosef 05:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A better question is, what makes it reliable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, we have access to the full text, while we don't have access to the full text of the article where Dr. King's alleged statement comes from, which has been variously atributed to Encounter magazine and to an ADL booklet. For another thing, it quotes respected publications, such as the Harvard Crimson, in support of its claims. For yet another thing, it is written by a Law student who makes a couple of scholarly sound points, using the unbroken chain of reasoning wp:rs calls for. But if you're convinced that the article is not reliable, explain to me why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abenyosef (talk • contribs) 06:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

The quote is well known and to dispute it will require sources much better than a student newspaper (Harvard Crimson) or an partisan-bordering-extremist website (el-intifada). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I take it back (the quote). I am too lazy to go through this article's history where I myself included the link [10] alerting about the hoax. I thought this is about another quote. My apologies and I will edit the article accordingly (again). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Never mind, our article contains the correct quote. So you were wrong on all points, but managed to confuse me for a minute. Sorry for the confusion. Consider this just another proof that your sources are unreliable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, your confusion proves that my sources are unreliable. But you haven't read the EI article well. Surprise!, it mentions both the hoax and the "correct quote" (you're indeed lazy). The latter comes, apparently, from an ADL booklet. Is that a wp:rs source? No matter how many times it has been reprinted, it can be traced back to that original booklet. Your attacks against the article from EI have been purely ad-hominem, and you haven't pointed to any factual errors in it, because you haven't read it in full in the first place.Abenyosef 06:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, there was no ad-hominem. Your aggressive style won't substitute the lack or RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been established that the EI article isn't RS. While I respect you hunches and gut feelings, they are not proof enough. Also, it hasn't been established that Encounter magazine 'is' RS. Abenyosef 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there has been a consensus on both of those issues. Electronic Intifada does not satisfy wp:rs. It is essentially a conspiracy theory (inasmuch as the MLK statement is well known, and well-cited, and freuently cited in his name by politicians and civil rights leaders). It therefore must satisfy a higher standard (while it does not even meet the lower standard). It is a partisan jihadist site, from the look of it. And this has been agreed upon by consensus. By contrast, a consensus has determined that there are ample sources for the King quote. Your continued edits are in defiance of that consensus, and constitute a violation of the 3RR policy. --Meshulam 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus having been arrived at in the section "Dr. King never said it" and other sections dealing with King's quote. The user jpgordon, for instance, does not agree with your view, and neither does the user bsnowball. In fact, someone suggested what I think is a very good idea, i.e. writing Congressman Lewis and asking if he actually heard Dr. King saying the phrase or is quoting someone else's quoting of King.

Also, wp:rs recommends "A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method." In the case of the King quote, this criterion is not met, since neither Lipset not Congressman Lewis are explicit about where they learned of King's answer to the black student. So, while both are highly regarded as writers or politicians, in this particular case they have failed to meet wp:rs: the collection process is not described.

The fact that "the MLK statement is well known, and well-cited, and freuently cited in his name by politicians and civil rights leaders" is not in itself conclusive, because all of that holds true also for the fake Letter to an anti-Zionist friend, which has been cited by respected politicians like Nathan Sharansky.

As for my continued edits, today I edited a different part of the section, and did not touch the King quote. That last edit consisted basically of adding sourced information (from Kaplan and Small's paper) without removing anything. I don't understand why it was reverted. Read both versions and be assured that the revert was unfair. Abenyosef 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article casting doubt on the King quote is a reliable source. It fully satisfies the wp:rs requirement for a source to be explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions.

In effect, the source explicitly mentions the Harvard Crimson article claiming that Dr. King last visited Cambridge in 1967, not in 1968 which is the alleged date of MLK's speech.

Some Wikipedians have claimed that the source is extremist or even jihadist, but have failed to back that claim with solid evidence. Moreover, the site's ideology is irrelevant because the doubts raised are based on a fact (Dr. King's never having set foot on Cambridge in 1968) that is corroborated by another, nonpartisan publication.

Both articles used as sources for the King quote, on the other hand, are not equally reliable. They are not explicit about their data in that they don't tell us where they learned about MLK having made his alleged statement. The non-reliability is compounded by the fact that the claim is so vague that it is unverifiable: no date or exact place for MLK's lecture is provided.

While I'm not inclined to remove altogether all refererences to MLK's quote, I'm not inclined either to fail to mention the important fact that its authenticity has been called into question. Therefore, I will do so in the near future, if no reasonable objection is raised. --Abenyosef 20:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you write on January 23, "I don't believe so, because EI is closely monitored by CAMERA, for instance, and such a big factual error would have been exposed" when CAMERA published this exposé 5 years ago?! --GHcool 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of CAMERA, I don't think it is necessary to include them as an additional source for this article. I don't think it fits WP:RS policies.--Sefringle 07:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My revert

I reverted Bsnowball because of the removal of sourced material and the addition of several tags. If an unreferenced tag is needed, please add one at the top of the page, which won't disfigure the article so much. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bsnowball, why do you keep removing the Muir material? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You yourself quote the authors above as saying: "[A]mong those with the most extreme anti-Israel sentiments in our survey (anti-Israel index scores of 4), 56% report anti-Semitic leanings. Based on this analysis, when an individual’s criticism of Israel becomes sufficiently severe, it does become reasonable to ask whether such criticism is a mask for underlying anti-Semitism." What does Muir say that you feel is at odds with that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

please stop lying about WP:SOCK, all of my posts on this page are signed with my sig. as i've said above any number of times, the "almost perfect correlation" claim is not true, k & s do not say this. given that she misrepresents the study and we have the original study itself to refer to there is no need to quote muir. if you had bothered reading the debate you would already know this was my reason.  ⇒ bsnowball  18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:V? "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It's not up to you to decide her analysis is wrong. Also, I don't see anything in the comments above about WP:SOCK; please respect WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• on the subject of wpv, the quote from muir just happens to be concocted. she does falsely claim, "The correlation was almost perfect", but our blockquote is an accidental (i assume;) mish-mash of paraphrases so it really can go. the k & s paper also isn't "reviewed by Diana Muir" she just happens to distort its findings in a question begging rant to the effect that criticism of zionism/israel is anti-semitism.
• aside from this, there is an obvious problem with including any quote from muir which misrepresents the results of a study (k & s) which we can quote directly anyway. she doesn't offer any analysis, just misrepresentation. this isn't a matter of wp:v/rs, it's basic reasoning: look up the meaning of 'correlation'.
• the sock thing: in saying "You yourself quote" sv claims i am (at least one of) the annons/single purpose editors who were involved in this earlier. especially now that you are involved, i think it wise to stress that this is not true, i have signed all my edits to this page thus:  ⇒ bsnowball  08:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to SlimVirgin, and in defense of Bsnowball, I must say it was me, not him, who quoted Kaplan & Small. Academic papers come with an abstract and conclusions, and in both sections the authors customarily summarize their findings. As Bsnowball says, since we do have full access to K&S's article, it's hard to see the need to quote another author who is a historian, not a statistician, and who does distort the paper's findings. Here are a few problems with Muir's review:

• She speaks of anti-Zionism, but this concept is not mentioned at all by Kaplan and Small. All they talk about is anti-Israel sentiment, which is not the same as anti-Zionism (one may dislike the present Jewish state but not the idea of a country for the Jews...).
• She claims that they find an almost perfect correlation between anti-Zionism and frank anti-semitism. Again, those words are not used by the Yale scholars; instead, they claim that extreme anti-Israel sentiment predicts the probability (not the certainty) that someone will also be anti-semitic. This probability is of 56% -- hardly the "almost perfect correlation" one would be entitled to talk about if the probability was 97% or such. Common sense, please!
• Muir fails to mention that that probability of someone being anti-semitic applies only to the most extreme detractors of Israel, while moderate critics of the country are not anti-semitic by a more convincing majority of more than 75%.
• She dramatically --and disingenuously-- quotes the most loaded questions in Kaplan and Small's "anti-Israel" and "anti-semitic" questionnaires, and claims that a correlation exists between those two subsets of questions, which is not backed by the original.

