Talk:Antisemitism and the anti-globalization movement/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

POV tag

Christiaan, if you want to place the POV tag on the article, could you say here which specific points need to be addressed to make it NPOV? If you don't make specific, addressable points, the tag is being misused. I'd also like to note here for the record that Christiaan is going around deleting links to this article on relevant talk pages, perhaps in order to show that, because it links nowhere, it deserves to be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly am deleting links. I'd like to note here for the record that SlimVirgin is going around slapping links to this POV fork perhaps in a concerted effort to justify the article which is little more than an effort to discredit leftists. The whole article is pretty much worthless, and anything of remote interest can easily be covered in in Anti-globalisation. —Christiaan 22:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is very far from being a worthless article, and if you would read the references, you'd see that it is legitimate. The article has not been deleted, so don't act as though it has been, or as though it's a foregone conclusion, and do NOT delete any more of my edits, or I'll report you for vandalism and violation of 3RR. If you have addressable concerns about this article, please address them here; otherwise you are simply misuing the POV tag. Note: I want this article to be NPOV just as much as you do. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Then we are on total disagreement. As I said anything remotely of interest in this POV fork can be covered in Anti-globalisation. —Christiaan 22:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That was true until I brought the info here. I'll start reverting your deletion of links now. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan, this is a new article, and the POV tag we're discussing is here not on some other article, so this is the talk page to raise your concerns. As you know, I've not been involved in this before; therefore, please say here what your addressable concerns are regarding NPOV, so that we can work to address them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
My concerns are not addressable by tinkering with this POV fork, it is inherently POV, which is why I have voted for it to be deleted. —Christiaan 22:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's fully referenced, and the references are to mainstream, credible sources, such as an article reproduced on a website run by Yale University. [1] If you would actually read the references, you'd see that commentators on the left and right express concerns about anti-Semitism within this movement; as such, it is very obviously a legitimate, non-partisan subject. Below are the reversions you and a number of other editors made in an effort to keep the material out of Anti-globalization and even to keep out a link to this article. That is clearly POV-pushing, and it isn't acceptable. If you have material you'd like to add to this to make it, in your view, NPOV, please do so; but if you don't offer some addressable concerns here, you're misusing the POV tag. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

I have a little challenge for you SlimVirgin. Please point out any edit of mine that that does anything apart from remove a link to this POV fork. After that, you might like to apoligise for your concerted effort to try and paint me as someone pushing a POV. You seem to have a real habit of labelling your political opponents. —Christiaan 23:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a fight with you over this. Our energy would be better expended in trying to improve the article: I've done something to try to improve it today so perhaps you could do likewise. In the meantime, please list your addressable objections on this talk page. As User:El C points out on your talk page, it's a little odd to have a POV tag that directs the reader to this talk page, when in fact, there's no relevant discussion here. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

No I didn't think you're be up for apologising for such bullying tactics. —Christiaan 00:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I see nowhere on this talk page any justification for the POV tag. I do not have any problem with users adding the tag but I don't like it when users assume we are mind readers. Even if it is obvious why the article is pov other users should not be forced to read the entire article. It is basic couracy to assume that an article that is marked as pov has the potential to be fixed until such a time as it is deleted! Just write a breif paragraph explaining what it would require to make the article pov or why you don't think it is possible. If a specific phrase or paragraph strikes you as biased, please point that out here too. Sirkumsize 02:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was a mistake to put the POV tag there. The VfD is all that is required at this stage. —Christiaan 02:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I also haven't seen any argument as to why this article is inherently POV. I'd agree if it was a tiny-minority opinion, but it seems to be of sufficient concern to be discussed by journalists and writers on the left and on the right; and has also been talked about by Naomi Klein, a leading member of the anti-globalization movement. She denies that the movement is anti-Semitic, but her comments indicate that she understands why the label sticks and that the movement isn't doing enough to shed it. That mixture of partisan and non-partisan interest in this topic makes it a legitimate topic for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with User:SlimVirgin on this. I make a similiar argument in favour of the article Circumcision and Anti-semitism. There is no question that this is a minor view, but there are at least eight references to a link in some people's mind and they were not hard to find. Sirkumsize 02:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And of such minor substance as to be covered in Anti-globalisation. —Christiaan 02:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But you simply keep asserting that, rather than showing why. Please say here why this article is inherently POV, or why the contents are POV. Don't just repeat it: say why. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Expand tag

I added the template:expand message to this article earlier but it was removed. Do you think this article is a candidate for expansion? Sirkumsize 02:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is POV

Here is the current opening paragraph of this article:

Opponents and supporters of the anti-globalization movement have expressed concerned over what they see as the rising acceptance of anti-Semitism within the movement.

