Talk:Criticisms of globalization/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why we must have clear attributions on this issue

This is a heated topic, where there are two marked camps, each of which has a clear interest in presenting its own vision of the issue:

• the camp of the current US and Israeli administrations has an advantage in painting everybody contesting US and Israeli policies in Palestine as antisemites; (note: I did not say that they created anti-semitic incidents just to be able to paint their opponent in a bad light; but they do have a clear interest in focusing on such behavior and publicizing it)
• the camp of the anti-globalization movement has a clear interest in minimizing the publicity of the involvement of possibly antisemitic groups in its midst.

I remember a controversy when Tariq Ramadan, an Islamist, had been invited to an anti-globalization meeting. The anti-globalization movement seemed fairly split on the issue, with many wondering why people of the like of Ramadan should be invited.

So, do not use weasel words. Quote the names of the people precisely, give links to their page, so that people can appreciate from which position they speak.

Thank you. David.Monniaux 09:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree strongly with David.Monniaux, and would point out that the reason why people read encyclopedia articles is to learn about just these sorts of phenomena. It is very confusing for many to discover that the Christian right overwhelmingly tends to support Zionism, whilst many on the left who oppose the Iraq war and globalism do not. This has created odd bedfellows all over the place, regardless of the desires of those involved. The accusation of anti-semitism against anti-war and anti-globalist protestors (the two of which having a great deal in common, BTW) is quite well known and noteworthy, I not too long ago saw an hour long news program discussing views and concerns on the subject. If it is fair or true or whatever is not really our job to determin, we are here to give a Wikipedia:NPOV depiction of the citable views on the subject. What we are not here to do is bicker amongst ourselves and violate Wikipedia:Policy. Please keep calm, and focus on our goal: providing our reader with a high quality, neutral information source. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW, Sweet cheeks was an insult, and I should apologize for it. As far as the Whiney Bitches comment goes, I was referring to continental critics of Fallaci, not any of the users here. TDC 17:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that says alot in my book. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If someone said "the Christian right overwhelmingly tends to support Nazism, whilst many on the left who oppose the Iraq war and globalism do not", we wouldn't find that "very confusing". So, if one finds this confusing, one has not understood the situation.

Anyway, let's have the absurd anti-Semitism section, but make sure it doesn't mislead people. Chamaeleon 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see why, it's quite clear the intentions of the parties involved here. Referring to the movement as "anti-globalist" is an attempt to immediately connect them with third positionism, who are Neo-Nazis basically. Yes, they oppose corporate globalization, but are not a part of the alternative globalization movement for obvious reasons. I don't see any reason why we should put this crap here, it would be like going to the Republican party article and saying "many people in the republican party are white. Hitler was white too." Or "the republican party supports modern American Nationalism. As do all the White Power movements there." It makes no sense, and I see no reason to indulge this pair of protest warriors.--Che y Marijuana 22:16, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thats nutty as hell. I doubt I even know what your talking about. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid these people have Wikipedia by the balls, so we'll probably have to allow a certain amount of their bullshit. However, if a majority here want to keep this section out, then I'll support that. Chamaeleon 23:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Majoritarianism is wrong. Wikipedia:Polls are evil, Wikipedia:Don't vote on everything, and in conclusion, Voting Is Evil. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't want that section, and especially not the part of it that clearly states that there's no empirical evidence. Why cite something that has been refuted?--Che y Marijuana 08:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the argument for it: certain people will claim that we are not being neutral if we don't include the section (it is not enough to prove categorically that the allegations are lies). Now, if we are to include it, then what better way to prove our point than to let the liars choose and quote their advocates (Bergmann), and then for us to go in and destroy their argument by pointing out the obvious flaws? I agree that there should be no such section (it is nothing but a slur; we may as well say that the movement has been infiltrated by witches and they all need to be burnt at the stake); however, if its is to stay, then we should probably keep the bit about Bergmann, because it makes the liars look so stupid. Chamaeleon 13:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats not very nice, but thank you for announcing your intentions. If you disagree w a given allegation or not, it goes in the article if it can be verified. End of story. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, not end of story. Not every bit of crap said about an issue necessarily goes into the article on it. This is called editing. We are all editors here, and what happens is that we discuss things and decide what goes in the article. There is an argument for including certain transparent lies, and an argument against. I am open to discussion on the matter. Chamaeleon 18:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No Chamaeleon, what you are attempting to do is cram your version of this article down my throat because you feel entitled to do so. After all, nearly all the contributions to this article have been made form sympathetic editors, and so far on the talk page you outnumber me greatly. This addition, unpopular as it may be from the choir, still meets the basic qualifications for an encyclopedic wiki article. I understand how you see this a all a pack of neo-con cabbalist lies, but seriously, are all the individuals I cited a part of this conspiracy to piss on the "good name" and solid reputation of the anti globalization movement? Certainly a man of your intellectual wit must have a better argument (naturally one that can be sourced if it is to be include it in the article) than "its all lies and smears". TDC 20:34, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The idea that these are "lies" is clearly my conclusion, not my argument. If you want an argument, I'd point to the lack of sincerity in the allegations. For example, you added the Bergmann quotation along with the name of the EUMC to lend credibility. You neglected to mention that the very organisation that commissioned the report couldn't use it because it was nonsense. In your heart of hearts, you must know that these are lies, but you will do anything to try to discredit progressive movements. If you could find a source that said the movement were all fat, or Martians, or whatever, you would put it in as part of the hate campaign that I have seen you wage in articles such as Noam Chomsky. I didn't let you smear Chomsky as anti-Semitic, lesbian, or anything else of equal plausibility, and you won't do it here either. That said, silly allegations can be made, just as long as they are made to look silly, and do not occupy an unreasonable amount of space in the article. Chamaeleon 21:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I always thought you were good, but now it seems that have some form of clairvoyant ability to see the farce that is my sincerity and motivations! As you can see below in my response to DM, that the issue with the EUCM report is a tad more complicated than your assertion that the report was not released because it was craptacular. As far as my source being from mars, how Chomskyesque a reply from you. Kudos I say! I will repeat my earlier statement that the sources I have put forth in both this article and the Chimpsky are serious arguments from legitimate sources. Non legitimate sources usually have no place on Wiki, and I tend to stay away from them. As far as your belief that you courageously stood alone in my assault on the Chomsky article is pure masturbatory bullshit. Above your objections, working with other serious users, and meticulously sourcing my material I was able to add all kinds of nuggets and sections into what was otherwise a leftist fluff piece. Don’t believe me? Compare the versions from when before I stared editing the article most recently and now. Face it, you lost and worse yet you cant hang with TDC. Its not necessarily a bad thing, it has happened to men whose intellect and physical prowess far exceed yours and will, good Lord obligingly, happen again.