With all these problems with Muir's analysis, it looks like quoting the original paper's abstract and conclusions is more than enough to make the point we're trying to make.Abenyosef 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with the above, I'll remove Muir's quote if nobody disagrees -- but if someone disagrees, please discuss it here so as not to begin an edit war.Abenyosef 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All of Abenyosef's statement abouve is Original Research. Therefore, they cannot form the basis of a deletion. Also, this topic has been discussed (with many of the above mentioned objections), and the conclusion has been the same each time: the Muir quotes stay. --Meshulam 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Meshulam, you've got it wrong with regard to Original Research. The prohibition to use OR applies only to materials added to the Wikipedia article itself. However, nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines precludes you from using OR to decide if a source is WP:RS or not. In fact, OR is the only way a Wikipedian can use to make such decision.

Despite your claims, my objections to Muir have not been discussed. They have been ignored, which is quite another thing. Nobody has answered my claim that she speaks of an "almost perfect correlation" when K&S never use such words and when the probability that an extreme anti-Israeli is also anti-semitic is of barely 56%. These are claims pertaining to the realm of statistics, a field she isn't an expert in, behing a historian by training (WP:RS requires expertise). Also, nobody has explained why we need this redundant summary of the Yale scholars' article when we have the scholars' own summary at our disposal, especially when the former contradicts the latter and uses terms not employed in the paper itself, such as "anti-Zionist" instead of "anti-Israeli." This loose use of terminology may have to do with the fact that she isn't an expert in anti-Zionism, anti-Israelism or anti-Semitism either, which further complicates her prospects of being used as a reliable source.

Be assured that my only concern is with accuracy, not with making any partisan point. My claims are reasonable, well-argued and respectful and they deserve to be answered. Abenyosef 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Muir is a reliable source cannot be based on whether or not you agree with her analysis in this case, but on whether or not she is intrinsically reliable. Which part of the WP:RS guideline do you think she fails? Jayjg ^(talk) 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

the point is that muir misrepresents a source which we have available to quote from anyway. all you have to do to see this is read both sources. this not a matter of dis/agreeing with her (although that seems to be the main criteria as far as you're concerned), it is a simple verifiable matter of fact that muir lies about the k & s paper. the details are explained by abenyosef above, it's not that complicated. also muir's innane opinions about media bias are irrelevant without anything to back them up.  ⇒ bsnowball  13:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is only your original research that asserts she misrepresents the source. Please describe a policy-based reason for removing her views, beyond the fact that you disagree with her analysis. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already answered that. Quoting myself: "[Muir] speaks of an "almost perfect correlation" when K&S never use such words and when the probability that an extreme anti-Israeli is also anti-semitic is of barely 56%. These are claims pertaining to the realm of statistics, a field she isn't an expert in, being a historian by training (WP:RS requires expertise)."

Muir makes statistical claims not being a statistician. Now, according to wp:rs, one of the criteria to be used in evaluating a non-scholarly source is "Expertise of the originator about the subject." The guideline goes on to exemplify: "An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics."

By the same measure, an historian may be reliable when writing about history, but not necessarily so when writing about statistics. Also, she may not necessarily be reliable when writing about sociological issues, which is exemplified by her confusion of the terms "anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist" (the latter never being mentioned in K&S's paper).

The wp:rs requirement Muir does not meet is, thus, "Expertise of the originator about the subject." She's an expert historian, but her article isn't about history.Abenyosef 18:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS requires that secondary sources be scholarly, or failing that, satisfy a series of other standards (that test reliability). Here, we don't need to get into the second string because the source is scholarly. Muir is a scholar who wrote (and signed) a scholarly article describing the K&S study. Moreover, WP:RS, prefers secondary sources over primary sources as a means of interpreting primary source data (because any extrapolation on the part of editors themselves is WP:OR by definition). Finally, a consensus has already spoken. The Muir quotes have been deemed acceptable. Please stop unilaterally deleting. It is not polite.--Meshulam 21:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts.

1)Muir's article is not a scholarly article. It was published in the History News Network, an online publication which explicitly claims not to be scholarly. I quote from their FAQs:

IS HNN CONSIDERED A SCHOLARLY JOURNAL?

HNN was created to give historians the opportunity to reach a national audience on issues of public concern. It is not a scholarly journal. It is a vehicle for scholars seeking to enrich the public debate.

Go and see for yourself here: [11]

2)Kaplan and Small are both primary and secondary sources. The primary source is the raw data collected by the interviewers, which is included in the article. The secondary source is the interpretation thereof, which is also included in the article. Thus, we have a reliable secondary source.

3)A consensus has 'not' been obtained. Neither Bsnowball nor me have agreed to that purported consensus.

Meshulam, be assured that I won't revert 'so long as you continue to answer my points'. Your characterization of Muir as a reliable source was based on a false premise, i.e. that her article was scholarly. Now that I have proved this to be wrong beyond all doubt, it is clear that she's a non-scholarly source -- and here the expertise requirement becomes important. She's not an expert in mathematics or statistics and therefore she can't make judgments about the degree of correlation between two sets of data. This is the argument you must respond to.Abenyosef 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

HNN is a on-line publication which publishes the works of scholars, and calculating simple statistics takes no expertise in statistical analysis. Muir is a scholar, you are an anonymous Wikipedia editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jayig. Furthermore, the consensus does not require you or Snowball to agree. It requires a majority vote. Since we obviously aren't going to convince each other, let it suffice that a consensus has previously been reached, and further discussion is redundant. You essentially threatened to revert if I do not answer your "points" (which are restatements of your previous arguments). I'm not interested in your threats, and I'm not interested in this discussion. We have gone in circles numerous times, and it doesn't look like more earth-shattering revelations are forthcoming. --Meshulam 02:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You say that the consensus requires a majority vote. English is not my mother tongue, so I've looked the word up in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and it means: "1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY." As you can see, the word consensus implies a GENERAL (not majoritarian) agreement, and is synonymous with UNANIMITY, which means all parties agreeing to one and the same view.

Moreover, your "consensus" is the consensus of four guys claiming that the Earth is flat against two claiming it is round. It is a consensus based on wrong assumptions, namely that just because Muir is a scholar, her article is scholarly. But scholarly articles are not those that just happen to have been written by scholars. They are, rather, those that are published in scholarly journals, which must meet very stringent conditions; see wp:rs for the details. Since HNN is not a scholarly journal, Muir's article in it is not scholarly either.

Also, Jayig claims, and you "agree," that no expertise is needed to make the "simple calculations" involved in the concept of correlation. Those calculations are indeed highly complicated; see [12] for the details. Muir does not have the mathematical skills needed to calculate it or to judge the results.

Finally, and contrary to your gut feelings, majority vote is NOT Wikipedia's choice policy to resolve disputes. See [13]. Wikipedia recommends the parties involved to talk to each other. I'm trying to talk to you, but you say you're not interested in talking to me. You say I'm not telling you anything new, while in fact I'm telling you things you weren't aware of, like that Muir's article is not scholarly, or that Kaplan and Small's article is both a primary and a secondary source.

