Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitism and the anti-globalization movement/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

proper place for conspiracies to run free

trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amature over here)--Matt D 02:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

References

These two links

talk about anti-semitism, perhaps even antisemitism in the academic world, but I am not sure whether I see the connection with anti-globalisation; can someone point the relevant information ? Rama 12:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They weren't; rather, they were about the New anti-Semitism. I've moved them and a third link to the correct article. Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

I'm baffled by this article. Shouldn't an encyclopedia be a repository of knowledge and not a place for point/counterpoint discussion of extremely narrow and specific issues? Could anybody please explain in clear words why they think this is encyclopedic? 80.203.115.12 23:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Especially considering there are almost no concrete examples of anti-semitism, and ESPECIALLY systemic anti-semitism within the movement. 209.148.141.155 14:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't think this article is encyclopedic, as it will never consist of anything but political accusations. Maybe if it were renamed "Anti-globalization and anti-zionism" we could write a real article, but as it stands there's no substance to write an article about. I'm not saying that anti-semitism doesn't exist within the anti-globalization movement, but it's certainly not prevalent enough to write an encyclopedia article about, any more than we would write an article about African-Americans and anti-Semitism or Boy Scout leaders and child molestation. Anything in this article would be better dealt with in either the Anti-globalization article or the Anti-Semitism article. We don't need POV forks devoted to every overlap of political ideology. This article needs to be merged back or deleted outright, IMO. Kaldari 16:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It shouldn't be re-titled, since it's not about anti-globalization and anti-Zionism, it's about anti-globalization and anti-Semitism, though opponents of the article have consistently tried to misrepresent it as being about the former. The merge idea won't work, since the people watchdogging the Anti-globalization page refused to allow this material to be in it, which is how this article came to be created in the first place. It's not a POV fork, of course, since the POV isn't represented anywhere else. And finally the VfD failed, so attempts to subvert that vote by deleting the article anyway are inappropriate. Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is encyclopedic because the controvery has spawned much debate and many articles. This page could provide an opportunity to explore the three main strands of the debate. 1) the anti-globalization movement is antisemitic. 2) The anti-globalization movement is not antisemitic, and the charge is used to silence critics of Israel. 3) The anti-globalization movement is not institutionally antisemitic, and the charge is used to silence critics of Israel, but antisemitic rhetoric and images are far too common, and need to be challenged (which is actually the Naomi Klein position).--Cberlet 13:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Wikipedia articles are for facts, not debate." The article as it stands is not about facts, but rather about accusations and debate. You could say that they are "facts about the debate", but in that case the article should be renamed Debate about anti-globalization and anti-semitism. This article should be rewritten to address the facts about anti-globalization and anti-semitism (if any such facts can be documented), deleted, or renamed to something more appropriate, IMO. Kaldari 16:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the nature of "facts"; partisans on various sides of this issue (and thousands of others) all believe that they are presenting the "facts", it's just that they all disagree on which "facts" are "true". You're assuming that we can determine the "facts", when WP:NPOV is clear that "a single, unbiased, objective point of view" is generally not possible. Moreover, you misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia articles; the policies regarding them were specifically designed for this kind of topic, and are all about debates. WP:NPOV assumes articles will be full of debates, and merely insists that "Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate." Quoting again from the WP:NPOV policy:

"Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge... A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics... We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted."

Again, rather than being an abberation that should be deleted, Wikipedia policies were specifically designed to produce this kind of article. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kaldari, why did you delete my response to you above? [1]. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image is vital

Don't delete it, thanks, Sam Spade 08:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vital for bad-faith attempts to smear the movement. Don't add it. This has already been discussed. — Helpful Dave 08:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why do you disagree that the image should be deleted? Please see/address my comments above in Anti-semiti, sm in that photo--JK the unwise 08:3218 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What about putting the image in, with the appropiate remarck that the star is not a star of David ? The way this image has been distorted, sometimes by honnest mistake, sometimes by bad faith, is very interesting to illustrate the way propaganda (even an uncouscious one) works. Rama 08:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to keep the image out other than as a cover up to censor the truth. You can put whatever caption you like in attempt to apologise for it, but as the editers deleting it are surely aware, our readers are smart enough to realize what the image portrays, regardless of disclaimer. Sam Spade 14:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are several reasons. The image is certainly at best insensitive, but images of the Star of David morphing into a Swastika are a far clearer example of the issue. There are images of demonstrators with signs that contain better examples of antisemitic rhetoric. And finally, we are discussing the image, so just ramming it back onto the page is rude. --Cberlet 14:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"a cover up to censor the truth" ? "attempt to apologise" ? What truth ? Rama 17:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anti-semite sheriff cleverly disguised as Donald Rumsfeld
If you've got more images to upload, please do Chip. However there is nothing "rude" about me insisting on article quality, and if you think there is, I'd rather "rudely" insist on such than allow our fearless readers to go without their much needed info :) This picture rocks, and is especially illustrative of the concept the article seeks to discuss. Sam Spade 20:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sam, the six-pointed star has been used as a sheriff's badge in certain jurisdictions for scores of decades. It has also been used for centuries in other ways other than the "Magen David".
http://www.wtamu.edu/~bcaruthers/symbols.html
http://www.helpingmormons.org/six_pointed_star.htm
http://www.leonuniform.com/Menu_Badges_Nameplates.htm
Sam, it would be nice if you actually did some research before making pompous demands.--Cberlet 20:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This image is a very good illustration of a bogus accusation of anti-semitism. It splace is in "defence against accusations" or some section of this sort. Rama 20:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