As someone who has been involved in the anti-globalization movement for many years, I certainly have never heard a supporter expressing concern over the acceptance of anti-Semitism within the movement. I'm rather outraged and appalled at the suggestion, as would be my many Jewish friends in the movement. In all my years I have never witnessed any acceptance of anti-Semitism in any anti-globalization organization. Quite the contrary. Anti-Semetism is absolutely not accepted by any mainstrean anti-globalization groups. I'm sure there are fringe anti-Semetic groups and anti-Semetic people who are also anti-globalization, but the movement has certainly never tolerated any expressions of Anti-Semetism. Frankly I find the opening paragraph to be both biased and slanderous and I would challenge whoever claims that it is NPOV to cite references from the left complaining of anti-Semetic acceptance rather than just from the right. Which "supporters" have claimed that there is too much acceptance of anti-Semetism in the anti-globalization movement? There is, after all, a huge difference is stating that "anti-Semetism exists in the movement" vs. "anti-Semetism is accepted in the movement". The word "acceptance" is this context is blatantly POV. Unless someone can back it up with sources from both sides (since it says that both "opponents" and "supporters" are of this opinion), I'm putting a POV tag on this article. Kaldari 03:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article opens with a quote from Dr. Phyllis Chesler, a feminist activist, who identifies herself with the Left, saying: "[L]eftist anti-Semitism is directly connected to the Left's dedication to anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism and anti-globalization." Naomi Klein, another feminist activist and support of the movement, expresses concern that not enough is being done by the movement to combat the image some have of it as anti-Semitic. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:11, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Phyllis Chesler may be a feminist, but she is certainly not a "supporter" of the anti-globalization movement. She is widely regarded as a Zionist and has often portrayed mere criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. Her views on this issue would not be indicative of or respected by the mainstream left, regardless of her position on feminist issues. Naomi Klein, on the other hand, is very respected in the anti-globalization movement. I do not see, however, how her statement could be construed as an admission that the globalization movement is too accepting of anti-Semitism. In fact, if you read the entire article the quote is taken from, you'll see she is actually stating the opposite:
  • "There is no connection whatsoever between French fascism and the “free Palestine” marchers in Washington" (referring to Jean-Marie Le Pen, the anti-Semitic French politician)
  • "The globalization movement isn’t anti-Semitic"
  • "the most powerful images from Saturday’s protests were rabbis walking alongside Palestinians"
The article is about how a false perception of anti-Semitism has been thrust on the left by certain fear-mongering right-wing politicians, and how the anti-globalization movement should fight especially hard against anti-Semitism in order to counter this propaganda (of which I would include large portions of this article). Kaldari 06:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the juxtaposition of the first two sentences: "she is certainly not a supporter of the anti-globalization movement. She is widely regarded as a Zionist." Are you saying there is a connection? And how do you know whether her views would be supported by the mainstream left, and what is the mainstream left, and in which country? If you've read any of Nick Cohen's work, you'll know that the left in Europe, and particularly in the UK, has been making alliances with the right that ought to be worrying. And Naomi Klein argues that it is "possible to be pro-Palestinian independence without adopting a simplistic pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel dichotomy ..." which implies she believes that's what the anti-globalization movement does. But I can change opponents and supporters to commentators on the left and right, if you prefer, because however you want to characterize her, Phyllis Chesler identifies herself with the left, and she should know. Or perhaps you could make a suggestion for an introduction you'd feel happier with. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no connection (that I know of) between the fact that Phyllis Chesler is not a supporter of anti-globalization and the fact that she is regarded as a Zionist. The 2nd sentence is an additional supporter of the conclusion made in the 3rd sentence; it is not itself a conclusion drawn from the 1st sentence. Truthfully, I can't say for sure that her views on this issue would not be supported by the mainstream left, or any part of the left, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that she is most definitely NOT a SUPPORTER of the anti-globalization movement, and thus your use of her statement as an example does not counter my argument. Regarding Naomi Klein's statement that the anti-globalization movement has adopted an "anti-Israel" stance, I would completely agree with that, as would anyone who knows anything about activist politics whatsoever. But, of course, "anti-Israel" doesn't necessarily mean "anti-Semitic". Being anti-Israel, however, can lead to perceptions of anti-Semitism whether or not real anti-Semitism exists or not. This is what she's trying to warn activists about.
So, back to my original question: Can you cite supporters of anti-globalization who are concerned that there is too much acceptance of anti-Semitism in the movement? Kaldari 06:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Klein is saying more than that. She's implying that the movement has adopted a simplistic pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel position. It is this position (among others) that is interpreted by many as anti-Semitic, and it's not for Wikipedia to argue whether they're right or wrong to interpret it that way, because no one can say what motivates any individual protester (and even the protesters themselves may not know). If you want other names, I can cite former supporters who withdrew their support from the anti-globalization (and anti-war) movement because of the perceived left-right alliance. Or, as I said above, we can change the first sentence to "commentators on the left and on the right"; or rewrite it entirely, which would be my preference. If we were to rewrite it, would you have a suggestion? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have said, but I still don't think the wording of the opening paragraph is verifiable or from a neutral point of view. There are many ways it could be rewritten to improve it. Most critically, I would remove the word "supporters" from the first sentence. The view that anti-Semitism is becoming accepted in the anti-globalization movement is overwhelmingly put forth by opponents of anti-globalization, not supporters. Just do a Google search for anti-globalization and anti-Semitism and see what shows up. Next, I would add a second sentence to the intro paragraph which states the opposing view of the supporters, namely that allegations of anti-Semitism in the anti-globalization movement are exagerrated in order to discredit the movement and deflect criticisms of Israeli policies. Kaldari 07:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten the intro and have used "critics" rather than opponents and supporters. This should only be a temporary intro because it isn't strictly true as it stands. Phyllis Chesler, for example, gives the impression that she might have been a supporter were it not for the perceived anti-Semitism; whereas starting with "critics say that" suggests they would have been critics anyway and are making the claims only because they're critics. We'll need much more analysis generally, not just for the intro, but I don't want to put a lot of work into it right now in case it's deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


Hang on, hang on. Slim, you seem to me to be pushing the line -- distressingly common these days -- that anti-Zionism is identical with anti-Semitism! You should take care not to fall foul of that yourself. It's fine for the rabid right demagogues to indulge in that nonsense but you should try not to let it infect your editing. I am tickled by the notion of Phyllis Chesler as leading leftist though. -- Zen 210.84.68.167 03:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should add info on allegations of anti-Semitism as attempt to undermine movement

If this article isn't deleted I think it would be appropriate to add detailed (and cited of course) info on the allegation that claims of anti-Semitism are made against the anti-globalization movement for the sole purpose of discrediting it (labeling something anti-Semitic is a good way of tricking most people into not taking it seriously, the goal for any wikipedia article should be to encourage people to think about the issue for themselves). What does everyone else think? zen master T 06:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with that so long as we cite credible published sources; that is, we'd have to find someone who has said that in a credible publication. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

On a more fundamental level I think the article should convey the scale of alleged anti-Semitism within the anti-globalization movement, because the article makes it seem rampant with no context. Also, the article should make a large distinction between anti-corporate, pro-nationalist, pro-human rights and many other related movements which have all been lumped together under the term "anti-globalization", this has added to the confusion we currently find ourselves in. Pro-nationalist movements are highly likely to be anti-semitic, but that is unlikely with the pro-human rights movement and some of the other related movements I believe. From the Anti-globalization article it seems people in the movement actually prefer the term "globalize liberation" which clears up at least some of the confusion.

Here are some citations: article on anti-globalization just being pro human rights which includes human rights for Palestinians [22]; article on Starbucks boycott (CEO of starbucks mistaking equates criticism of Israel as being anti-semitism) [23]; Here is good way of describing the anti-globalization movement and allegations of anti-semitism since it actually mentions criticism of Israel's policies as being relevant: "It is disturbing to see 'anti globalization' forces condemn only Israel and flirt with Anti-Semitism" [24] ; Here are a combination of anti-globalization protestors, pro-palestinian, and some Jews and Rabbi's protesting the Iraq war [25] ; here is an article that is anti-war, anti-globalization and pro-palestian rights [26]; here is article on combined pro-palestine, anti-corporate globalization rally [27] ; article on combined anti-corporate globalization, anti-war peace march turned into pro-Palestine march [28] - zen master T 07:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those references, zen master. I'll take a look at them later. One thing I wanted to say: we have to be careful not to use articles to build a case for or against. We can only use arguments that have been published somewhere. It might be best to read through Wikipedia:No original research because this is the type of article where it would be easy to fall into original research simply because this is a new phenomenon, or new allegations. We should probably start with a very brief backgrounder on the movement, and then trace how and where the anti-Semitism allegations started. I'm not keen on doing that until the vote's over, because it'll be a lot of work and could end up being deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
"...we have to be careful not to use articles to build a case for or against", I completely agree, that is why I have been trying to fix the titles' of many articles the last few days. Prior to the great edit you made this article didn't even mention the possibility that anti-globalization protesters might be not only anti anti-semitic, but also might have valid criticisms against the government of Israel's policies. Though, the title of this article arguably implies that anti-globalization is rife with anti-semitism which is why i think "allegations" should be added to the title. What specifically have I added to any article that your consider to be original research or was your point a more general one, something to watch out for? In this case, I consider my POV criticism of this article to have been vindicated by the edit you made. If you disagree, please explain. thx again zen master T 08:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi zen master, no I definitely wasn't saying you'd added any original research anywhere. I was just cautioning against it in general, and cautioning myself as much as anyone, because this is the kind of article it would be easy to do it with, without meaning to. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