Wikipedia recommends: "Discuss, don't vote." [14] I'm trying to discuss the issues, I'm writing clearly and politely. If you believe I'm wrong, please show to me that I'm wrong. Now if you refuse to talk to me, that will be uncivil behavior. Come on, talk to me. Abenyosef, 5 Feb 2007 (sorry, trouble signing up).

We've been talking, but you don't seem to get it. We quote what Muir, a scholar, has to say on the article. Muir doesn't automatically become a non-reliable source just because you disagree with her. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And I've answered that Muir's status as a scholar is completely irrelevant when she publishes in a non-scholarly journal. Muir's review is no more scholarly than her personal diary, her letters to her children, or the notes to her husband she sticks on the fridge door, which are also "materials written by a scholar."

Of course, ideally the sources for a Wikipedia article should be as variegated as possible; but they must be reliable in the first place. Now Muir's article is notoriously inaccurate and notoriously biased, and I'm beginning to suspect that you're more interested in the bias than in any enlargement of information. She claims that K&S's research is about anti-Zionism, when in fact it's about anti-Israel attitudes, and she doesn't prove that both concepts are equivalent. She makes judgments about the correlation between two sets of data, but doesn't have the expertise needed to evaluate it. She makes general claims about the bias of European journalists, without providing the faintest hint of evidence and without being an expert media analyst.

In short, Muir's article is not scholarly, and she's not an expert in any of the areas she makes claims on. It's absolutely safe to declare her a non-reliable source. Abenyosef 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop filling the page with repetitive and irrelevant original research, let's stick to policy. Now, you have said something which might be relevant: "Muir's article is notoriously inaccurate and notoriously biased". If true, this is good news, as I hadn't realized there was any notoriety at all. Please provide the reliable sources which have deemed Muir's work "inaccurate and biased". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayig, you've got it wrong with regard to original research. The prohibition to use OR applies only to materials added to the Wikipedia article itself, but nothing in Wikipedia policy forbids you to use OR to decide if a source is reliable or not. In fact, OR is the only means an editor can use to make such a judgment. Therefore, I'm sticking to policy. I'm using OR when Wikipedia policy allows me to use it. Your objection is wrong, and my points above, original research or not, must be responded to.

As for the bias and inaccuracies in Muir's article, I've given a clear example, namely that she talks about anti-Zionism when the reviewed article talks about anti-Israel attitudes, without providing any evidence that both concepts are equivalent. The questions in Kaplan and Small's survey have nothing to do with the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.

I apologize for the incorrect use of the word "notoriously" (English is not my mother tongue). I meant "evidently." But that's not what you must respond to. What you must respond to is my contention that Muir's article is not scholarly, and that she makes claims about areas she has no expertise in. Abenyosef 23:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of WP:OR says the following: Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Using WP:OR to make a judgement is still WP:OR and is thus forbidden.--Sefringle 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

However, in a following paragraph WP:OR states: Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles.

As you can see, I'm right in using original research in the discussion page, because NOR applies only to the material included in the articles. The discussions do not form part of the Wikipedia contents, even if Wikipedia users have full access to them.

By the way, my contention that Muir's article is not scholarly is based on the HNN's FAQs, which declare the journal not to be scholarly. Therefore, it's not original research. Abenyosef 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to use original research to exclude material based on your claim that the material is not true, but there is no place in Wikipedia policy for that kind of argument. On the contrary, WP:V says the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. HNN is quite clear that it publishes the works of scholars. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• it is not or to point out that a source is useless because it misquotes someone else. if those of you who insist on this nonsensical claim could be bothered reading both sources you could see this.
• meshulam, the quote you keep rving to is concocted, i've already pointed this out.
• sefringle please familiarise yourself with how an rfc is conducted. & take note that nor doesn't forbid thinking about what goes into an article.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Debate about Muir

Question as to whether or not Muir contradicts Kaplan & Small in claiming a correlation between 'criticism of Israel' and 'anti-semitism'. It has been claimed above that WP:OR rules out reasoning about which source is 'better', or more worth quoting. These statements are representative of the 2 articles:

• "Kaplan and Small ask whether individuals expressing strong anti-Israel sentiments... are more likely than the general population to also support in [sic] such old-style anti-Semitic slurs... The correlation was almost perfect." Muir
• "It is noteworthy that fewer than one-quarter of those with anti-Israel index scores of only 1 or 2 harbor anti-Semitic views (as defined by anti-Semitic index scores exceeding 5), which supports the contention that one certainly can be critical of Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic." K & S

Can we quote from Muir, as these appear to be contradictory? Abenyosef has gone into more detail on the contradictions above. It goes without saying that anyone dis/agreeing with this should check the context of both statements. (PS Have we gotten permission to cite the paper, as requested on the 1st page of K & S?) 07:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by bsnowball (talk • contribs).

While the current wording of the Muir quote is an improvement, because it states that the "almost perfect correlation" is Muir's conclusion, not any quoting of the Yale scholars', the quote still should go, precisely because Muir doesn't have the expertise needed to draw that conclusion. She's a historian, not a statistician.

However, I'm coming to the conclusion that the reference to the Kaplan and Small survey should be removed altogether from this article. The reason Kaplan and Small were included in the first place is that Muir misled us into thinking that their survey was about anti-Zionism. It is not. It's about anti-Israel attitudes. The four questions they ask are about attitudes toward Israeli and Palestinian behavior, not about Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. K&S don't claim to be surveying anti-Zionism and we don't have any evidence that their findings are related to the interviewee's anti-Zionism. --Abenyosef 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I removed from the lead that anti-Zionism may apply to "movements within or outside of Israel to amend specific policies." Can anyone source or explain this? I can't imagine anyone who supports the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, but who merely oppose a few Israeli government policies, having the term "anti-Zionist" correctly applied to them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a person that supports the right of Israel to exist as a secular state could very well be an anti-Zionist. // Liftarn

Israel is not theocracy. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 00:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson and MLK's quote

The following information is important with regard to MLK's quote equating anti-Zionism to antisemitism, which allegedly comes from a response to a black student at a Harvard lecture in 1968.

King died on April 4, 1968. Four months later, on August 4, 1968, the Harvard Crimson (the university's newspaper) ran a story under the title "While you were away," which is available at the publication's web site [15]. According to the story, "The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge [where Harvard is located] almost exactly a year ago--April 23, 1967."

Based on that story, Kiblawi and Youmans [16] conclude that "If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968," and, therefore, there are "reasons for casting doubt on the authenticity of this [King's] statement."

Since Kiblawi and Youmans use flawless logic based on data that comes from a verifiable source, they appear to be themselves a highly reliable source.

For that reason, I'm inclined to add a small paragraph after the article's reference to King's quote indicating that doubt has been cast on its authenticity. Which I will do, if no reasonable objection is presented. --Abenyosef 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review the #Dr._King_never_said_it section above, in case you haven't already done so. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've fully reviewed it and haven't found any contradiction with my arguments above.

Furthermore, this is a new discussion, since I'm providing new information, namely the Harvard Crimson's web site in which you can find the article that confirms that MLK couldn't possibly have admonished a student at Harvard in 1968. Therefore, the source Kiblawi and Youmanis use to make their claims is now verified.