O.K., since no-one is answering up there, I'll ask down here. Has anyone claimed that this particular image is an example of anti-Semitism by anti-globalists? Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is that question asked in good faith, a rhetorical question, or what? Reveal your motives. — Helpful Dave 21:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's asked in good faith, of course; please assume good faith. I'm trying to ascertain the relevance of the photograph to this page. My motives, as always, are the improvement of Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg , you might want to skim through Image talk:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. In particular, you can see people rambling about it on a conservative (?) forum [2], for instance. There were also more formal articles mentioning this photograph, but usually, people mention the "sherif" written on the star (like in [3]). Rama 21:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I assumed good faith, hence the question, instead of just a statement that you were not acting in good faith. Are you suggesting that "assume good faith" must be taken to the point at which bad faith is assumed to be in fact out of the question? That would be officially obligatory naïveté.
If you assume it, then you don't need to ask the question. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Improvement of Wikipedia" is a little vague. If you really want to know the relevance of the image, the answer is that it is a blurry version of a better photo that we have. The sole reason for using this one is that the word SHERIFF is not very visible in it, and so the photo can be used to say, explicitly or implicitly, that the protestors were anti-Semites wearing stars of David. — Helpful Dave 21:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who cares if the badge says "sheriff", what about the golden calf? Sam Spade 00:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are probably much better pictures around which would demonstrate this point. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade, this has been discussed in detail in Image talk:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. All the questions which you have asked so far have been answered there, so it might be intresting for you to skim throug it. Rama 00:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Look, I have written articles about how there is too much tolerance of antisemitism in the anti-globalization movement, and I think this is not an appropriate photo to illustrate the point. Insensitive, stupid...yes, but especially since the word "sheriff" is blurred out, this photo is mostly being used as a propaganda ploy by the political right to bash the left, and by people who are uncritical of Israeli policy to unfairly bash critics. Antisemitism is an important issue. Let's focus on the text and not get distracted by an ambiguous photo.--Cberlet 02:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, i understand all too well what certain POV advocates think, but the golden calf and yellow 6 pointed stars are an excellent example of "Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism". Write "sherriff" or whatever you like, those yellow stars wern't ment to be meerly "insensitive", I don't care how stupid those protesters were, the effect is the same. Even if it was unintentional as you seem to prefer we assume, the effect is for the reader to judge, not you or I. Sam Spade 06:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade, what makes you say "those yellow stars wern't ment to be meerly "insensitive"" ? How can you judge of the intentions of the participants of this photograph ? Do you have any new information ? Also, you put a plural at "stars", but you might have noticed that there is only one star on this photograph.
I am a little bit disturbed by "the effect is for the reader to judge, not you or I"; this opens the way to virtually any image manipulation, in the "we report, you decide" style. Images can be misleading. It has been established that this photograph shows no sign of anti-semitism, and suggesting the opposite, be it by the mere placement of the image in an article about antisemitism without further explainations, would be an unfair and unjust distortion of the reality. Rama 06:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hah! Now I can disagree with Rama.  :-) I think the photo shows outlandish insensitivity to antisemitic iimagery, and if I had been in that demo I would have confronted them about it. The effect is clearly problematic. But we do not know their intent, and the image itself is not the best example to illustrate the point. --Cberlet 16:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course this argument is valid (and I absolutely agree that the people who are pictured on this image are idiots, be it only for having created such a vulnerability to accusations of antisemitism). My point is that this is not a reason to simply put the image without the appropriate caption.
As I said before, I think that this image is a very good example indeed, but not of antisemitism; an example of how naive people can have their discourse honestly misunderstood, or even twisted and perverted by agent provocateur tactics. Rama 07:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The bottom line is that Rama and I both agree the photo does not belong on the page (unless, perhaps, it has a lengthy caption).  :-) --Cberlet 13:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Smile all you want, agree with yourself all you want, I won't tolerate your censorship of this image. The caption I have already compromised on. Sam Spade 13:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade, if you start a revert war rather than engaging in a discussion, I am sure several of us will take the time to arrange for a formal complaint against you. You do not own this page. --Cberlet 13:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Removing this image is not censorship. The image simply has nothing to do with the topic of the article. The claim that the image demonstrates anti-semitism has been widely discredited, both here and elsewhere. It has already been shown that Rumsfeld's star is not a Star of David, as many had claimed, and no one is convinced that showing someone dressed as Ariel Sharon or having Donald Rumsfeld carry a golden calf demostrates anti-semitism. If you can explain how that demostrates anti-semitism, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I will remove the image and file a complaint against you if you continue to use this article as a platform for pushing discredited right-wing propaganda. Kaldari 15:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of your POV. I suggest you review:

And take up any policy violations you are concerned about on my talk page or Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. This page is about discussing the article, not editors, and I don't intend to be intimidated by your POV pushing. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the fact that many editors on this page prefer to to censor this image is no argument against it. Sam Spade 17:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sam, I'm only half following this page, so maybe I missed it, but I'm curious. What exactly is the anti-semitic message relating to anti-globalism you believe this image portrays? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  1. Yellow badge nearly identical to that used in nazi germany (regardless of what is written on it, this is the case)
  2. Golden calf
  3. Prominent Jews singled out for representation in this manner

Sam Spade 19:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh Sam. Did you actually read the image description page, as well as that of the B/W version? Might be time to re-iterate:
  1. The badge was clearly intended as a sheriff's badge. Because some lousy versions of this image had been published, it was misinterpreted as the "Jew" star used in Nazi Germany. Obviously it's easy to get that idea, but the evidence indicates that this was never the intention of these protesters.
  2. Since when do calves have horns? :-) The use of a Golden calf as a methaphor is hardly anti-semitic, it's more anti-(whoever is said to worship it). This particular cow doesn't even look like a calf. I perceive a mixed metaphor, kind of a cross between a Golden calf and a Sacred cow.
  3. Nobody was singled out, it just appears that way because of the selection of view the photographer made. See the description of Image:Davos WEF Golden Calf.png.
I also thought this issue had been resolved long ago (must be in the archive, I guess). Lupo
1. The yellow star issue was settled long ago. Even SlimVirgin, who was the most ardent supporter of the idea that the star was anti-Semitic, backed off on the issue once the high-res version of the photo was discovered. Some people tried to claim that the star was still a Star of David since it had 6 points instead of 5, but as you can see here, sherriff stars commonly have 5, 6, or 7 points. Besides, the Nazis typically made Jews wear arm bands. And why would someone wishing to express anti-Semitism dress up like Donald Rumsfeld? Portraying the star as anti-Semitic is rather transparent propaganda.
2. I'm not sure what the Golden calf has to do with anti-Semitism. You'll have to explain this one to me. The Golden calf is a symbol of the worship of money and thus an entirely appropriate symbol for an anti-globalization protest. If it's supposed to be anti-Semitic, why would Donald Rumsfeld be carrying it?
3. I fail to see how someone dressing up as Ariel Sharon amongst other protesters dressed as other (non-Jewish) world leaders could be perceived as anti-Semitic. If it had been someone dressed as Joseph Liberman instead of Donald Rumsfeld, you would have a point, but otherwise, I don't see how you could make such a connection.
Question: Do you think that Donald Rumsfeld is Jewish? If so, I could understand where you get the idea that the photo is anti-Semitic, but otherwise, I'm frankly at a loss to understand your contention.
Kaldari 20:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is a protester wearing a Sharon mask at a WEF protest? What specifically has Sharon (and perhaps Rumsfeld) got to do with the WEF?
The US and Israeli governments were both prominent participants in the WEF conference at Davos (even though the conference was primarily for large corporations). Kaldari 22:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PS SS I feel compelled to remind you of what happened on Charles Darwin. Do not engage in sterile and pointless edit wars.--Mrfixter 20:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting my role in that case, perhaps you'd do well to review it again. I don't respond well to threats. Discuss the article here, and me and my conduct elsewhere. Sam Spade 20:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade, your conduct here is disruptive and not cooperative. It is appropriate to ask you to edit in a collective spirit. Announcing that you will revert any attempt to delete the image is hardly reflective of dialog. It is being a bully.--Cberlet 22:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh please, save your rhetoric for your next editorial Chip. Any casual reader of this thread will see that I am the one being repeatedly threatened in an attempt to censor this image, an image which POV partisans attempted to have deleted (and failed), and now insist on making useless by removing it from the article they attempted to have deleted (and failed). Now the idea is to chase me off so that this can become yet another of the anti-NPOV articles certain users intend to enforce via partisan networking (see [4]). So please, focus on the article, and please spare us the theatrical hyperventilations. Sam Spade 01:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conjecture