Lose some of the quotes, this is an encyclopaedia article, not an essay. 50% does not a good article make, also i hate the phrases "anti globalisation" and "anti semitism" because they are vague, but hey, obviously some people like them. FrancisTyers 08:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a temporary article until we see whether it survives the vote. If it does, it will be filled in with more analysis and background information. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Masks

Dbachmann, I think the point of the Sharon-mask reference in the cutline is that it's unclear what Sharon, as an Israeli, has to do with globalization, and therefore unclear why an anti-globalization protestor would focus on him. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

From the image page:
Protesters wearing masks of world leaders exhibit primeval behaviour, Donald Rumsfeld's character is wearing a Sheriff badge, alluding to militant "police actions" of U.S. foreign policy. They carry about with them a golden calf stuffed with money, representing rouge capitalism or the globalized economy.
Hmm, doesn't say anything about "evil jews". How strange. I could have sworn that sheriff badge was a star of david! Kaldari 18:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have no evidence that what's on the image page is true. It was added by Dbachmann yesterday. And secondly, it doesn't address what an Israeli leader has to do with globalization. And Kaldari, disputes are to be characterized by editors, not engaged in. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:38, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed the description was given by the uploader, my mistake. Still, I don't think this image is a good representation of the correlation between anti-globalization and anti-Semitism. It seems to be presented out of context and without evidence that it actually has anything to do with anti-Semetism. In fact, placing it within the context of this article seems to color its interpretation considerably. Without evidence as to what this image is actually about, it seems disingenuous to ostensibly present it as an example of anti-Semitism. Kaldari 19:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's not ideal. I suppose the intention of the editor who put it there (and that wasn't me) was to question the appropriateness of representing Sharon, or any other Israeli, at an anti-globalization protest, given that Israel has nothing to do with the main issue. If the article survives the VfD, it would make sense to look for a more appropriate photograph, if one exists. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since the copyright/fair-use status of the image is dubious. Kaldari 19:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is not just the Sharon mask, but all the imagery. Why would it be necessary at a WEF protest to use this kind of imagery? Is it because Sharon and Rumsfeld are somehow integral to Globalization and capitalism? And even so, why label them with the Naziesque star of David? And even if, whats with the golden calf? TDC 20:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think I can answer SlimVirgin's question about the mask of Sharron:

  • in anti-globalisation-like communities, Sharron is widely percieved as the personification of the oppression of the Palestinians, the butecher of Shabra and Shatila, the man who started the Al-Aqsa Inti-Fada, etc. (the correctness of these points vary, naturaly). He personifies the "dark side" of Israel.
  • On the other hand, Rumsfeld is considered as one of the masterminds of neo-conservatism, the man who manipulates George Bush, who ploted for the invasion of Iraq since the 90s, who gains unclear personal benefits from the weapon industry, etc. (there again, the correctness of these points vary -- by the way, I do not endorse anything of this, I am only discribing what I have understood).