If you have any reasonable objection to my arguments above, please state it. --Abenyosef 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR and WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayig, please. We've already been there and done that. No original research applies only to the materials added to the article, not to the method of selection of sources. And Kiblawi and Youmanis are a reliable source. If you don't think so, explain to me which aspects of the quote from their article I intend to use are not reliable. --Abenyosef 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOR applies quite explicitly to the way sources are chosen and used. It baffles me that you would imagine you understand Wikipedia's content policies better than I do. You've been editing Wikipedia for 2 weeks, almost all of it to this article and Talk: page; the hubris in imagining you have the content policies down pat is astonishing. In any event, ElectronicIntifada is an extremist website with no editorial oversight, and there's no indication I can see that Kiblawi and Youmans are reliable sources either - in fact, they appear to be university students. Exactly what do you imagine makes them reliable? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

1) I quote from WP:LOP:

No original research: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.

I see no reference, explicit or otherwise, to the way sources are chosen and used. NOR applies only to materials published in the articles themselves, not to the arguments used in the discussion page.

2) My source is Kiblawi and Youmans, not the whole of Electronic Intifada, and I kindly request you to indicate a single instance of extremism in their article. Support your claims.

3) Kiblawi and Youmans are a reliable source because:

a) The only part of their article we must test is a short paragraph, which is independent from the rest of the article, and which consists of a quote and a piece of elementary logical deduction.

b) They quote from a respected university paper, and the quote is verifiable and accurate.

c) They have the necessary expertise to deduce that if someone last visited Cambridge in 1967 it's not possible for him to have lectured there in 1968 -- which is an expertise all human beings come endowed with.

In other words, their argument is trivial, and the only question is if the source they use to make it is authentic and properly quoted. Formerly we didn't know. Now we do know, because I've found the Crimson article on the Internet. --Abenyosef 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you actually look at the harvard archive here: [17] he made the speech in March 1968. He died in April 1968. It is possible that he made the speech, and he did. Secondly I'd like to quote the bottom of the page you cited.

Fadi Kiblawi is a law student at George Washington University. Will Youmans is a contributor to The Politics of Anti-Semitism (AK Press, 2003).

In other words, he is a student. A student is not a reliable source. Further, I did a little research into Will Youmans. It turns out he is a palestinian rapper and political science teacher. However, he was 26 years old when the article was written, and the article was written in 2004. In other words, he really wouldn't know if the article was reliable. [18] --Sefringle 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your source says:

In March 1968, the Harvard College Class of 1968 invited Rev. King to speak at Class Day to ensure that the Vietnam War, civil rights, and urban affairs were addressed directly during Commencement week ceremonies. According to the Harvard Crimson, this was the first time a Harvard senior class independently invited its own speaker for Class Day exercises. It is interesting to note that members of the Class of 1968 were freshmen when King delivered his 1965 Memorial Church sermon and led the marches in Selma.

On April 4, 1968, Rev. King was murdered.

He was invited to talk at Class Day in March 1968. But Class Day is held in early June, so that King didn't deliver the speech, because he was murdered in April. His wife Coretta spoke in his place. According to Harvard: "King accepted the invitation before he was assassinated in April. His wife spoke in his place." [19]

As for Kiblawi and Youmans, I've already addressed that. You don't need to be an astronomer to claim that the sun is round. And if you have established that King visited Cambridge for the last time in 1967, you don't need to be a historian to conclude that he can't have been there in 1968. Of course, you've got to have evidence that he last visited in 1967 -- and Kiblawi and Youmans provide it.

To put it another way, expertise is needed to make expert claims. But the claim that a person who last visited a city in 1967 can't have been there in 1968 is not an expert claim; it's a commonsense conclusion that can be drawn by anyone, you, me, or Kiblawi and Youmans.

Kiblawi and Youmans' status as a reliable source is evident not in their making such an easy deduction, but in their giving a credible source for their claim about MLK's last visit to Cambridge, and in their quoting it accurately. --Abenyosef 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Aben, I'm sorry but I think it is time you cut your losses and stop arguing. It is beginning to sound like denial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be very much inclined to cut my losses if indeed I were losing. But Sefringle has tried to convince me that MLK spoke at Harvard in 1968, and I proved that he was killed before his scheduled speech, and that his widow spoke in his place. That definitely doesn't look like having lost the argument.

If you believe I'm wrong, try to find evidence to rebutt my claims, like Sefringle does. No personal attacks is Wikipedia policy, dude. --Abenyosef 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your claims are irrelevant, since they are ooriginal research. But, as it is, all you have done is brought "information" obtained from an extremist website that you want to pass off as "proof" of your assertions. This debate can keep on happening again and again and again, but the fact remains that you have not convinced a consensus despite repeating yourself a dozen times. I think its time to quit, bud. --Meshulam 16:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If I've repeated myself a dozen times, it's because you yourselves have repeated over and over again the same challenges that I've already refuted. So here we go for the thirteenth time:

• No original research: This applies exclusively to materials added to Wikipedia articles. Since I won't add my own research to the article, but Kiblawi and Youman's, I'm sticking to Wikipedia policy, which gives us complete freedom to do research outside of the articles. I've supported this by quoting the relevant paragraph from WP:LOP. However, if you believe O.R. is forbidden in this Talk Page, I'll appreciate your quoting the paragraph from WP:LOP that explicitly forbids it.

• Electronic Intifada: I've been reviewing a few of their articles, and while some of them are highly partisan (but never extremist), others are not. I wouldn't quote from their articles about Operation Defensive Shield, which are full of factual errors, but I would most certainly quote from Kiblawi and Youman's article, which seems to make some very reasonable points based on verifiable sources. The paragraph I intend to use is:

There are still, however, a few reasons for casting doubt on the authenticity of this [King's 1968] statement. According to the Harvard Crimson, "The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago--April 23, 1967" ("While You Were Away" 4/8/68). If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968.

Where's the extremism in this paragraph? Where does the bias show up? In what ways is it unreliable? The only question that could be raised is whether they're lying or telling the truth with regard to their source. That consideration kept me from insisting on quoting K&Y for some time. But now that I've found the Crimson article on the internet, I am assured that the quote is accurate.

The Kiblawi and Youman quote above is sound argument independently from its place of publication. You must say why that quote is unreliable, because I will use that quote, and not any other material from Electronic Intifada.

As for your last recommendation ("I think its time to quit, bud"), may I remind you that, according to WP:PNSD, "editors who continue to disagree with a majority opinion may not be shut out from discussions simply because they are in the minority." Wikipedia Policy encourages talking to each other, so please, explain to me, once and for all, the exact reasons why you believe the Kiblawi and Youman quote I intend to use is not reliable. --Abenyosef 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Around and around and around....

Original research: You have used original research to justify erasing or altering statements in the article (that are quoted from acceptalbe sources). That is unacceptable under [[WP:OR]. Since it looks as though you have abandoned your attempt to remove properly sourced material from this article, I will leave this issue for now.

Proper Sourcing: It has already been demonstrated above that electronicintifada.com is not an acceptable source. Furthermore, the article you are quoting is attributed to two characters who are about as far from reliable sources as is possible. Therefore, you are left to argue that, despite their lack of Reliable Source status, their article should be quoted because it makes sense. That is original research. At the risk of repeating myself, I will make this simpler for you: You seem to think that wp:rs is about the claims made in the artice. Not so. wp:rs is about the reliability of the source that makes the claim. wp:rs does claim that the sources of outrageous claims are held to a higher standard of reliability. In this case, the electronicintifada article does not meet the minimum requirements. But since the authors want to make a claim that cuts against conventional wisdom, they must satisfy the higher requirements (which they don't, given that they don't even satisfy the minimum requirements). Your assurances that the article you wish to quote is more reasonable than some other articles on electronicintifada, which according to you contain errors and lies, are irrelevant because you are also not a reliable source. Those claims are original research.