Hi Sam, thank you for your answer above. I personally don't currently have a strong opinion on this image one way or the other, but would like to understand your perspective. So you've listed two symbols displayed that may have been intended to send a derogatory message about Jews. So how do you think these symbols tie in with anti-globalism? What is the message you believe from this image these protestors were intending to send? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Btw, is there a news article on the protest in the image that someone can point me to that gives details about the event? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well firstly this is conjecture, I don't have a citation regarding what they claim to have ment by it, but that would be handy. My interpretation (which I'm not placing in the article of course) is that rumsfeld is acting as the servant of sharon, carrying the golden calf (of mammon I assume, what with the $ coming out of his ears). Sharon carries a club, apparently as slave master, while rumsfeld wears the yellow "sheriffs badge" to indicate America's position of aiding Israel militarilly in the mid-east. Sam Spade 01:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's a very plausible conjecture, certainly not a left-field assessment. It's consistent with, for example, this editorial which talks about the anti-semitic element displayed at anti-globalization rallies indicating Jews are "the hidden hand controlling the global economy." My feeling though is that we really should find confirmation first that this is the message intended behind this particular image. Otherwise just by putting it in the article we've drawn conclusions for the reader that this is indeed an example of anti-globalization and anti-semitism, which probably constitutes original research. I think if we can find outside confirmation though, it's a good image that should be in there. I'll look around and see what I can find. Another thought, I've come across mention of anti-semitic display by some anti-globalist protestors carrying signs reading, ""Nazis, Yankees and Jews: No More Chosen Peoples!" An image of that, if it could be found might be a good example to put in the article also. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
That was my point several days ago, when I asked if people were saying this was an example of anti-Semitism in the anti-globalization movement. At the time I was given a couple of links (one to a blog) which seemed to make that claim. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's plausible, but it is just conjecture. I have said repeatedly that antisemitism in the antiglobalization movement is a real issue and needs to be discussed, but that there must be better images available. The claim that I am somehow trying to censor the issue is outlandish. I have an article in the New Internationalist issue on Judeophobia; and a number of articles on the same theme on a website. See: http://www.newint.org/issue372/ and http://www.publiceye.org/sucker_punch/index.html.--Cberlet 03:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Lets just stick it up and let the reader deside' sounds nice and NPOV, but its not because if the photo is put in the article with no explanatory text the reader will assume that it is a clear example of anti-Semitism, which it certainly isn't. As people have said there are examples that are far less ambiguous (though in my opinion most of those memtions so far are not anti-Semitic). That said no one has uploaded any let.
Just to address Sams 3rd point,that Prominent Jews singled out for representation in this manner he seems to have forgotten/missed the point that there were lots of other world figgers represented too including bin Laden [5]. Under your logic dose that make the protest anti-Muslim? (Since Bin-Laden falsely claims to represent the interests of Muslims just as Sharon falsely claims to represent the interests of Jews) Also Golden Calf/Sacrid cow meaning is discussed more here. --JK the unwise 07:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Bin laden is a semite ;) Seriously tho, I appreciate the return to a civil discussion, and greatly appreciate MPerel's involvement here. Sam Spade 14:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Sam for saying that. The ideal we all fall short of sometimes is to be respectful toward each other even when there is disagreement. Btw, I did find a link relating to the image (search for "Davos"), I don't know if anyone mentioned it earlier. It at least gives evidence that others perceived this image as antisemitism. Whether antisemitism was actually the intention of the protestors is still unknown, though. Even with "sheriff" written on the star, the other elements in the image still could suggest the "Jews run the global economy" message, but again the true intentions of the demonstrators aren't known. It could be cited though as the perception of Mark Strauss, in Foreign Policy. I'm equivocal on whether it should be in the article though without knowing this was indeed the intent of the demonstrators. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Even if Sam's interpretation is 100% accurate, how does that demonstrate anti-Semitism??? Israel and the US were both major participants in the WEF conference. If someone is protesting the WEF conference (and particularly the US's economic exploitation of the Middle East), portraying Arial Sharon and Donald Rumsfeld as worshippers of mannon would certainly make sense. Is it impossible to criticize Arial Sharon or the Israeli government without being anti-Semitic? No one claims that the WEF protest was anti-Christian or anti-Muslim or anti-Caucasian, but the logic would be the same. Yes, I'm sure people who are anti-Semitic say that Jews run the world economy, but using that argument to say that this is an example of anti-Semitism is a Cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. Anyone familiar with the context of the WEF protest understands that there was no anti-Semitic intention to this particular demostration, as has been well discussed and documented on the image talk page. Kaldari 14:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Were other major participants in the WED conference demonstrated against in this way? Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes. LevelCheck 19:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Really? Which ones? Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to know specifically how was Israel "prominent" or a "major participant" in the WEF? --Mrfixter 19:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The WEF is mainly attended by representatives of large corporations, however, a handful of countries also send government representatives to give talks or participate in seminars, etc. As the Middle East is one of the more volatile economic markets, Israel almost always sends high-level government representatives to participate in the WEF. In the last several years, Vice-Prime Minister Shimon Peres has attended regularly and frequently made speeches at the conference regarding the political/economic situation in the Middle East. The governor of the Bank of Israel is also a regular participant in the conference. Kaldari 21:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And which other countries were demonstrated against? Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to the published accounts of this specific demonstration, there were people wearing masks of at least the following: George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Arial Sharon, and Osama bin Laden, all wearing monkey suits and carrying clubs. I think the basic intention of the demonstration was to make a statement that our "leaders" don't really have our interests in mind, but rather are concerned mainly with money and power. The only people who have claimed that this demostration had an anti-Semitic theme are people who have seen this particular blurry photo out of context, mostly on right-wing blog sites like LGF. Using Wikipedia to perpetuate this out-of-context misinterpretation is POV-pushing in my view (and I think the view of most other editors debating this article).
BTW, I wasn't claiming that this particular demonstration was to protest Israel's participation in the WEF. I was making a point that even if Sam's interpretation of the photo was correct (which I don't believe it is), the protestors could be justified in making such a statement in the context of a WEF protest, without anti-Semitism having anything to do with it. Singling out Israel (or Arial Sharon) for criticism would certainly warrant scrutiny, but would not ipso facto demostrate anti-Semitism. Regardless, Israel was not singled out for criticism in this case, so the point is fairly irrelevant. Kaldari 23:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Osama bin Laden isn't a country. So, they didn't single out Israel, they singled out Israel and the U.S. Does Zionist Occupied Government ring a bell with anyone here? Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Those silly protesters, they must have thrown Bin Laden in there by mistake! Kaldari 15:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, somebody silly threw him in, considering that the question was "which other countries were demonstrated against?" Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is clear your guesswork about the intention of the demonstration is faulty, or is at least unsourced speculation on your part. America, Israel and OBL being protested at the WEF? Come on, Israel as economic superpower? If a site like LGF has claimed that the photo is an expression of anti-semitism in the anti-globalization movement, does that merit a mention? --Mrfixter 18:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to believe me. Check out the other photographs of the demo. Kaldari 00:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I really need to start going to these demonstrations! Sam Spade 12:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Restart discussion on photo