So, no wonder that these personalities are not popular in this middle. Now, the globalisation is often associated with the idea that the USA are pushing for it, that they are perhaps its initiators and that it has a tendency to reinforce the power of the USA. The actual foreign policy of the USA takes, in some places, a violent form. A form which reminds the way that violence rages in Israel (Iraq is often seen as the US version of the Palestinian quagmire). And on the top of this, add the well-know support of the USA for Israel... Also, in this crowds, you will find a lot of idealistic people who will protest against war, for gay rights, refugees or Palestinians in mostly any case. Rama 20:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Masks are one thing, but how does that explain the Stars of David? TDC 20:45, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The photograph shows one star, as far as I have seen, and it is on "Rumsfeld". This can be interpreted in two ways:
  • We have a truely anti-semitic band whose argumentation relies on the idea that the evilness of these two fellows comes from their "jewry". In this optic, Sharron doesn't need to wear a star, since anybody knows he is a Jew, but Rumsfeld must have one, either to expose that he is a Jew (by religion or by "race" (his file on Wikipedia doesn't seem to suggest that he is either)), or to suggest the "jewness" of his actions.
  • We have a bunch of cretinous protestors who wanted to derisively paint Rumsfeld as a sherrif (the "cow-boy" imagery is popular among people hostile to the USA) and who did not think about what a six-pointed yellow star would look like.
It would be interesting to see where the original caption of the image comes from. If the journalist actually spoke to the protestors or had some way to acertain the intended meaning. In any case, for what I see, there is nothing irremediably anti-semitic in the photograph -- even if the star does indeed look awkard. Rama 21:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rumsfeld is not a Jew, so far as I know. My guess is that the star is exactly what it looks like. We have no reason to make excuses by guessing that they meant a sheriff's star: that's a bit of a stretch, and it's not our place to guess anyway: we can only go by what people say (or draw in this case). Rumsfeld is routinely accused of being a Jewish "lackey" to quote anti-Semitic websites; he's a neocon and all neocons are either Jews or lackeys of Jews. Here's a very typical view from the anti-Semitic side (and this is almost certainly why the star appears in the photograph, though I agree it would be helpful to find the source): "Their Loyalty is to the Six-Pointed Star: The loyalty of the Bush neocon dual loyalists is not to the stars and stripes but to the six-pointed star, better known as Solomon's Seal, the witches hexagram, Rothschild's choice of occultic symbol for the Israeli flag. To Jewish neocons, the founding fathers of America, men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, and Patrick Henry, are just "more dead Gentiles." [29] SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I think your analysis misses an important point, were someone to say that Rumsfeld is a Jewish "lackey" that does not make them an anti-Semite necessarily (though I agree a true anti-Semite likely has said that), but there is a high degree of probability that the anti-globalization protestor is calling him that because of Rumsfeld's and the U.S.'s unflinching support for the policies of the government of Israel. We need to be very very careful about mingling such concepts. What the article really needs is evidence of mass or even significant true anti-Semitism within the anti-globalization movement. Such a protest can be construed as anti-Semitism I agree (and should be investigated) but it can also be interpreted as a harmless example of someone excersizing their free speech rights by effectively stating that the U.S. does whatever Israel wants it to. It's not clear cut. zen master T 23:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, that would make Rumsfeld an Israeli lackey, not a Jewish one, but the former is never heard. I think it's a mistake to try to guess the motives of people expressing anti-Semitic (Judenhass or hatred of Jews) attitudes: their motives may be opposition to Israel, opposition to Zionism, support for the Palestinians, or something else. It becomes Judenhass when a degree of hatred and irrationality is evident, as with all bigotry. Very few racists admit to being such, or form racist intentions; nevertheless, racist behavior and racist effects can be evident, and people belonging to the target race can feel attacked. The intentions of the apparent racists (what is going on inside their heads) are not available to us, and may not even be available to them. We can only study and report behavior. Therefore, having Rumsfeld wear a yellow six-pointed star is behavior, regardless of anyone's intention, that reminds us of the Nazi era, and which seems to single Rumsfeld out because of his perceived connection to or support for a certain ethnicity. It's dangerous and stupid bigotry, as it would be were blacks being singled out, or women, or gays, and it shouldn't be covered up, or allowed to call itself by other names. But nor, of course, should we see it where it doesn't exist. That will be the challenge of writing this article, if it's allowed to stay. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Can someone conclusively be a racist if they are, perhaps indirectly, accusing Israel of racism? I suppose that is possible but certainly not the majority of the anti-globalization movement are racist I don't believe. Some consider religious Zionism to be the root of the problem with the government of Israel's policies (apartheid against Palestianians), so in this case religion and governmental policies are overwhelmingly intertwined, which I think you'll agree is unfortunate. The quotation and the photo of the t-shirted protestor are two separate things, let's not commingle them. Here is a similar example to the point I am trying to make: President Bush stated (later retracted) that the War on Terror is a "crusade", by your logic that is literally true and Muslims should be preparing for a Christian invasion? We can't begin to understand the issue without full context, which is exactly the problem we find ourselves in. zen master T 00:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone can certainly be a racist while accusing others of racism. I also don't believe that the majority of anti-globalization protesters are racist, but I believe they may (stress: may) be engaging in anti-Semitic, bigoted behavior, regardless of their intentions. It starts as support for the Palestinian people; it becomes opposition to Israel's refusal to withdraw to the pre-67 borders; then it's opposition to the Israeli people's desire to have a Jewish state; then it's opposition to the very existence of Israel; then it's suddenly claiming that Israel is, in fact, in control of the American govt; then it's Zionists who are in control, then it's Jews; and then we're into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion territory, Jews being text-messaged to get out of the World Trade Center, and how there's no smoke without fire. The morphing happens rapidly: some of the various stages are legitimate, some not, some clearly defined, some not; and the intentions of individual protesters are lost, if they ever knew what their intentions were, because what's happening is essentially groupthink, where all kinds of behaviors are expressed which, at an individual level and with hindsight, might be regretted. But the individual regret doesn't change what was done; if whoever placed the Star of David on Rumsfeld didn't intend to be anti-Semitic, that doesn't make the photograph disappear or make it look less anti-Semitic. An excellent film to watch about this issue is Shoah (movie) by Claude Lanzmann; hard to watch because it's nine and a half hours and painful, but it shows clearly how, step by tiny step, Germans and Poles took part in the anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust, or at best ignored what was happening around them. There have been very few truly evil individuals like Hitler: most of the evil in the world is carried out by ordinary people who don't rise above their immediate circumstances, and who don't learn how to name their own behavior, until they see, too late, what they were part of. So yes, the point you make is crucial: context is everything, and we have the benefit of being able to step back and interpret actions within a wider context; actually within a number of contexts, which means we also have to decide, without doing original research, which contexts matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think there are very few anti-globalization protestors that don't understand there are numerous Jews that also disagree with the policies of the government of Israel. Is there another easy way a protestor could visually signify that Rumsfeld does what Israel wants? If he was wearing an Israeli flag t-shirt would that have been better? Would there have been fewer accusations of anti-Semitism? I think Israel's documented racism against Palestinians is 1,000,000 times more significant than all anti-globalization movement anti-semitism. Let's not forget scale and context here, a random anti-globalization protestor has little power, Israel's policies regarding Palestinians are of daily importance just considering the perception of the U.S. in the Middle East and around the world. [Side note: "conspiracy theory" is not NPOV enough for use in a title in my opinion among other opinions, for a discussion on that check out Talk:Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks.] zen master T 00:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better to signify that Rumsfeld supports Israel with an Israeli flag. If people mean Israel, they should say so. (But does whatever Israel wants? Hardly.) I don't think you should try to separate Israeli actions from the effects of anti-Semitism around the world. Israel feels embattled and is acting accordingly, and it will only get worse. People who criticize her have a responsibility to inform themselves (i.e. read some history textbooks), but that's takes longer and is less exciting than waving a placard and shouting. I don't mean to be disrespectful of all these protesters by the way, but there's clearly a sizeable chunk of them who'd have difficulty pointing to Israel on a map. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, you wrote above: "My guess is that the star is exactly what it looks like. We have no reason to make excuses by guessing that they meant a sheriff's star: that's a bit of a stretch, and it's not our place to guess anyway: we can only go by what people say (or draw in this case)." We have no reason to invent excuses, but just the same, we have no reason to make guesses about what it means. If we don't know the context in which this picture sits, it's not appropriate to make guesses. DanKeshet

That's what I said. It looks like a yellow Star of David, so we shouldn't start guessing that someone really intended it to be a gold sheriff's badge. We can only go by what it looks like, and what other publications say it is (see the story Rama quoted from below, for example). SlimVirgin (talk) 07:23, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

This makes the image symptomatic of the overly bloated mess that arises around the subject, more than of a problem of anti-semitism. Ultimately, the image proves absolutely nothing, neither in one way, neither in the other, and it is therefore most remarkable that such a fuss has been made around such an unconclusive document. Properly stating everything we know about the document, it would rather give material to those who complain about an attempt to discredit anti-globalisazion on dubious grounds, than to those who accuse it of having anti-semitic components. Rama 07:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Rama. zen master T 07:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do student petitions about Israel have to do with anti-globalization?