I think its time to quit, bud: It was friendly advice. Your arguments are weak, and have consistently been rejected. You seem to think that's evidence of our inability to understand how insightful your comments are. I disagree. But it certainly is clear that the 13th 14th and 15th repetition of the same arguments will not yield any more favorable results than the previous 12 repetitions. If you value your time, you'll give this silliness up. --Meshulam 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia does expect you to be patient with newcomers, and also to assume good faith. Please abide by such policy. "It's time to quit, bud" does not seem to me "friendly advice," and your fresh "advice" that "If you value your time, you'll give this silliness up" is incompatible with the Wikipedia requirement of politeness even with those who you think are not beeing polite to you. In more simple terms, stop bullying me. It's bad manners.

2) As you say, WP:RS requires that: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people."

These multiple credible and verifiable sources are, in fact, provided by my source. Quoting from it:

There are still, however, a few reasons for casting doubt on the authenticity of this statement. According to the Harvard Crimson, "The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago--April 23, 1967" ("While You Were Away" 4/8/68). If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968. Lipset stated he was in the area for a "fund-raising mission," which would seem to imply a high profile visit. Also, an intensive inventory of publications by Stanford University's Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project accounts for numerous speeches in 1968. None of them are for talks in Cambridge or Boston.

There you have two (i.e. multiple) credible and verifiable sources in support of the exceptional claim made by my source about historical events. Please confirm to me that you're satisfied in that regard.

3) You're right to say "wp:rs is about the reliability of the source that makes the claim." In other words, the reliability depends on both the source and the claim. If the claim is a truism, all sources are reliable. If you say that someone who last was in Cambridge in 1967 can't have been there in 1968, you're a reliable source irrespective of whether you're a Nobel Laureate or a convicted serial killer, because it's a self-evident proposition.

In other words, there are no absolutely reliable (i.e. reliable for all claims) or absolutely unreliable (i.e. reliable for no claim) sources, and your mistake is claiming that my source is unreliable without examining the claim they make.

That's why I'm asking you to indicate why my source is not reliable to make the claim they make. Your claiming that, according to your (or my) original research, Electronic Intifada is not reliable will not suffice, because reliability depends on both the source and the claim made. --Abenyosef 02:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The reliability depends first on the source, unless the statement is so clearly obvious that it needs no source. If I say that the word "black" has 5 letters, I don't need a source. If I say that water molecules are a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, I must have a source (which should be easy to find). Here, your source is not reliable. End of Story. --Meshulam 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh) At last you're understanding my point -- and, what is more encouraging, agreeing with it. There are claims so obvious they don't need a source -- and my contention is precisely that Kiblawi and Youman's belongs exactly in that category. The proposition "if King last was in Cambridge in 1967 he can't have been there in 1968" is self-evident, but I can't make that point to dispute another claim in the article because it would be original research.

In other words, the only reason I need Kiblawi and Youman is to prove that someone has ever made that claim and, therefore, it's not my O.R. I don't need to ascertain their expertise, nonbias, etc., because the claim is self-evident, and self-evident claims are per se nonexpert and nonbiased.

That's not to say, of course, that Kiblawi and Youman didn't have any participation. They unearthed the Crimson article inconvenient to the theory that King spoke at Harvard in 1968 -- who did you expect to unearth it, CAMERA? But the article exists and the quoting is accurate.

Also, allow me to remind you that under wp:rs, "If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view."

In other words, biased sources are acceptable if they don't affect NPOV. Since my source says something that is absolutely neutral, NPOV is guaranteed and what their inner feelings are is none of our business.

Furthermore, please note that they don't say that the King statement is false. They say that there are "reasons to cast doubt" about it. I intend to quote their careful and responsible wording. If they plainly claimed that it is false, I agree that much more proof would be needed. --Abenyosef 17:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When you claim that student activists are a "reliable source", but historians teaching at universities are not, it shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:RS that it's hard to even know where to start. Jayjg ^(talk)

I agree with Jayjg. We're supposed to believe that the materials that these jokers (K&Y) "unearthed" are accurate, despite the fact that their proponent,[User:Abenyosef|Abenyosef]], admits that the website from which these materials come is full of material that is "highly partisan" and "full of factual errors" (read: lies and propaganda). Abenyosef assumes that the materials are quoted accurately, and constitute the whole truth of the matter, despite the fact that many reliable sources (both in the Wikipedia sense, and in the real-life sense) dispute these materials. Further, Abenyosef wants the analysis proffered by K&Y (a law student, and an entertainer, respectively) to be inserted into the article.

There isn't a shred of reliability (both according to Wikipedia policy, and in reality) to the source. And the information being asserted is contrary to all conventional wisdom. Finally,Abenyosef has created a username seemingly for the sole purpose of advancing this material, and other anti-Zionist propaganda, on this article (and apparently no other article). He keeps on referring to the presumpton of good faith, but that presumption is rebuttable. At this point, a consensus has spoken loud and clear, and yet he persists. I believe, at this point, that he has lost the presumption of good faith. At this point, he is merely troll pushing an ideology through the usual misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies.

Since it is clear that nothing new will be unearthed in this converstion (and I use that term loosely), I think we have reached its end. The K&Y material stay out, as per the consensus. --Meshulam 19:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Meshulam, will you please go to the top of this page and read aloud with me: No. Personal. Attacks.

Gentlemen (and ladies, if any): Since you are strongly objecting to my source (though your own source is a thoroughly discredited magazine that got funding from the CIA and hid it from its readers), I'd like to suggest a new approach that entirely circumvents Electronic Intifada and will, hopefully, be acceptable to everyone.

Here's what I'll do:

1) I will quote from the Harvard Crimson's site (not from Electronic Intifada), their report that:

The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago--April 23, 1967 ("While You Were Away" 4/8/68).

This I will quote from the website of the Harvard Crimson, which is a source as reliable as, well, Encounter magazine.

2) I will note that this report is "in apparent conflict" with the other report, the one that King spoke at Harvard in 1968. This will not be in breach of NOR, since obvious assertions or simple logical deductions do not constitute original research.

3) I will add no further comment, leaving it to the readers what to make of it all.

I think this approach can be acceptable to all of us because:

a) I won't be quoting from Electronic Intifada.

b) I won't be telling readers whom to believe.

c) I won't be suggesting that this means King can't have spoken at Harvard in 1968.

d) I won't be challenging King's quote, just citing another account that "apparently conflicts" with it.

e) Both accounts we know of about King's speaking activities at Harvard in 1967-68 will be represented, which will help the article as far as NPOV is concerned.

What do you think of this approach? --Abenyosef 04:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR.--Meshulam 14:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds?--Abenyosef 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I can't see any justified objections to my new approach, which attempts to strike a reasonable compromise, it seems to me I'm having the tacit approval from this community of editors. Is that the case? --Abenyosef 12:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Actually, you have no support for your approach at all. Silence is not consent here; silence is merely silence. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson and MLK (Part 2)

The arguments presented so far are not completely relevant. Defendent is accurate in stating that MLK could not have been at Harvard "shortly" before his death, unless we interpret shortly to mean "a year ago". Arguments are accurate in that respect. The prohibitions in OR do *not* apply to off-wiki sources. Any web page, or authority off-wiki may do OR without prohibition and we may cite to them without prohibition *from that rule*. OR only applies to wikipedians not doing their own OR. It does not apply to someone else off-wiki doing it and us citing them doing it.