Sam Spade has unilaterally jumped the discussion and posted the photo. Do folks want to protest that formally, or shall we continue the discussion?--Cberlet 12:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's just continue the discussion. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs identifies the protestors in the picture as members of ATTAC [6]:
ATTAC, a worldwide group with many members and promoters in Germany, was monitored very thoroughly by Jewish organizations, mainly in France and Britain, as it went beyond criticism of economic policies to address political issues. In a January 2003 demonstration against the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, some of its activists, including Germans, staged a "masquerade." One person, disguised as President Bush, carried with another person a "golden calf." Both "Bush" and the calf were marked with large yellow stars. Subsequently ATTAC came under heavy criticism and tried to deflect it with a "Discussion Site of ATTAC-Germany on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict."21 Although attempts were made there to deny anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, between the lines the message was clear: Israel is solely responsible for the escalation since September 2000, and European Jewish groups isolate themselves when they decline to attend "anti-racism" rallies together with ATTAC and other leftist groups."
The site giving ATTAC's response to the heavy criticism is in German, if someone can translate the response: www.attac-netzwerk.de; search "Antisemitismus," "Israel," or "Palestine." --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
The search engine on the page seems to be broken as I can't pull up anything from those search terms. Do you have a URL for the particular page the response is on? Kaldari 17:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No I don't, sorry, I just have the link to the site given in the footnotes of the JCPA article. I'll browse around and see if I can come up with anything else on it. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:51, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Also, I would like to point out that Jerusalem Center's account of the protest isn't even accurate. First, they've confused Donald Rumsfeld with Bush (as the two people carrying the cow were Rumsfeld and a person dressed as a pig), and Rumsfeld was the only person seen wearing a sherriff's badge (not Bush). Also, there was no sherriff's badge (or yellow star) on the cow. There are pictures of the cow from both sides on the internet and you can see that there is no star. Obviously if there had been Star of David on the Golden Calf there would be pictures of it all over the internet and we wouldn't be debating this ambiguous photo of Sharon and Rumsfeld, that's for sure. If they can't even get the obvious facts right, I'm certainly going to be skeptical of whatever else they have to say about it. Regardless, I will withhold judgement until I read more about the controversy with ATTAC. Kaldari 18:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't assume the JCPA account isn't accurate. They weren't commenting on this particular photo captured at one moment in time, but on the protest as a whole, which I assume lasted at least all day if not over the period of several days. In fact an account by Jay Nordlinger, a participant in the WEF who gave a lecture, observed a person dressed as George W. Bush carrying the calf, so it's plausible and likely that the calf (and perhaps even the yellow stars) were traded off among various characters throughout the protest. Nordlinger reported: Some of the protesters are dressed as monkeys — no, really — and others carry a golden calf. This calf is borne by persons wearing a George W. Bush mask and a Donald Rumsfeld mask. "Rumsfeld" is wearing a yellow star — nice. Real nice. Also, the protesters are raining all over the place xeroxed dollar bills that show President Bush in place of George Washington and have the president saying, "We f*** the world." On the back it says "In War We Trust." [7]. I agree that more fact gathering will hopefully bring more to light. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
I found the ATTAC discussion page referenced in the article. Nothing there seems to mention the Davos protest specifically, however. Everything on the site that I've translated so far (through Google) looks like standard leftist dogma: "We defend therefore the existence right of Israel, demand however at the same time the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state. We demand the attention of all by the United Nations discharged Palestine resolutions, the retreat of Israel from all since 1967 occupied areas, an acknowledgment Jerusalem as capital of both states..." etc. Haven't found anything anti-Semitic there yet, in fact it looks like they organized a workshop on anti-Semitism a while back. If these guys are the best example of anti-Semitism in the anti-globalization movement, I don't think we have much to write about. Kaldari 19:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think people sensitive to the history of antisemitism would avoid these images. On the other hand, the photo has been cropped to accentuate the problematic aspects, and many of the complaints seem to come from folks with a history of bashing the left and conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israeli policies. So unless the photo has a huge cutline explaining all this, I still thibk it does not belong on the page.--Cberlet 19:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree this image probably is wrong for this article based on the facts as we know them so far. The image certainly evoked many negative responses, but the bottom line is, there is still ambiguity linking this photo to outright antisemitism, though yes it is insensitive as many have already mentioned. There are more blatant examples I've seen cited, but without accompanying photos. Perhaps the focus should be on locating a more representative photo to use instead of this one. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Remove tag?

Can we remove the tag concerning the merger proposal?--Cberlet 16:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Only if we replace it with a cleanup tag (or VfD). This article is still in a sorry state. Kaldari 17:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there is still a disputed merge proposal on the table, and the only other possible tag we should use is {TitleDisputed}. zen master T 17:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

On what table will I find this "disputed merge proposal"? Jayjg (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you disputing whether there is a disputed merge proposal? I think this talk page and history should be sufficient to convey that fact, but if you want to rehash why the title and existence of this article is flawed (POV) then I am game. zen master T 15:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see a merge proposal on this Talk: page; where will I find it? Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you conveniently ignoring the history of this article? If there isn't a proposal on the talk page may I propose one? I actually changed the article to titledisputed template which I think covers my concerns slightly more accurately though I still believe the info in this article should be merged back to the anti-globalization or anti-semitism article (title should not conclude that this phenomenon factually exists more than errant charges of anti-semitism is used to discredit the movement). Why isn't this article's info simply included in an "examples or allegations of anti-semitism" sub section of the anti-semitism article? zen master T 16:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
So you're talking about discussions from weeks ago which have long gone dormant? Do you have any new information to add to the positions outlined at that time? Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding your last question, for one thing the article is relevant to both Anti-globalization and anti-Semitism. Second, the VfD failed, and the conclusion was that the article should stand on its own; please don't try to re-do a vote you lost. And finally, the anti-Semitism article is already 47K long, this is too much information to add there. Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This article doesn't appear very NPOV

Please correct me if I am wrong (very useful, as I am researching the Wikipedia for my MA dissertation) but this article does not seem to represent an example of Wikipedia's NPOV. It seems to represent a theory which has little hard evidence attributed to it bar opinion editorial pieces from newspapers, some of which (Naomi Klein) actually seem a little out of context here. I say 'lack of hard evidence' due to the muddying of items such as the EU report and the often-thorny distinction between (legitimate or otherwise) criticism of Israel and anti-semitism.

I'm of the opinion that, if this article must exist, it will only serve the needs of the Wikipedia if members of anti-globalisation (itself a politically loaded term) organisations are invited to contribute. It would therefore serve as a useful resource, both for proponents of the current POV of the article, and for members of these organisations interested in these allegations (as they should be). As the article stands, it detracts from the credibility of the project in circles which are suspicious of the origin of much of the material that links anti-semitism to the globalisation movement.

The debate about the picture also seems bizarre more than anything else, I have passed it around a varied assortment of people (as part of my research into debates here) and didn't manage to find anybody who thought it was anti-semitic - each person identified the golden calf as a symbol of mammon. If the picture is sufficiently vague to produce such an interpretation, it hardly seems to fit into the tradition of anti-semitic propaganda, and rightly or wwrongly, should probably be considered POV. Thanks illWill 00:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I would be interested in your university's formal position on the ethics of participating in a debate which is part of the research for your MA dissertation. In any case, most of us rely on cites and debate to persuade other editors. But I take your comments as a challenge to provide more sourced material. --Cberlet 02:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
If you think this version has too much bias, just check out the earlier versions. This version is more just a mess than anything else. Definitely not an example of Wikipedia's best work. Also, I find it interesting that you would participate in the very debate you are studying. Traditional academics would frown on such behavior, but maybe that's why Wikipedians and academics don't get along so well. Kaldari 03:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies - because my background is in Media and Cultural Studies I tend to write heavily about things in which I have participated myself - I don't believe that good academic work has to be dry and detached and don't see the point in pretending I don't have an opinion of things. 'Traditional academics' tend to frown on Cultural studies as a discipline, and occupy a position of disinterested observation (NPOV, even) which I believe is false anyway, as your own research methods are always shaped by politics.
Also, when I decided I was going to write about the Wikipedia, I thought it would be appropriate to put my thoughts and motivation on the wikipedia as a self-reflexive process. I'm writing as much about my experience of editing and participating in the wikipedia as about the wwikipedia itself. I am also just learning how to use the thing, so bear with me. Please check out my talk page if you're interested.
I will try and find some citations for my opinions on this article, I just added that comment very late last night and my eyes hurt from 14 hours in front of teh screen. Thanks illWill 11:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
That's the spirit. Jump in and edit. There is nothing wrong with being a scholarly participant observer here at Wiki, as long as someplace you post a note that you are doing an academic study. On your main User page is a good place to post a note. However to start out a discussion comment by invoking your scholarly status as a researcher; and then make a POV comment about text, is in my view outside the bounds of appropriate Wiki behaviour. Here editors range from folks with post-doctorates to folks without formal education. What matters is good editing and following the rules for citation and support for text being added. As you can probably figure out, just adding a comment on a discussion page that you think an article needs work is generally considered a waste of everyone's time. The point is to edit text. Or as others here often say--"we are writing an encyclopedia, not talking about how to write an encyclopedia." If the latter interests you, there are discussions policy and writing rules elsewhere on Wiki and on discussion lists. Happy editing. --Cberlet 13:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I posted a note about the fact that I'm researching right after registering as a user (after two years of anonymous edits), and the only reason I make it clear in the occasional comment is because I like people to contact me with their opinions, as you have done. As for my POV on the article, I'm of the opinion that the more controversial a topic is (and I dont think it's going too far to call this topic and its talk page controversial) the less likely it is to fit the term NPOV, which I don't see as being easily obtainable anyway. This is off-topic though, so I will restrict such discussion to my user page and other relevant talk pages.
Please forgive me for the tone of my comments; it always take a while to work out the etiquette for particular forms of CMC. I will try and do some research on the topic, and ad another note here if I have any success. illWill 15:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Title disputed?