There is a paragraph in the article about how university students have circulated petitions concerning universities funding companies with ties to Israel. There is no explanation, however, as to what this has to do with anti-globalization? The article cited in the paragraph from Jewish Voice for Peace doesn't even mention anti-globalization. Unless someone can explain the connection (within the article), I'm inclined to delete the bulk of this paragraph. Kaldari 00:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph mentions anti-globalization specifically. The section you removed also lists notable Jews who are prominent in the anti-globalization movement. The entire issue is about criticisms of Israel being construed as semitism within the anti-globalization movement. The entire thing is relevant to anti-globalization. That is what anti-globalization protestors do, protest global imperisalism that supports the policies of the government of Israel. zen master T 22:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok, i must not have scrolled down initially to see you weren't just removing content, but were also moving it around. The changes look ok to me, sorry. zen master T 22:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No problem. Kaldari 23:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frontpagemag.com cited twice

Two substantial citations in this article are from the same partisan online news site: frontpagemag.com. In fact, they are from the same exact article: "Symposium - Leftist Anti-Semitism". I would think that we would want more diverse and reputable sources for an encyclopedia article. At least one, if not both, should be deleted or replaced with a more substantial source. Kaldari 00:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article cited twice involved a discussion between, as I recall, four participants, which is why it's cited more than once. It's a good discussion if you read it, between commentators on the left and the right, and non-partisan, except that they're all activists against anti-Semitism. It would be helpful if you wouldn't delete anything before the vote's over, because then in order to defend it, others will have to do research, which will be a waste of time if the article disappears. The vote should be over in a couple of days. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
This "non-partisan" article was written by the the author of "Left Illusions", "The Hate America Left", and "15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist" - 3 tomes devoted to nothing but disparaging and discrediting the left. The article is about as "non-partisan" as Fox News. Regardless, coffee-table discussions between professional pundits are hardly the type of refernce material appropriate to build an encyclopedia article around. Kaldari 01:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the source of that photograph. I found some discussion about it here. [30] The majority view seems to be that it's anti-Semitic in effect, and probably intent too.

I think you're misrepresenting the article. The person with the byline is not the author; he was the interlocuter. Those speaking are a journalist, a feminist activist and author, a professor of philosophy, and a professor of anthropology: exactly the kinds of sources Wikipedia should be based on. Their details below. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Sol Stern, a contributing editor to City Journal and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow;
  • Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D, is the author of twelve books, including the international bestseller Women and Madness. Her most recent book is The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It;
  • Roger S. Gottlieb, Professor of Philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, author or editor of 12 books whose topics include Marxism, Environmentalism, the Holocaust, and contemporary religion, most recently Joining Hands: Politics and Religion Together for Social Change and A Spirituality of Resistance: Finding a Peaceful Heart and Protecting the Earth. He is also 'Reading Spirit' columnist for Tikkun Magazine;
  • David Rosen, a professor of anthropology and law at Fairleigh Dickison University in Madison, N.J. He is now finishing a book titled Children at War for Rutgers University Press, which deals with child soldiers in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the civil war in Sierra Leone, and Jewish partisan fighters during WWII.
It would probably much better if it was possible to find articles is less militant sources anyway, possibly newspaper of record. Whoever are the authors of these papers and their intentions, the fact that they would be cited exclusively is very militant right-wing sites is in itself something suspiscious. For now, all sources promoting this ideaof anti-semitism seem to say "at last ! We told you did we not !"; the argument would gain in credibility if you could find sources which do not want to see anti-semitism in the first place. Rama 05:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For instance (but in French), we have [31] (Le Monde; or perhaps this [32], but I am unsure of what it is worth (funnily enough, it says "An emblematic image of globalized antisemitism is of Donald Rumsfeld wearing a yellow star inscribed with "sheriff," followed by a cudgel wielding Ariel Sharon who is flanked by a golden calf." Rama 06:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where they're cited. They said what they said, and they're completely reputable sources. The star doesn't have Sheriff written on it by the way. I took a good look at it today using Adobe Photoshop (blew it up, changed the colors and definition etc) but it's illegible. The word could be Israel, as there's a letter that could be an I, then what could be an S, but in fact the S looks more like a 5, so I'm not sure it's a word at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

It would not matter if they were reporting news in a serious way. But these are blurring the line between news and editorial pieces, and focusing on extremely tiny pieces of information taken completely out of context. Cardinal de Richelieu (our recently featured article :) ) said that it would take only a few lines of the most honest man to give a reason to hang him. Here, we have one very particular photograph, which we have every reason to believe not to depict an anti-semitic display, of two particular fellows among tens of thousands.
Just like people should be extremely cautious not to sound anti-semitic in genereal, on this topic, we have to be very cautious not to look like we are blindly relaying tendencious and purposely themes. This image is unquestionably notable, be it only by the fuss it arouse, but it comment should take a great deal of a distance from the mere "look, a yellow star !". Rama 07:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rama, you wrote of the photo "which we have every reason to believe not to depict an anti-semitic display". No, we don't have any reason to believe that. If this article is allowed to stay, then everyone editing it will have to stick to Wikipedia policies to avoid edit disputes. This means the debate should be described, not engaged in. We're not here to attack or defend the anti-globalization movement. We have to write as though we don't care about it. We're also not allowed to do any original research, which means no jumping to our own conclusions, and no reporting of personal experiences. If something looks like the Star of David and outside credible commentators say in print that it's the Star of David, then we write that it's the Star of David, even if we personally believe it to be something else. And we use only credible sources: academics, good journalists, respectable political commentators; we augment these sources with partisan sources defending their positions, but we don't give the partisan sources center stage, and we also don't decide for ourselves who is or isn't partisan. That is, we don't say of Phyllis Chesler "oh, she doesn't count as leftwing," just because we don't like her politics. We don't say of two academics: "They don't count because they've spoken to frontpagemag.com." (!) Please, if this article is allowed to stay, let's try to be ruthlessly encyclopedic and professional writers. If that's not going to happen, tell me, because I'll go back and vote to delete the thing myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