That being said, perhaps we can drop this OR herring and focus on the key issue in this case. That, to my mind, only relies on verifiability, which is to say, is the source reliable and is the argument previously published by a third-party? Or does it meet one of the V exceptions to that general policy? Wjhonson 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is perhaps moot. The google book I've now cited, references the original Lipset quote exactly which is to a 1968 dinner, not a Harvard appearence at all. It does in addition reference that the quote has been changed and misused over time. This possibly led to the erroneous re-citing at SFGate and this can of worms. I would encourage that editor who evidently cited the original Encounter, to next time actually read it instead of lifting the cite from another (uncited here) work. That would help avoid this sort of thing in the future. Wjhonson 07:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My upcoming edit

So here's how my edit will look like, right after the paragraph with King's quote:

Another position is that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not in itself antisemitic, but that anti-Zionism can be used to hide antisemitism. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in response to a question from the audience after a lecture at Harvard University shortly before his death in 1968, is reported to have said:

"When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism."

(In apparent conflict with this account, however, the Harvard Crimson reported, on the day of King's death, that he "was last in Cambridge" on "April 23, 1967".

Please let me know if you have any justified objection to this edit. Keep in mind that, since I'm not a particularly gifted guy, it would be desirable that you explain to me why you're objecting. General statements like "it runs contrary to Wikipedia Policy" just won't do the trick. --Abenyosef 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The likely objection will be that it's original research, since it's you who has personally found the contradiction, as opposed to some reliable source reporting on it. That said, I do think there's a problem here, which is simply the question of why Martin Luther King is being placed as the primary exponent of the argument that anti-Zionism is a cover for antisemitism. Martin Luther King is a world-famous American civil rights leader and moral authority, but I wouldn't think the primary source for a very widely-discussed theory on contemporary anti-Zionism. I'd say the lack of authentication for the quote is another reason to give it less prominence or remove it, but based on the sources we have, it will probably be hard to get a discussion of the authenticity itself. Mackan79 19:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

i would want to take that further & claim that under the alleged circumstances (avoiding a question about israel by accusing the questioner of racism) the quote is more/less irrelevent, except as an example of that tactic for avoiding criticism of israel (& if that is needed, we can find more appropriate examples of that) BUT regardless: if we can establish from other sources, such as a biography of king, what his itinerary was, we should be able to settle this without going into it further. can we do this & be finished with it?  ⇒ bsnowball  19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, what you're saying is exactly what Kiblawi and Youmans say in their article: what authority did King have, after all, to talk about these issues he was no expert in? But Kiblawi and Youmans have been called extremist here (without reading their article, of course), so we can't quote them.

As for the objection that pointing out a conflict of sources is O.R., the issue was debated in the Reliable Sources Talkpage, where I brought it up for discussion. Here's a sample of the feedback I got:

"Simple logical deductions by editors are allowed without sources".

"if the Catholic Encyclopedia for example says Pope John Paul II died in 1983 and a newspaper article says he attended the Olympics in 1984, we could certainly quote both and point out that they conflict. We're allowed to say "these sources conflict". To me that is not OR, it's trivial analysis."

I'm currently seeking more advice from the users of the Policy pages, but I would say it's safe to argue that showing the inconsistency between two sources is not O.R., because it doesn't raise any "new historical narrative." There's a difference between making a new statement and pointing out for the first time the logical relationship between two old statements.--Abenyosef 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, my intuition is still that the contradiction is a valid reason for not including the quote at all, but that actually discussing a contradiction between the statement and the Harvard Crimson would be toward the OR end of the spectrum. The problem is, you're using a Harvard Crimson article which wasn't even talking about this quote to establish that King couldn't have said it. That may be correct, but I think it is a case where being correct wouldn't necessarily cut it. My suggestion would remain that you'd probably have better luck removing the quote than expanding discussion on it, for whatever that's worth. Mackan79 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The guys at the Wikipedia talk:No original research page have been providing valuable insights. To the relief of everyone involved (first and foremost myself), they've stated a solid reason why I should'nt point to the conflicting sources: the sources do not unequivocally conflict. In fact, the article says "shortly before his death in 1968", not "in 1968, shortly before his death;" i.e., 1968 is given as the year of King's death, not of his alleged speech. Therefore, it's up to the reader to decide what "shortly" means, and to some readers it may mean 1 year before. On that consideration, I will not make the edit.

For the record, here's the analysis from the contributors to Wikipedia talk:No original research:

Doesn't look like original research to me. You are faithfully reporting what the underlying sources say, and pointing out the apparent contradiction in what you report to the reader. NOR is a policy intended to stop you drawing new, novel conclusions from the sources, and is not intended to prevent you from making straightforward, unoriginal observations in line with the source material. Enchanter 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something or does the source not actually conflict? It states that MLK said this shortly before his death in 1968. He didn't say it in 1968, his death was in 1968. He said it "shortly before his death" so 1967 might qualify as "shortly". Wjhonson 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO this does smack of NOR or POV. Because the dates are not really in conflict, 'shortly' is not a well defined time period, as Wjhonson notes. This is certainly not a good example for clearly conflicting sources. And someone reading this can easily form an impression that WP is trying to convey to the reader that maybe MLK didn't actually make that statement. Crum375 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I gather from the above that no unified interpretation of NOR policies prevails. But fortunately there are other, less debatable reasons to avoid making my edit.--Abenyosef 14:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You have no support for this edit. More than a majority have come out against it. --Meshulam 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's official: Electronic Intifada IS a reliable source according to Harvard

Thanks to the information provided by Wjohnson, I've been reviewing the book Strangers in the Land: Blacks, Jews, Post-Holocaust America, by Eric J. Sundquist, published by Harvard University Press.

Surprise! On page 109, this book uses as a source the Kiblawi and Youmanis article from Electronic Intifada I had kindly pointed you to.

Therefore, I was right all along and K&Y is a reliable source... and I intend to use it. Unless, of course, you have any solid reason, other than your bias, to call it unreliable.--Abenyosef 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting -- does it discuss the King quote? Mackan79 13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Kiblawi and Youmanis quote the Harvard Crimson as claiming that King last visited Cambridge, Mass., on April 23, 1967, and go on to state: "If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968," and, therefore, there are "reasons for casting doubt on the authenticity of this [King's] statement."

My friends here have rejected this on the claim that Kiblawi and Youmanis are not a reliable source, which they have based on pure bias, not any actual analysis of their article. But now that we know it's been cited in the standard literature by an UCLA professor published by Harvard, I would say it's safe to accept Kiblawis and Yomanis as a reliable source. --Abenyosef 14:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

suspect it isn't over yet... but what do you take that to mean? does the quote go in with a caveat, or is it out entirely?  ⇒ bsnowball  15:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it isn't over. My friends here, the self-appointed Guardians of the Anti-Zionism Article, will try and revert any citation inconvenient to their fantasies. But here's more bad news for them: we don't even need to quote Kiblawi and Youmans -- because UCLA professor Eric J. Sundquist himself says:

[T]he accuracy of the quotation [i.e., King's] has been questioned, and it became the source of a serious hoax[.]

Eric J. Sundquist, Strangers in the Land: Blacks, Jews, Post-Holocaust America. Boston: Harvard University Press, 2005, p. 109.

The book can be accessed here on the Google books page (registration req'd). Here we have, thus, a fully reliable source calling into question the obviously concocted King quote, which comes from a thoroughly discredited magazine that got funding from the CIA and concealed it from its readers.