Zen master, you seem to be finding all sorts of disputes that I don't see anywhere on this talk page (see above). Now the title is disputed? Where will I find that debate? Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It has been disputed ever since VfD. See my previous post for details. To summarize, I still believe the content should be merged to other articles but slightly more importantly a title should not conclude that this phenomenon factually exists when there is at least as much evidence that errant charges of anti-semitism are used to discredit the movement (to a greater degree than any real anti-semitism within the movement). zen master T 16:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
O.K., so you've felt that all along. Most others haven't. The VfD failed. Do you have anything new to add? Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The points raised in the previous discussion remain unrefuted. Are you actually working towards consensus? There is more evidence charges of anti-semitism are used to discredit the anti-globalization movement than any actual anti-semitism within the movement (in which case the title of this article is doubly inaccurate). zen master T 16:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the points raised in the previous discussion remain unrefuted by you, and there already is a consensus, that this article should remain where it is, under it's current name. Are you simply being obstructionist? Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
What you call consensus is not consensus. zen master T 17:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
While you might be correct in the real world, in Wikipedia terms "consensus" in the end means "significant majority". As such, there is indeed consensus for this; otherwise a single editor could, in effect, hold any article he wanted "hostage" for any period of time he wanted - which is, of course, exactly what you are attempting to do. Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

after edit conflict

Keep your original research out of it, zen. Also discussions about merging the article are totally moribund and no-one serious suggests that this article can or should be merged back into Anti-globalization. That was just a tactic after the failed VfD. --Mrfixter 17:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that is one of the tactics often used, and obviously being used here. The other tactic I've seen is to rename the article, and then claim that the contents don't match the article title, and therefore the article should be merged (i.e. deleted). See Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda for a good example of the latter. Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't even the one that initially suggested the merging so it isn't just me. What you label as original research is actual fact. It may be time for another Vfd since people are hopefully more educated on the issue now. zen master T 17:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You need to re-read Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NPOV. Bald assertions that "this is actual fact" betray a strong POV and a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. And I suppose it's inevitable, the people who want to delete the article, first put it up for VfD, then when that fails try to "delete by merge", and then when that fails, put it up for VfD again. Why not accept consensus instead? Is there any specific statement in the article you disagree with? Or is this just continued obstructionism? Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
(After edit conflict)When I talked about original research, I was referring to your "its all used to discredit the anti-globalization movement" POV assertion. A VfD is pointless. --Mrfixter 17:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd be voting merge in the VfD, it seems VfD gets a lot more traffic than RFC. There are facts that support the determination that the majority of anti-semitism charges are used to discredit the movement. zen master T 17:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's not start another round of pointless VfD's etc. Zen-master: you have tried this tactic on other pages. You relentlessly attack pages and titles you disagree with, and then fail to abide by the spirit of the vote or trend of the discussion. Cut it out. Check out the new material I have added. I will add more documentation in a day or two as I finish researching the topic. This page discusses a real issue. You can't just dismiss it. I agree that sometimes the charge is just a way to bash the left. But sometimes it is not. And we can't simply ignore the charge, even if it is just baiting the left, since it is a widespread allegation. --Cberlet 18:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Please describe the tactics you mention? The only users doing sublte attacking are the people pushing a POV, I am pushing for an increase of neutrality. Feel free to disagree, but please do not disregard. zen master T 18:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you always insist that you are pushing "neutrality", while all those who disagree with you are POV pushing. Unfortunately, your Talk: comments belie that claim. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, I am not advocating we ignore the charges or allegations, I am advocating that all the charges and counter charges be presented neutrally. zen master T 18:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, suddenly a new argument appears. However, you haven't yet indicated a particular charge you think is not presented neutrally. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The principle of democracy is that the losers accept the decision of the majority. Are you having anti-democratic tendencies, zen? Your last argument, BTW, is just another distraction tactic, since it is completely absurd to expect complete NPOV language just one month after such a dispute. Having contributed to several controversial topics myself, it is my experience that having sections where proponents and critics can express their POV views are good at caliming down people and certainly better than having no article at all. Also, though each section may be POV, the whole article becomes balanced and relatively NPOV (as it expresses all the views). Thus, your argument is baseless. Luis rib 18:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I propose we remove the title tag. --Cberlet 18:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Definetely. The term "POV title" doesn't even mean anything! Are we going to prohibit the article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion just because the title and the book are POV? Luis rib 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree, remove the title tag. --Mrfixter 19:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
How is that title comparable to this article's title? That book or whatever it is may indeed be POV but the title of this article is basically stating that group X (anti-globalism) is Y (anti-semetic), that is what is POV (much more POV that merely mentioning the existence of something that might itself be POV, see the difference?). The title of this article is still very much disputed. zen master T 21:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Nope, the title just makes a connection between both terms. It doesn't make a judgement on this connection. As the content of the article shows, this connection is supported by some, and rejected by some. "and" is not equal to "is". When you say "apples and oranges" you are not saying "apples are oranges". That's basic English grammar, I think. Luis rib 21:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Is there a precedent for title contents such as 'POV' or 'allegations of..' on Wikipedia? I haven't seen one, but that doesn't mean anything. If not, I don't think the work is needed on the title but on its introduction, to put the title in better context. Thanks illWill 21:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no particular precedent for including "allegations" in article titles, which, in fact, is a way of introducing POV. Zen-master has been on a crusade to change various titles for months, but hasn't managed to garner much support for his idiosyncratic view. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My point is why isn't the article Luis mentions above instead titled Protocols of the Elders of Zion and anti-Semitism? That article's actual title Protocols of the Elders of Zion presents a very POV subject neutrally but this article's title does not, why is that? zen master T 22:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Because the article isn't about anti-Semitism, it's about a document called "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". This article, however, it about Anti-globalization and anti-Semitism. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Does that article mention anti-Semitism? That book is much more anti-Semitic than the anti-globalization movement by orders of magnitude. How did an article about a book, which factually concludes it is fraudulent and anti-Semitic, get a neutral title while allegations of some anti-Semitism within the anti-globalization movement get a very POV conclusive title? The other article reaches all the factual and justifiable conclusions of anti-Semitism within the contents of the article, but this article concludes things in the title. This discprepancy needs rectifying one way or another. zen master T 22:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
No, the article doesn't discuss allegations that it is Anti-Semitic, as opposed to this article, which does discuss allegations of anti-Semitism. This is pretty simple stuff, Zen-master. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Huh? If it's so simple then please explain it to me. That article does indeed discuss allegations and facts that the book is anti-Semitic. To quote from that article "The Encyclopædia Britannica describes the Protocols as a 'fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism in the early 20th century'" and "...[a group] had been criticized for using [the book] in their anti-Semitic publications". An article with a fact based conclusion that a book is anti-Semitic is neutrally titled, yet an article about allegations of some possible anti-Semitism within the anti-globalization movement is presented POV conclusively, that does not make sense. zen master T 01:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Could the following link be added to the 'reactions' section of the page? As suggested by Cberlet following my badly-phrased comment above, I have been trying to find sources to add to this debate. However, most of the stuff that I've been able to find originates from partisan blogs on either side of the spectrum. However, the following piece is from the Guardian newspaper.