For now, all the people I have seen (be it dab, or this author I have cited (purely randomly, by the way)) who are considering the star cautiously happen to see that it was intended to be sheriff star.
I totally agree that we are not here to defend anything. But it very much seems that this star was intended to be seomthing else. Perhaps it's just a bad example, I don't know... But this particular image is totally unconclusive at best. The fact that it was immediately outcried to be antisemitic (and in fact, from the distance and with a low resolution, it can indeed be anyhing, including a David star) is interesting in itself. But for now, labeling this an anti-demitic display because of the star could be as inexact as calling the Japanese raving Nazis because they mark temple with swastikas on their maps. Rama 08:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty? If we don't know something shouldn't we err on the side of caution? If the evidence of anti-semitism is inconclusive for one protester then I'd think it would be accurate to state that there is no reason to believe that the overall display/protest was anti-semitic. See the distinction? zen master T 08:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Rama, please provide the published evidence that makes you say: "But it very much seems that this star was intended to be seomthing else." SlimVirgin (talk) 08:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Right above, "An emblematic image of globalized antisemitism is of Donald Rumsfeld wearing a yellow star inscribed with "sheriff," followed by a cudgel wielding Ariel Sharon who is flanked by a golden calf." [33]. The fact is that even an author who seems convinced that there exists a "globalized antisemitism" cannot be admit that this was "a yellow star inscribed with 'sheriff'"
One can naturally interpret this as one wishes, but I think that "a yellow star with the word 'sheriff' on it" makes a strong case for "sheriff star" -- just like a one-candle Menorah is just a candelabrum. The star on the image looks more like a WWII star than a sheriff star, there is no doubt about this, but there would be very plausible technical explanations for the protestors to have crafted this item like this. And stating that the accusation cannot be dismissed because we are not sure sounds very odd to me, I would rather accuse someone only if certain or at least in the absence of huge doubts. Rama 09:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the reasoning here. You have found ONE source that says it has the word "sheriff" inscribed on it. And that ONE sources is for you "a strong case for "sheriff star" "? And elsewhere you wrote (based on your ONE source): "we have every reason to believe not to depict an anti-semitic display." Rama, you have a computer. Download the star and blow it up. You'll see for yourself that the word "sheriff" is not on it. I think I'm going to stop posting here, because it's clear that no one's reading what I'm writing. Perhaps I'm being too long-winded, so I'll stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I did in fact. There seems to be something written on the star but the photograph which we have here is unreadable. However, all people who have seen the star from close enough seem to agree that there wae "sheriff" written on it. Some of the numerous people who are outraged by "the Nazi star" have not even studied the scene closely enough to understand why Sharron is macked here.
I am not trying the defend anything, I just say that I don't see why the accusation of anti-semitism about this photograph should be relayed without a word of caution while we have no proof at all that there was anythin even borderline anti-semitic here. What I would aim at would be:
  • display this photograph with a label such as "this phtograph was used to symbolyse antisemitism, though this particulas scene was not proved to be antisemitic (the yellow star seems to have been intended to have been a sheriff star)"
  • find another photograph of people wearing Che Gevary t-shirt and "kill the Jews" pannels or something like this.
But by merely stating "illustration of antisemitism: these protestors wear masks of Sharron and a yellow star", we run the risc of using the photograph of perfectly innocent people to illustrate a grave matter, which would no only be diffaming, but also plain ridiculous on our part. Rama 09:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How would it defame anyone? They're wearing masks. Anyway, I've used another program and I've now managed to see what's written on the star. It isn't sheriff. I'm not going to say what it is, because there's another editor who claims he was there and has personal knowledge, so I'm going to let him tell us what's on it. Suffice to say, it's not a relevant word. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:52, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is just to let you know that I'm having nothing more to do with this article. I became involved only because I read it on the VfD and saw there were uncited quotations, so out of instinct more than anything (because I care about references not because I care about anti-globalization), I went and found the citations, and did a general copy edit to try to make it more presentable, and noted that I had done that on the VfD page. Then I let myself get drawn into defending it, until now I seem to be the only person doing that, and I've now been accused of trolling as a result. You can go ahead and delete it but I hope you'll all take some stock. I am a reasonable and fair editor, and I always try to be encyclopedic. I'm not saying I always succeed, but I do always try. But my experience with some of you over the last few days has been enough to make me want to leave Wikipedia altogether. I won't, of course, but I don't think you should make good-faith editors feel that way. You've successfully kept the material out of the original article, and you're about to succeed in keeping it out of Wikipedia, but that's not something to be proud of. I'm taking this off my watchlist now, so there's no point in responding to me here. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
C.f. Image talk:Davos Switzerland G8 Summit.jpg. Lupo 11:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

>SlimVirgin: I found some discussion about it here. [34] The majority view seems to be that it's anti-Semitic in effect, and probably intent too.
Slim, if you think LittleGreenFootballs represents the "majority view", I'm afraid I will no longer be able to take anything you have to say seriously. That's like saying that Al Sharpton is a child molester because everyone on Stormfront.org says so. I am disappointed at your unwillingness to participate in an honest evaluation of the material of this article. If you honestly believe that what people talk about on LittleGreenFootballs is objective, I'm afraid I may be wasting my time by trying to work with you to reach content that is NPOV. Kaldari 15:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-semitism in that photo

I have just been trying to get my head around all the stuff that has been written about this, particulary on the issule of the picture. I am personaly convinced that the protest wasn't anti-semitic (though sheriff star was a stupid mistake) or even anti-Zionist for that matter (not that the two are the same) but I think it is fair for the picture to be used as part of alligations of anti-semitism as there are people who have interpreted it in this way. (NPOV requires that if we can't deside the facts we should represent both view points). One thing that still puzzels me is SlimVirgin's claim to have found something else written on the star, since SlimVirgin has given up editing the page it seems we will never find out what that was :-S --JK the unwise 11:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not that I'm trying to involve myself here, but curiosity impelled me to ask SlimVirgin what was up with that claim. She seems to be embarrassed about it, since she not only refuses to say how she came up with that claim, but keeps deleting all mention of the question from her talk page. You know, for an administrator she's not showing a great deal of integrity there. 21:54, 15 Apr 2005 (Oops, sorry, I forgot to sign this, originally. Original diff date is to the left. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Picture has now been removed, prehaps it could be replaced with a picture of a Israli flag being burned , or with the Star of David turned into a Swastika. I've seen these on demo's (No I don't think these equal Anti-semitism but many notable commentators have aleged they do. --JK the unwise 12:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) Or of protesters wearing Kaffiers (Palestinian scafs)

Scarves would be more appropriate. Of course, the whole page should ideally go, as most people agree. :) — Helpful Dave 14:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I fully agree with JK the unwise. Note that I've created Anti-WEF protests in Switzerland, January 2003 and given background on this image, for the reason that it was featured here. If the Star of David allegations are not notable, they should be removed from that article too (but the article will remain to be notable, since it is also about the riots in Berne etc.). dab () 14:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, you can clearly see that the star says "Sheriff" on it here. Kaldari 16:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I be, whoda thunk it. TDC 15:35, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The picture has now been put back in (no doubt some one will remove it again soon (possibly me). As I see it we should not use the picture because 1)The meaning of the symbolism is not something we can determine/agree on. 2)There has been no notable discution of the picture or of the use of similar symbols on anti-cap' demos in general (I may be wrong about this)
However, if it disided that the picture should remain then there needs to be some context to the picture mearly having it in the article (leaving the reader to interpret it) pushs the POV that it is a clear display of anti-Semitism (why else would it be in the article with no explanation?).
--JK the unwise 08:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who has said that that photo is an example of anti-Semitism? Jayjg (talk) 15:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments on article