I am fully vindicated, and this is proof that indeed one needs to be bold, as Wikipedia recommends, and defy the "consensus," especially when it has been reached by bigoted zealots with an agenda. Disgracefully for Wikipedia, an admin and ex-member of the arbitration committee has tried to bully me into silence. Bad news for you, Jayjg: you failed. --Abenyosef 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I support your desire to make this shorter, but *if* the statement that he made this remark to a student in the audience of a Harvard lecture stands, then the conflicting statement that he made it at a dinner in 1968 also needs to stand. These sources do not agree. However I'd support just saying "he made it" without specifying how, when, where, etc as well. Your call. Wjhonson 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't change anything. All of the statements above are still true. The fact that someone else quoted the source does not make it reliable under Wikipedia standards. Where does it say that an otherwise unreliable source becomes reliable if it is quoted by someone *you* like? Nowhere.--Meshulam 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Meshulam you seem to think reliable means truthful, it doesn't. The source in question is not "otherwise unreliable", rather the source is infact, reliable. Wjhonson 07:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd vote just for removing the quote. Its authenticity is questionable (that small detail of King not having been at Harvard in the relevant timeframe is hard to overcome); the lack of independent reportage of the statement (you'd think there'd be at least one other, especially given his assassination so closely in proximity to the alleged speech); and the fact that it's not all that important in the context of understanding anti-Zionism. It's certainly not worth all this tsuris. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Mackan79 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems you don't get it straight, Meshulam -- but then you never get things straight. Kiblawi and Youmans have been used as sources in the standard literature -- a UCLA professor published by Harvard. That's as powerful an endorsement as a source can have. Please don't make a further fool of yourself.

Also, we're now citing Sundquist's words (not K&S's) that the accuracy of the King quote "has been questioned, and it became the source of a serious hoax." Which is much more than I had gambled for in the first place. Thanks to your stubborness, we've discovered a source that actually says something much stronger about the King quote's credibility than Electronic Intifada.

Your failure to compromise while you still had the chance has backfired. Your all-or-nothing approach, characteristical of a zealot, has brought this result to you: nothing. --Abenyosef 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wjohnson, what I would do is leave the quote in the concise form I suggested, and use the footnote to point out that in Lipset's account the words were said at a dinner, not at a lecture. I'll work on it.--Abenyosef 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, your proposal makes sense. If all other parties agree to drop the King quote, that'll be fine with me.

Interestingly, many of you are now agreeing with Kiblawi and Youmans' main thesis -- the King quote doesn't mean a thing anyway, because he wasn't well acquainted with the subject. These two rabid jihadists seem to have put a couple of interesting ideas together after all. Maybe that's why they're cited in the standard literature?--Abenyosef 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with jpgordon, just remove the disputed King quote, we already have the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the "hiding" argument. Catchpole 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon makes the mistake that the *original* quotation was said at Harvard. The Harvard attribution is doubtful. That the original quotation was published in a reliable source, is not in doubt. Wjhonson 07:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am not sure he said it at harvard, but I am sure he did say it. Second,I just checked the source. John Lewis said he made an appearance. He never said it was a speech. If it was just an appearance, I doubt it would make the news.--Sefringle 07:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Segringle, we now have a reliable source (Sundquist) that explicitly states that the quote has been questioned. If we do retain King's quote, we should also retain this reservation. (Perhaps you removed it by accident.)

That said, I believe that a new consensus has been developing that King's quote should be removed. The original source was an extremist magazine that had been CIA-funded. The second source, Lewis, says more or less the same words and it is probable it is simply a restating of the first -- and wp:rs does caution us that we should check whether different sources are actually separate. And we have that the quote has been questioned, which comes from a much more reliable source. Jpgordon, Mackan79, Catchpole and myself agree to removing King -- any other user? --Abenyosef 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just removing a famous quote by voting won't work, because it will reappear again. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability: all we need to do is provide RS (e.g. Lewis) and other sources (if they are RS) disputing it. BTW, the title of this section looks ridiculous on the background of the campaign of removal of Front Page Mag as a non-reliable source. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are two kinds of sources. Scholarly sources are always reliable. Non-scholarly sources must be checked on a case-by-case basis. The New York Times may not be reliable about WMD in Iraq, but it may be reliable about accidents reported in Staten Island. In this case we have four different non-scholarly sources -- Lipset, Lewis, Kiblawi and Youmans, and, ultimately, Sundquist. The first three can be safely considered to be partisan, although only Kiblawi and Youmans have been described by some here as unreliable; if that's not double standards, what is. Sundquist's reliability has not been objected to.

I agree with Humus that King's quote is famous. What it is not is relevant. An encyclopedia should not endorse the popular view that if someone famous says something it immediately becomes true, or even relevant. King's quote is completely irrelevant because he was no Zionism scholar, he was just an enthusiastic supporter of Israel. All of us know of Jews who are proud of their Jewish ancestry, yet fiercely anti-Zionistic (I personally know one who is very close to me, as close as anyone can be). King's quote is simply the opinion of someone who is not well-acquainted with the issues involved.

That said, it is probable that the irrelevant King quote will be reinserted over and over again if we remove it, as Humus says. I think we'll have to settle on retaining both King's quote and Sundquist's claim that its accuracy has been questioned. Is THAT the consensus? --Abenyosef 15:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sunquist is in the footnote. He didn't say "However". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the quotation has been questioned is as relevant as the quotation itself, so it must be stated in the main body, not in the footnotes. Also, the sequence [16][17][18] after King's quote would give the impression that [18] belongs in the same category as [16] and [17] (i.e., is further proof for the King quote), when in fact its actual function is to show that the quote has been challenged -- and we don't want to mislead the readers, do we? However, I agree that the name Sundquist is already in the reference and it's not necessary to cite it in the main body, and the reference to the hoax can be made in the footnote too.

As for "however," it is merely "glue logic" used to prevent the awkwardness of two contradictory statements being quoted one after the other without comment. It is wholly acceptable so long as both statements are actually related to the same subject, as per the discussion at the Wikipedia talk:No original research page. See here. --Abenyosef 18:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the quotation has been questioned is not particularly relevant to this article, so it belongs in a footnote, particularly as the author still quotes it, even with the "questions". I'll move the footnote to a more visible spot, though. "However" is not "glue logic", it's original research that misrepresents the author it is quoting. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your latest edits are not making much sense. We use footnotes to give details about sources and to provide accessory information that does not fundamentally change the picture. However, the information that a quote has been questioned is on the same level of hierarchy as the quote itself. If you think it's relevant to cite a famous civil rights leader saying that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, why on earth do you claim it's not relevant to let the reader know that the quote may not be accurate? Citing the King quote in the article and its having been questioned in the footnotes is clearly prioritizing one over the other. That's a clear violation of NPOV.