To contrast, the following link also contains a case which may suggest some evidence to suggest that the conflation of various interest groups to campaign against the Iraq war may have resulted in anti-semitism being ignored.

Could somebody please offer me some guidance on researching a topic where the discussion is so highly polarised. How much can sources from blogs be used? I am trying to find stuff to include in the article, but I'm still learning how to find good sources. Also, apologies if these links have also appeared before - this page changes pretty quickly. Thanks illWill 00:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The following link may also be useful to people interested in this topic. It contains a series of Avi speeches by Norman Finkelstein on anti-semitism and criticism of Israel. I am aware that Finkelstein's opinions are considered controversial, but I think that his ongoing feud with Alan Dershowitz is relevant to this topic.
You also need to watch the speech all the way through, as the piece is clearly polemical, but still contains useful material. Thanks illWill 00:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

This article has rightly been subject to criticism in regards to relevance and a generally non-encylcopedic style. If it can't be merged I would suggest a) eliminating 3/4 of it and leaving it a step above a stub as that's all it basically warrants (it's a sub article of a sub-article and yet it's 70% the size of Globalization--it's granparent article if you like). Or b) making a larger article called the Left and Anti-semetism or some such thing which would actually be relevant and including most of this stuff there. Marskell 19:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is a relatively reasonable summary of an often bitter and contentious debate. Wiki cannot eliminate such articles, since that implies that the proponents of the central argument have nothing of merit in their claims. It is entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia to have entires on matters that are the subject of debate. People who oppose the idea that there may be some in the anti-Globalization movement who are at best insensitive to antisemitism tend to suggest this page has no merit. Not a big surprise.--Cberlet 20:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Since there are no space restrictions on wikipedia, I don't see why a sub-sub-sub-sub article should be deleted. On the contrary, the aim of wikipedia is to make central articles only summaries, and to put more details into subarticles. This frees up space for the central article, and at the same time allows even minor issues to be treated in great detail. It is a characteristic we should cherish in wikipedia, not condemn. Luis rib 20:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The problem with this article is not its existence, as it would certainly prove useful to members of the anti-globalisation movement who might then think twice about seeking common cause with certain organisations. Also, the fact that the allegations exist requires both their assertion and refutation in an article of this kind. The problem lies in the presentation of the article and its use of sources. The Mark Strauss article is actually a lot more nuanced than the quotations presented would suggest, examining a variety of possible reasons for the infiltration by anti-semites and also supplying stories of Jewish activists. The first paragraph, quoted in the wiki entry, is provocative but is IMO not supported well by the arguments made in the piece. It also generated a lot of negative feedback (one example at here. I think the opening paragrpah needs to do more to put the debate in context, perhaps covering some of the material from anti-zionism. illWill 21:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Why not go ahead and try your hand at implementing your own suggestions? They all sound reasonable to me.--Cberlet 21:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I will do, I'll wait til I've got a fresh head tomorrow though. If nobody objects to inclusion of a little material from anti-zionism, I'll put that in the intro and add some nuance to the bit on Strauss. However, I think the discussion of the EU report requires work that I don't feel qualified to do - the non-endorsement of the report probably needs to be commented on by a user with a knowledge of the byzantine complexity of EU departmental politics. That isn't me, I'm afraid.illWill 21:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC) 21:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
It's best to avoid duplication between articles whenever possible; what kind of stuff did you want to include from there? Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean that I plan to copy big chunks of text (both articles are very long) but would try and replicate the way in which anti-zionism is nuanced, which I think is very effective and NPOV for such a contentious topic. I actually think this article could do with being a fair bit shorter, and hopefully a good intoductory paragraph should facilitate this.illWill 21:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Holy quick response to suggestions...good stuff. Is illWill's comment "I will do it" mean I will create a Left and Anti-semitism article as suggested or a restructure here? Hopefully the former--it is warranted.
Re. the sub-sub thing, I absolutely agree Wiki is wonderful for being discursive but there is often an incongruity between a main article and its links which is off-putting. Somebody does a standrard article of medium length and then somebody who's "into it" rambles on in what ought to be a concise sub-article. Do we need in this article, for instance, hundreds of words deconstrucing a single article in the New Internationalist (Ideological concerns)? Should the article on Anti-Globalization be three times the size of the article on Globalization? Marskell 22:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
No, he's going to re-work some of the information in this article, which is about Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism, not the Left and anti-Semitism. If you want to write an article about that different topic, you're more than welcome to; just click on the red link and start. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the main article is Anti-globalization, not Globalization, and Anti-globalization is already over 40K, larger than the suggested size for main articles. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Marskell, but I think the creation of a whole 'left and anti-semitism' article is outside the scope of my abilities. I'm a better minor editor than researcher, although I'm working on it. I intend to improve the introduction of this one and slim it down a bit, hopefully with less reliance on a series of articles/op eds which (as in the case of Strauss and Klein) actually comment on each other anyway. As for 'left and antisemitism' do you not think creating that article might result in more debate than anything else? I personally don't like the term 'anti-globalization' but it is in common currency and easy to locate within debate. Defining the various spectrum of views that might correspond to 'left' in this particular case strikes me as being very difficult.
I will do the editing tomorrow, it's getting a bit late for me now.illWill 23:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
A few quick responses and I'm off as well...
As a point of basic logic, Anti-Globalization is a sub-article of Globalization. Length does not determine primacy--the Wiki article on Pet skunks is three or four times larger than the article Skunks (presumably bc somebody who owns a skunk had some time to kill) but if you had to choose one over the other as worthy of inclusion here you'd have to pick Skunks. Similarly, if Anti-globalization has received more attention than Globalization, it's due to the slant of contributors; the average browser is going to search Globalization first and hit the Anti- page as a sublink and subsequent to that hit this page as final reading. BTW, I think Anti-Globalization is poorly done, totally POV, and very overlong--I added a comment there just after this one.
If illWill does edit, please (I'd suggest) drastically shorten or remove the bit mentioned earlier about the Internationalist article. It takes a single interview and totally inflates it.
I do know how to click on the red link and add an article. I only suggested the Left + Anti-semitism as a compromise based on previous discussions--moving a semi-relevant article to a more a relevant descriptor. Yes, it would create more talk page yip-yap but so what. Will points out that "'Anti-globalization'...is in common currency" but is "'Anti-Globalization and Anti-Semitism'" in common currency?" Leftist anti-semitism probably gets more Google searches than Anti-Globalization-anti-semitism; The latter is an adjunct of the former I'd say. Marskell 23:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I see your point, if such an article could be written well it would be useful, and this article could well be a good subset of it. However, I think in practicality the article would be enormous and a prompt for semantic and taxonomic bickering. Not that these are inherently bad, but I don't consider myself skilled enough to create such a page without making loads of mistakes. I will just concentrate on shrinking this one a bit, and see where we go from there. illWill 00:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Use of FrontPageMag as a source