Inlcude in article, which by now I think everyone realizes will survive the VFD. TDC 15:35, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.rickross.com/reference/alliance/alliance20.html

VfD Result: No Consensus

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 Apr 2005. See: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism. The result of the debate was No consensus. Thus, the article was kept. Deletion was supported by slightly over half of the voters. Many voters expressed concern about POV problems and this should be discussed here. The possible renaming of the article should also be discussed here. Carbonite | Talk 02:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...and definitely no consensus to keep. Let me point out that those who wish to smear the left have not been given a mandate by the community. :) — Helpful Dave 10:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The only mandate given is to make an Wikipedia:NPOV encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Lets stop theuglypoliticking, ridiculousnamecalling and underhandtactics. Whaddya say? --Mrfixter 14:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. Did you actually have a point there? :) — Helpful Dave 14:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Lets spread some wikilove! --Mrfixter 14:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Let's start by not smearing the Left. A majority of people were against this existing as a separate article. Let's merge it back into the main article per the community's wishes and common sense. :) — Helpful Dave 14:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Who are "the Left"? Is it relevant to writing this article? It failed VfD, despite your fervent prayers. No consensus, no deletion, no cry. No-one voted merge on the VfD. You thought this spin-off page was a good idea! So do I! I hope you do not want to censor wikipedia, according to your favorite beliefs. Remember, no ownership of articles, even articles concerning anti-globalization. In summary, spread wikilove and leave your POV at the door when writing an NPOV article, try Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A_consequence:_writing_for_the_enemy. --Mrfixter 15:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Left are the ones being attacked in the article. It is relevant to writing this article because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. A majority of people indicated on the Vfd vote that there should be no article here, as I predicted. Therefore, there should be no article here. It should be merged back in. Your comments about censorship, ownership, wikilove and POV are red herrings. :) — Helpful Dave 15:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Who are "the Left"? You make 'em sound like a monolithic, homogenous group. Have they come to you said they have been smeared? I also think you are confusing criticism with attacking/smearing/slandering/slurring/saying naughty things. Consensus, not majority decide VfDs, because wikipedia is not a democracy. Anyway, a lotta this is moot cuz I aint an admin, cant delete it for ya. BTW your prediction was "it would be deleted". Go figure. Go complain on some policy page or other. --Mrfixter 15:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Probabaly the same people referred to in: New_anti-Semitism. —Christiaan 20:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I often use "delete" as a shorthand for "remove all content from that article (perhaps putting into another) and turn the article into just a redirect to whatever is appropriate". Only a minority disagreed with the delete/merge/redirect solution. I am indeed currently trying to get the policy on this matter clarified (why is 51% not good enough to get a POV fork re-merged). Your comments about the Left are again irrelevant. :) — Helpful Dave 16:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If talking about "the Left" is irrelevant, why the incessant mentioning of it by you? I honestly cannot follow your argument, you wanted it deleted because it was a so-called POV fork? Then the VfD fails and you wanna "merge" (aka drastically reduce, whitewash, protect "the Left") it back into Anti-globalization, forgetting that it is a so-called POV fork and making an endrun around the proper process of VfD that allows for a merge? I would also suggest that "delete" is not widely understood to be shorthand for what you think it is shorthand for. Anyhoo, you failed to build a consensus for your idea. *sigh* BTW I am fully aware of your policy page "questions". [35][36]--Mrfixter 18:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you are fully aware of all these issues, then don't feign ignorance or stupidity. Act in good faith. :) — Helpful Dave 18:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Irony doesn't work well on the internet, eh? Oh well. I am fully aware of your postings, that doesn't make your arguments any less opaque (although your intentions are transparent). Acting in good faith, very good advice. Trying to make an endrun around your failed VfD is acting in good faith? --Mrfixter 19:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In summary, more people don't want this article here than do want it here. :) — Helpful Dave 19:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy. VfD does not work on a simple majority, you, like others, have to edit WP on the basis of consensus. --Mrfixter 23:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's nice to have a consensus, but when there are major differences of opinion, it makes sense to go with the majority rather than with the minority. :) — Helpful Dave 23:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The idea of consensus is an important one in WP. When there are major differences of opinion, they should be discussed and a consensus built. After all, WP is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, nor an experiment in democracy, no matter what you may think. --Mrfixter 10:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You know the issues. Please don't try to obscure them with irrelevant arguments. :) — Helpful Dave 11:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Its tragic that you think that consensus on WP is an irrelevant argument, but very telling. Needless to say, your constant refrain of 'majority' has no basis in policy with regards to VfDs or how articles are meant to be written. Did you read what Carbonite said, just above? Consensus, not majority is what decided this issue. Your wholesale invention of policy is distracting in the extreme. The redirect was not a VfD decision either. How can you ignore consensus so casually? --Mrfixter 12:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Ignore consensus"? Your position is that there is no consensus. Are you saying that when there is no consensus, the minority opinion should prevail? That is rather bizarre. There is no policy affirming that. Anyway, I am wasting my time talking to you and assuming good faith. You have demonstrated that you understand the policy and the issues, and just wish to misrepresent them to your own aims. This article will be made into a redirect. You may have the last word here. Enjoy it. :) — Helpful Dave 12:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am saying what Carbonite said. No consensus, therefore keep. You ignore this, for reasons known only to you. And again you misunderstand WP policy, a majority is not consensus. --Mrfixter 13:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mrfixter is right, and it would be nice to try not to re-start the debate on this, and rather improve the article. There is not emergency, and if the article is destined to be merged into the main page, it will be someday -- no need to push for that. Rama 13:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be great to hear other voices on this, for I fear I shall become repetitive (perhaps its too late for that:)). I would like to have a discussion about this page, rather than the 5 billionth discussion on consensus. What next, a philosphical discussion about NPOV? --Mrfixter 13:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, Mrfixter is wrong. There is no need for any more debate. The best way to improve the article is by making it a redirect to Anti-globalization. Consensus is not required for making redirects, and more people think there should not be an article here than do. If anyone honestly doesn't understand this, e-mail me and I'll explain in even greater detail. If anyone dishonestly opposes this, (Mrfixter and co.) then there is nothing you can do but accept it. :) — Helpful Dave 13:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The debate was had on the VfD, the decision didnt go HD's way, and now these attemtps at redirects. Redirecting this article is not a keep, as outlined above. I obviously reject the smear that I am dishonestly opposing the outcome of a VfD. Majority is not consensus, but I find it increasingly unlikely that you are even able to understand that concept. *sigh* --Mrfixter 13:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Helpful Dave if u don't like Wikipedia policy on votes for delition then go off and campain for it to be changed (personaly I think the current formulation is a bit odd/vage. As it stands u are just making your self look like a wanker by ignoring the fact that no rough consensous for deletion was reached. Now I hate these allegations as much as u, they are a load of cod but that don't change the fact that they are notable, if you whant to change that get out in the real world and try to change the situation, U won't change the world by changing Wikipedia!!!. Any attempt to put this stuff in to the main anti-Glob article would actually just harm ur cause as it would distort the article giving this stuff udrew prominance in the article. Any way CHILL OUT!!!!!! Go punch a Nazi. Then come back and help build an encycopedia. --JK the unwise 18:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh? —Christiaan 18:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have to echo Christiaan there. In addition, you're missing the point JK. We're not talking about deletion here. I'm not an admin, so I can't delete stuff anyway. I'm talking about making this a redirect, which anyone can do unilaterally, as with any edit. The only question is, "is that an edit that others can legitimately and repeatedly revert?". The answer to that is no, because the VFd, although it technically failed in the sense that a consensus for deletion wasn't reached, did play the important role of a poll on the community's opinion of this article. And that opinion is clear: the majority thought it shouldn't exist. Minorities thought it was fine as it was, or that it should be rewritten, or it should be renamed. By making it a redirect (which makes it no longer really exist as an article), I am implementing (a) the will of the majority, and (b) general Wikipedia policy on the creation of POV forks. I think this stuff should be in the anti-globalization article, but edited so that it does not distort it as you warn it might.
In summary, I unfortunately did not form a consensus for my remerge proposal, but Sam Spade definitely didn't form a consensus for his fork proposal. I at least have a majority on my side. It would be sad if my proposal is not implemented due to Mrfixter's obfuscations or his side's greater will to engage in revert warring. :) — Helpful Dave 20:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the rant ;-) The bit about bashing a Nazi was just a recomendation of a good way to relive stress. My main point is that you shouldn't treat wikipedia battles as real world political battles. Polemic aside I also think hunger for deleting this kind of stuff will come back to bite us when we (i.e. lefties) are trying to promote the existance of pages on Lefty issules that others think are non-notable.
Anyway, Ur proposal is essencialy to delete the contence of the page (craftly you whant to do this by making it a redirect ==> tecnically muddying the water about procedure). As far as I can tell the current rules (such as they are) are biased in favour of keeping matterial/pages. Keeping dosen't require concencous, deleting does. As an after note, I agree that this page may have problems ever becoming NPOV and interesting (i.e. more then just a few quotes), If after some time it fails to do so it should be binned.--JK the unwise 08:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never mind about punching and battles. We're building an encyclopaedia. Most people (rightly) think that this article is unencyclopaedic. The content deserves to be summarised in another article, as it was before Sam Spade unilaterally made it a separate article. I am fully within my rights to unilaterally make it not a separate article, and I am backed up by a majority on that. :) — Helpful Dave 09:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Opps I've just got in trouble with Sam Spade (defender of the rights of fascists) for advocating their being punched. So I withdraw that comment. Insteed, only punch them if the treaten u or your community, in self-defence (i.e. within the law). Anyway, on the article, when there is conflict on the encyclopaedicness or otherwise of an article --> we have a vote on its deletion (the deletion of content + redirect amounts to same thing). Prosess is biased in favour of the stuff staying because a rough consensous must be reached inorrder for it to be deleted. No such thing was reached in this case. Thus Mrfixter has every right to revert your delete/redirect. Sorry, and remember don't punch a Nazi on my advice or apparently Wikipedia could get sued.--JK the unwise 10:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
HD's consistent refrain about a majority backing him up is a red-herring, 1stly because no-one voted for redirect/merge in the VfD, and 2ndly (and more importantly) VfD is decided through consensus, which is NOT simple majority, see Carbonite way above. Please stop using this argument, HD. Or do, but expect me to correct you time and time again. The redirect has no consensus in the community, it being (rightly) characterised as de facto deletion of this article. PS "Actually, making it a spin-off page is not a bad idea." --Mrfixter 19:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge back into anti-globalization