As for "however," let's see what we have here: a) certain people say King made a statement; b) certain other people question the accuracy of the quotation; c) there's a contradiction between the two. All three elements are present in Sundquist's book. He points to the contradiction when he says: "Although the accuracy of the quotation has been questioned and it became the source of a serious hoax, King is said by Seymour Martin Lipset to have replied to a black student who criticized Zionists at a 1968 dinner: 'Don't talk like that! When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.'" While I'm using the word "however" instead of "although", the semantic content is the same. My English may be limited, but that much I know. --Abenyosef 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Sundquist quotes it indicates that even he thinks it is important and real enough to quote, notwithstanding the fact that some have questioned it. The quotation itself is qualified and footnoted; we don't even claim he said it, just that he was reported to have said it. As for "However", see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#However, although, whereas Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you have no objection to my contention that both the quotation and its having been questioned are on the same hierarchy level. So please, be cooperative for once and suggest a wording that will avoid the words "however," "although" and "whereas," and that, however (sorry), will allow the text "the accuracy of the quotation has been questioned" to remain in the article, not in the references.--Abenyosef 10:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do object to that contention. Sundquist doesn't question the quote himself, and actually quotes it. It's back in the footnotes where it belongs; please desist from editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of denigrating this King quote, you have no support for your actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy of this quotation

It doesn't seem useful to link the Sundquist book to this statement. Sundquist does not state that the accuracy of the quotation is in doubt. He cites the Encounter magazine article and that it was also re-printed shortly afterwards in a book. He doesn't say anything which would question the quote. What he does say, is that the quote was later used as part of a hoax, in that it, or a similar quote, appeared in a forged letter purportedly by King. So this wording needs to be re-formed to express what Sundquist is actually saying. Wjhonson 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sundquist makes no judgment about the quote. He doesn't say it's true: witness his careful wording "King is said by Seymour Martin Lipset...". He doesn't say it's false, either.

But he does say that the accuracy of the quote has been questioned. His words are unequivocal: "the accuracy of the quotation has been questioned and it became the source of a serious hoax." Not a hypothesis, not mere speculation: he's asserting that the quote was questioned.

Understand me: I'm not saying that Sundquist himself questions the quote. I'm saying that Sunquist provides us the information that it's been questioned, and according to Wikipedia policy we can use that information, because he's a RS. Verifiability, not truth -- does that ring a bell?

Or do you want to leave out the important information that the quote was questioned?--Abenyosef 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You are completely taking his qoute out of context then. He says it has been questioned, but he doesn't say it is questionable. Plenty of things have been questioned. One such example is who is at fault for the September 11, 2001 attacks. However the main theory, that al-qaeda is responsable, is not questionable. Understand the difference? What we really need is the rest of the quote, a few more sentences before and after to determine Sundquist's real opinion on the issue.--Sefringle 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the google books link is for verification. I've added it as an in-line link from inside the ref. This does not mess anything up. If you think it does please be excrutiatingly specific about what you think it messes up so we can fix, not remove it. We need to allow people to verify for themselves the accuracy of what we're quoting. If we have a google books link we need to use it where we can. That applies to all of wikipedia, not just this article. Wjhonson 06:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, you've given me an idea. What if we quote Sundquist in full length and make him the source for both the claim that King made the statement and the fact that it has been questioned? Here's my proposed wording:

Another position is that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not in itself antisemitic, but that anti-Zionism can be used to hide antisemitism. There are reports that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. took this position. According to Eric J. Sundquist:

"Although the accuracy of the quotation has been questioned and it became the source of a serious hoax, King is said by Seymour Martin Lipset to have replied to a black student who criticized Zionists at a 1968 dinner: 'Don't talk like that! When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.'"

That would be intellectually more honest than our current referencing, since we're quoting a Lipset article we haven't actually read. We would have a nonpartisan source making the claims all of us want to be made in the article. What do you think of it? --Abenyosef 10:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We have lots of sources for the quote besides Sundquist, you're only promoting him in order to debunk the quote. The current wording and footnote handles the issue in an exquisitely NPOV way, please don't disturb that again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I remain unclear why a disputed comment by Martin Luther King to a student in 1968 get placed as the primary quote regarding anti-Zionism as a cover for antisemitism. There are many things wrong with this: 1. Martin Luther King is not a scholar on Anti-Zionism nor antisemitism, nor is he a prominent voice on the issue. 2. Quoting Martin Luther King in regard to anything, similar to quoting the Pope or Nelson Mandela or Mother Theresa, is a serious NPOV issue, due to their enormous moral authority. Placing it as a stand-alone statement without context is a large NPOV problem by itself. 3. The way we have it, it looks like King was making a categorical pronouncement on anti-Zionism. He wasn't; he was allegedly responding to a student's comment. Taking a statement like that and making it the primary pronouncement on a serious issue is problematic to say the least. 4. The documentation that he even said this is weak and disputed. 5. The alleged statement is from many decades ago, rendering it highly dubious as a stand-alone statement on the issue.

From what I've seen, the defense for this is that if we remove it somebody else will reinsert it. That strikes me as a pretty weak defense. Even so, we should at least give the statement some context. This would either be to note the dispute, or to place it further down in the section as a non-central fact in a larger discussion. Mackan79 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree.

Jayjg, I've already compromised and renounced a reliable source that has been used in the standard literature because you didn't like it. Four people here, including the user above and myself, have expressed the opinion that the King quote should be deleted, so that there's no real consensus for retaining it, and I'm prepared to renounce that too.

I've been compromising. Tell me, aren't you prepared to make any concessions? Why do you want to bury my latest reliable source in the footnotes?

The current state of the article/footnotes is not acceptable to some people here, including myself. I'm waiting for some kind of reasonable proposal from you. I've done more than my share.--Abenyosef 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to downplay Sundquist's statement that the "accuracy has been questioned" here in this argument. That kind of weasley language sounds like "I heard it somewhere". Even though it's reported by Sundquist, it shouldn't be a major factor in this debate without a proper citation to who, when and how they questioned it. Maybe all they questioned was where it occurred or whether "the" was really "and". Who knows without a firm citation. Wjhonson 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. In Wikipedia we're supposed to be dumb people who accept any statement as valid so long as it comes from a RS.

Now if you want to get smart and challenge suspiciously vague claims, the first thing you should downplay is King's statement. See:

• It was a private, not public, statement.
• No date or exact place are provided.
• No witnesses other than Lipset himself have showed up.
• The statement was published after King's death in a partisan article for a partisan magazine that had been CIA-funded and had concealed it from its readers.
• King is a prominent figure and many false statements have been ascribed to him to give them currency. In particular, a Letter to an anti-Zionist friend has been proved to be a complete fake.

I don't believe the King quote belongs in this article. The reasons Mackan79 gave are more than enough. But if it is to be included, Sundland's claim that it has been disputed should also be included with equal prominence. NPOV policy mandates: "The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources." Since Sundland is more reputable than Encounter magazine, actually more space should be given to the former than the latter.--Abenyosef 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree with Wjhonson that some context might be given, although that might appropriately go in a footnote. At the same time, I'd say the difference between "questionable" and "questioned" is simply that the former is an opinion, whereas the latter is a fact. In that regard, I think Abenyosef is right that we report facts here, and "questioned" qualifies. If we're going to provide the quote, then, I think it's important to note that the quote has been questioned, as indeed it has, and the fact that it has been questioned should not be relegated to a footnote. Of course, this raises the everpresent problem: How much discussion should we really give this quote? Ultimately that's why I don't think it should be here at all. If it is, though, then I think the sources indeed support that the quote is "questioned," in the factual sense, that people -- according to a reliable source -- have questioned it. Mackan79 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the King quote, and replaced it with a better quote from Laqueur. I've also taken out the Reinhardt and Einstein stuff; neither was talking about anti-Zionism and antisemitism, they were just a bit of original research stuffed into the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good! A much more nuanced and learned opinion replaces a disputed and oversimplifying statement. To any Jewish anti-Zionist the King quote is simply outrageous, especially in the naked form usually cited.

Let's move on to Diana Muir. Do you think we could pack her conclusions into a footnote?

Just kidding.--Abenyosef 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)