The "allegations" section began with a quote contained in the ludicrously far-right FrontPageMag.com. By all standards this is not a legitimate source, and we cannot prevent controversial claims from it without saying something about the nature of the publication - better yet to just not include it at all. I mean, just look around the site: today they accuse UNICEF and Oprah Winfrey of funding Palestinian terrorist groups, beneath an article demonizing black people and next to a racist advertisement for gun t-shirts. I mean I'm not trying to apply a double-standard - I wouldn't include something from an anarchist zine on the capitalism article while presenting it as widely held opinion. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with reservations, alhough I wouldn't describe Front Page as 'far right' - it is Alan Dershowitz's publication, which probably puts it at teh extreme of the conservative spectrum. I don't personally perceive the problem in the source, but in the nature of the article - which is full of unsubstantiated allegations. illWill 20:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Nuance

Why I rewrote the lead. It is not possible to state that every member of a movement accepts or rejects anything. Some people within the anti-Globalization movement and people who support the anti-Globalization movement have warned about anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is not accurately called a form of racism unless you want to get into a long discussion about false claims of shared genetic heritage and neonazi ideology. There are clearly people who publicly claim to be part of the anti-Globalization movement who promote xenophobia and anti-Semitism--which is exactly what Naomi Klein was warning about.--Cberlet 13:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Your changes look good to me. zen master T 13:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Great. Good news. Now let me switch hats, and suggest we need more discussion in the body of the text of how the claim of "antisemitism in the anti-globalization movement" is sometimes used by some on the zealous right to bash progressive critics of unregulated capitalism and U.S. foreign policy. The Frontpage article was a good example of that. And I switch hats again and suggest we need a short discussion of the problematic alliance between the Nader people and Pat Buchanan, who regularly flirts with antisemitism.  :-) --Cberlet 14:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I've edited your re-write; the opening sentence was confusing, as were the very last few words, and claims are claims. Jayjg (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Not everyone who worries about antisemitism in the anti-globalization movement is a critic of anti-globalization. Let's not add POV bias to the lead. It is factually false. the POV in the lead is not accurate--Cberlet 19:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I've made another edit to try to accomodate that point; what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. Thanks. --Cberlet 20:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of 'allegations' section

Hi there. I rewrote the allegation section because it seemed mostly to consist of large quotes from articles which can be seen as opinion pieces. The problem is that the Strauss article contains some liinks and facts, but also some unsubstantiated claims. I also delated the Stern quote, as he doesn't even make any direct accusations, although I kept a summary in.

I know that I said I would try and make the article shorter, but I think an important step to that is making it read better first. I propose slimming down the 'reaction' section, but I don't know what to do about the ideological concerns part - it seems far too long. illWill 19:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It is too long, I didn't have time to summarize the arguments. Jump right in and summarize.--Cberlet 12:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Guys, get a life

What is this nonsense? Is this a case study in self-delusion? Does Wikipedia now have to have a page devoted to every crank and the ravings of every lunatic under the sun? Because this is what this so called anti-globalisation and anti-semitism page is about. For a start, the anti-globalisation movement doesn't even LIKE the term (it prefers anti-capitalist, grassroots globalisation, global justice movement). If you're talking about the anti-immigrant movements, the populist anti-globalisation movements who favour BORDERS (unlike the anti-capitalists, etc) or the fascist movements, then why not RENAME THIS PAGE huh? Secondly, this movement IS NOT the anti-war movement (with its associated discourse and analysis which includes critiques of Israel), though there are important overlaps and similarities in some areas. Thirdly, as someone who has been involved in the UK movement for 6 years, I have NEVER heard anyone involved even utter anything even close to anti-semitic. Not a joke, not a sentence. In fact, many of those involved are active jews who are even more against the policies of Israel than many on the left who are not jewish.

So, is there a space on wikipedia for the bloke next door who says the goldfish is talking to him, or are people going to start to get with reality? Thank you.

Now that you have vented...what constructive ideas or edits do you have to offer to make the page a better addition to Wikipedia. Simply because you disagree with a page does not mean that the issue does not exist. --Cberlet 12:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think his point isn't that the issue doesn't exist, it's that the issue is a political strawman. Anti-semitism is not a significant phenomenon in the anti-globalization movement. The 2 real issues are:
1. anti-Zionism within the anti-war movement.
2. anti-Semitism within right-wing nationalist movements (such as Front National in France). Nationalists often share views on certain issues with anti-globalists, and are sometimes wrongly labeled anti-globalists, but their politics are entirely different even if they do show up at the same protests. The anti-globalization movement is overwhelmingly left-wing (i.e. social justice, civil rights, anti-racist). They oppose globalization because they see multinational corporations exploiting 3rd world countries with impunity. Nationalists are typically right wing and oppose globalization because they support economic protectionism.
Critics of the anti-globalization movement have tried to use these 2 legitimate issues to paint the anti-globalization movement as anti-Semitic, but few people even take these accusations seriously as they are so ludicrous. It speaks volumes that Wikipedia's article on Fascism doesn't discuss anti-semitism at all (where it is obviously a real problem), but there's a lengthy article discussing anti-semitism and anti-globalization. It's obvious that this article exists because of efforts to push a particular point of view. Kaldari 16:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that it is always a straw issue. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. That's why I added the section on ideological issues. There are leftwing anti-globalization activists who have applauded coalitions with rightwing nationalist movements and dismissed the criticism that these movements often come with the baggage of xenophobia and antisemitism. Ralph Nader's team of anti-globalization activists--with their open coalition with Pat Buchanan--are the best known examples of this in the U.S.--Cberlet 17:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So you believe that there needs to be an entire encyclopedia article about anti-semitism and anti-globalization because some unnamed anti-globalization activists have formed coalitions with right-wing nationalist groups that are probably anti-semitic. Do you realize that the articles on Nationalism and Right-wing politics don't even mention anti-semitism? If it's not even notable enough to mention in those articles why the hell is there an entire treastise about it here (where the connection is tenuous at best)? The only reason this article survived VfD is because certain people are interested in propping up a negative POV of the anti-globalization movement (or they are interested in conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism). Either way this article is unencyclopedic and inherently POV. Kaldari 17:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These arguments were all raised during the VfD, which failed. Are there any specific sentences you feel are NPOV? Jayjg (talk) 15:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reorganisation of material

I moved much of the article around, moving all of the allegations to the start. I also began with the criticisms that originated from what may be termed ' the anti-globalization movement' as hopefully this will help to make the article seem less like a fringe concern. If anybody has ideas on this, please contact me.

Hopefully, some editing will now be possible to reduce the article's length by deleting certain points taht have been repeated. I also chopped a lot of the material from the dutch group, as I didn't see why so much of it was needed. It would be great if somebody could edit for style, as I'm conscious that further reorganisation may be needed. I'm sure that this article could lose another third in length, at least. illWill 20:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Err???

This stuff doesn't make much sense:
Strauss makes a number of accusations in his article, including that:

  • Marchers at an anti-globalisation march in Porto Allegre, Brazil displayed Swastikas
  • Jewish peace activists were assaulted at the same march

Well I'd like to see proof but I can see how these would link anti-glob to anti-sem (or at least iny elements of anti-cap) but...

  • European newspapers have resurrected the image of the ‘Christ-killing Jew’

Since when do Anti-globalisationists own european newspapers?