This article needs to be merged back into Anti-globalization. But we'll only accept NPOV, encyclopaedic material in that article, so this needs some work.

  1. Cut the editorialising. This article is mostly "op-ed" (rants) without any substance. I've never seen an article with such a proportion of wheat to chaff. The quotations need to be paraphrased and summarised as they would in any other article. It's currently hard to find any actual allegations in the text.
Aggre, as it stands the article is about alligations rather then the situation (hence should change name to allegations of ....--JK the unwise 10:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. The photo. It is inexcusable to put Image:Davos Switzerland G8 Summit.jpg in the article. It has now been exposed as a fraud. It is low-resolution in order to obscure the fact that Rumsfeld is wearing a sheriff's badge. The only reason to put that image in is to trick people into thinking that it was somehow a star of David, which displays very bad faith. Image:Davos WEF Golden Calf.png could go in, but it would be nonsensical as anything but an example of how legitimate protest is demonised.
Agree(ish). If it is in then their needs to be some discusion of why it has been taken to be anti-semitic (and the responce to that allegation). I suppose this all hangs on whether their has been any notable discusions of the photo (or events similar to the ones it depicts).
  1. Why does this talk about anti-Semitism anyway, given that this is clearly about New anti-Semitism, i.e. harsh criticism of Israel?
because the people who allege this stuff run the two togeather. Their incorrect to do so, but the article is about their allegations. (again hence name change)--JK the unwise 10:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:) — Helpful Dave 10:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-globalisation needs a summary of this page, it is true. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 11:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See if the merged content on the Anti-globalization page is up to par now. I threw out most of the totally spurrious stuff, and tried to keep the 2 sides relatively even (and to the point). Kaldari 13:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page is still missing context

This page is missing a more complicated context provided by the New Internationalist magazine special issue on Judeophobia where the issue of antisemitism was teased out to explain that many pro-Zionist activists conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, but that there is still too much antisemitic stereotyping by left and liberal Middle East and anti-globalization activists. I actually think the position of Klein is misrepresented in the current draft. She has a more complex analysis that admits there is too much antisemitism on the left. See:http://www.newint.org/issue372/contents.htm --Cberlet 22:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where is the Klein article? Thanks chip. --Mrfixter 00:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Naomi Klein article. This interview with Penny Rosenwasser is also useful. [37] --Cberlet 02:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! --Mrfixter 02:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)