  • Palestinians are lining up to buy copies of Mein Kampf

If true this shows anti-sem amoung Palestinatines rather then anti-glob's.
Further:
Strauss draws many of his sources from anti-Semitic newspapers in the Arab world, and does not provide direct links to the sources of several of the accusations mentioned above. However, he does present evidence that groups such as the right-wing National Alliance have sought to recruit anti-gobalization protestors through websites which avoid explicit declarations of far-right politics.
This proves what? That The far right is trying to recruit anti-glob's by pretending that they're not far-right which one would imagine involves pretending their not anti-semitic, which suggests that anti-globs would be put off by anti-semitism, which suggests anti-glob's don't tend to be anti-semities!!!
I have edited accordingly.--JK the unwise 13:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I personally don't consider that Strauss article to be a valid source - he is willing to make very provocative claims (European Newspapers and the Christ Killing Jew) without being willing to back them up. If material like that is going to be on Wikipedia, then it probably belongs in the New anti-Semitism article - which is currently a repository for similar conspiracy-type theories.
However, I think this point about teh National Alliance recruiting deserves to stand - there is a danger that far-right groups are pursuing a tactic of finding 'common ground' with people attracted to the anti-globalisation movement, and Strauss does provide evidence of this claim. I also don't necessarilt agree that far-right and anti-semitic can necessarily be conflated - there are people on the far-left who are anti-semitic, just as there are people on the far-right (Israeli right and christian right) who aren't. I think the point of this article is that mass movements can sometimes make strange bedfellows, so the bit about the National Alliance should stay, although perhaps with a rewrite. illWill 14:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be some mention of the National Alliance (and there are other extreme right-wing groups) trying to recruit the left around the issue of anti-globalism and slipping in antisemitism. That was one of the points being made by Naomi Klein.--Cberlet 03:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Will and Chip; "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an important phenomenon when it comes to anti-Semitism. Jayjg (talk) 15:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I have found reading the three key articles Globalization, anti-globalization and Anti-globalization and Anti-semitism (why is that coming up red?) and the discussions extremely helpful and informative and precisely what I would want in a living encyclopaedia. There has been a tremendous amount of dedicated work from very different POVs. How can the disclaimer on the anti-globalization article be removed? Jeffrey Newman 01:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

This article, is as stands, is mostly nonsense, containing a few too many strawman attacks and factual inaccuracies. Whatever is worthwhile in this article - which is basically merely the acknowledgement that some people feel that anti-semitism with the "anti-globalization" movement is an issue - should be merged with Anti-Semitism. Having a whole article on this "issue" is inherently biased, from the title downward, like if I made an article called Capitalism and killing children for profit even though that issue must be discussed in euphemism in the proper article. --Tothebarricades 08:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

the matter is that this article is a spin-off of anti-globalization already, so it might prove difficult to merge it back somewhere. Some here tend t think that these is a strong similarity between the real or supposed anti-semitism in anti-globalisation, and the so-called "New Antisemitism"; perhaps seomthing could be done in that direction, but I don't suppose that is will be effortless. Rama 11:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The idea of a merge has been proposed and denied. TDC 12:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Which specific items do you think are "strawman attacks" and "factually inaccurate". Jayjg (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Although this article has improved 10-fold since it's grossly biased beginnings, there are still a few things taken out of context. For example, this sentence is misleading: "[Naomi Klein] wrote in a 2002 article of her great concern in finding antisemitic rhetoric on some activist websites that she had visted." This makes it sound like she was shocked to find anti-globalization activists posting anti-semitic rants on their websites. In actuality, the posts were not made by anti-globalization activists, nor was she "greatly concerned" about finding them there. If you read the article you find that she was "thinking about" the fact that she is commonly confronted with anti-semitic propoganda, even on indymedia sites (which are essentially open discussion boards with plenty of right-wing trolls, racists, and conspiracy theorists of all stripes). The way it is phrased in the article is misleading, IMO. Kaldari 16:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
After the VfD failed, then started the push to merge. There is no consensus for a merge, this has been gone over ad nauseum. I would also like to know what your specific complaints are, before I take the NPOV notice off. --Mrfixter 21:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Kaldari, you have a good point - I would suggest editing the section on Naomi Klein if you think the article uses quotes out of context. I don't agree with a merge though - even though I personally feel this article deals with an extreme minority phenomenon (bordering on what would be called a conspiracy theory if applied to many other groups). I think the article is useful to dispel myths, if nothing else. I certinly don't think it should be merged with New Anti-Semitism, which could do with a tremendous amount of work.illWill 22:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Can we please take off the disputed notice now?--Cberlet 12:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Addition of material on Kalle Lasn

Although I have no problem with drawing attention to an easily-misinterpreted article by the founder of Adbusters here, especially as Lasn could do with some lessons in thinking beofre he publishes things, Katerg's recent edits actually misinterpret the content of the article. For clarity I will quote a big chunk of it, and have embolddened the relevant section:

"A lot of ink has been spilled chronicling the pro-Israel leanings of American neocons and fact that a the disproportionate percentage of them are Jewish. Some commentators are worried that these individuals – labeled ‘Likudniks’ for their links to Israel’s right wing Likud party – do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests. For example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war in Iraq?
Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite. But the point is not that Jews (who make up less than 2 percent of the American population) have a monolithic perspective. Indeed, American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and many of them disagree strongly with Ariel Sharon’s policies and Bush’s aggression in Iraq. The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East."

Lasn's strategy (of listing which neocons are Jewish) is both ridiculous and ill-advised, but that doesn't make him an anti-semite, as Katerg's first edit stated. ThanksillWill 19:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

you're right, he isn't antisemitic, but he certainly feeds antisemitic sentiment. i personally just think he's insane. thanks for making it more neutral --Katerg 20:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Lasn is insane. The point that he is trying to make is interesting, but the way he has gone about it is idiotic beyond belief (sadly, a pretty accurate description of most of his recent activities), and he contradicts his own arguments. Hopefully the amount of 'Jewish conspiracy runs the world' lunatics that article attracted to his site will make him think twice before publishing anything without reading it through first.illWill 21:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Kalle Lasn's points were taken completely out of line. There cannot be any - ANY - denying that a great many neoconservative intellectuals, whether it be Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, Allan Bloom, Wolfowitz or a great many others, are of Jewish background.

and what exactly is the point of saying that? what are we being called to do about it? what does pointing it out accomplish beyond being an excuse for hatred? you can't deny they're all guys too. what does that mean? --Katerg 20:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, there cannot be any denying the close relationship between some members of the Bush administration and the Likud party.

I fail to see how criticizing America's foreign policy when it comes to Israel is parallel to anti-semitism. SubbEvil

That's not the argument. Only a few right-wingers make that argument. The primary issue with Kalle Lasn is the outlandish and clueless insensitivity to the historic use of lists of Jews and claims of a Jewish conspiracy. --Cberlet 21:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove NPOV and factual accuracy tags?

Is NPOV and accuracy still being disputed, or can the tags be taken down now? Andjam 04:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think so, and no one has objectd for over a month, so I took it down. FRS 15:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The reference to Naomi Klein's article is broken:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/13/feature2.shtml

José Bové

Anyone interested in adding José Bové to this article? He's the anti-gloabalization activist who's accused the Mossad of committing anti-Semitic acts in France to gain sympathy for Jews.

STATISTICAL FOUNDATIONS OF GLOBALISATION AND THE JEWS

Sorry to be, errr, so anti-semitic (actually, I'm not, according to the following websites, if everyone where Jewish, the world would be a much better place : http://www.jinfo.org/Mathematics_Comp.html AND http://www.jinfo.org/).

Though that above selection may be *SLIGHTLY* unrepresentative of the truth. Anyhow, this got me round to thinking that, as Globalisation is driven by the most intelligent people, and the following referenced website on wikipedia corroborates this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence, then that means that the overwhelming majority of European individuals who benefit most from Globalisation are either Jewish or have at least one parent who is Jewish. This, I believe, is a statistical fact once one takes a Normal z-distribution table and supposes that there is even a 0.5 Standard Deviation difference in the intelligences between European and (diminishing due to inter-marriage) Jewish populations.

Just a thought (with scientific and statistical validity).

Nukemason 08:40, 09 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism_and_the_anti-globalization_movement/Archive_2&oldid=1085449974"