TDC, if you are to reinstate this quotation, you must definitely also reinstate the explanation by EUMC that they couldn't publish the report because it contained no hard facts. David.Monniaux 21:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The EUMC said a lot of thing about why they did not release the report, which although I have not pointed out in the article simply provided ammunition, justifiably so or not, for critics of its position. Aside from the issue of "poor quality and [lack of] empirical evidence" cited as one of the “official” reasons, the report's authors responded by saying their findings had been shelved because criticism of Muslims, not even mentioning elements of the left singled out in the report, did not fit in with the EUMC’s agenda. Bergmann also says the EUMC “repeatedly asked for the draft report to be changed to soften its conclusions about young Muslims. Alterations were also sought when it linked anti-Semitism to both anti-Zionism and criticism of Israeli politics”. The Authors stand behind their work and say proposed changes to it are based more on political niceties rather than any real or perceived quality issues with the report. [1].

So there are many facets to this story. I believe as do many, that the people at the EUMC, like all good EU bureaucrats, want to be seen as doing something productive with their budgets without having to produce anything which might offend certain groups. TDC 21:53, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

In other words, the report has racist overtones against Arabs, so the EUMC shelved it. Look, you can't attempt to use the EUMC to prove your lies when the EUMC doesn't support them. Another thing: the paragraph about Bové mentioning "psychosis" doesn't identify the "critics", or say what the criticism is actually supposed to be. I shall delete the paragraph unless at least one of those two points is remedied. Chamaeleon 22:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No in other words the EUMC shelved it because they claim (very subtle now) the report has alleged racist overtones against Arabs.

It goes like this. EUMC report claim anti Semitism in report, EUMC claims report is no good, authors of said report claim report was shelved because EUMC is bowing to PC pressures.

I can just hear that squirrel cage a churnin. TDC 22:34, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Basically, your source has been discredited. If you find others of more repute, I will simply counter them by adding quotations from people like Jewish Voice for Peace. Then, like superpowers negotiating an arms race, we will see that the section is ridiculously long, and chop it down to size again. The result will be the same as if you had just accepted a short summary of accusations and refutations in the first place. Chamaeleon 00:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am no friend of the anti-globalization movement but think that this critique is both disproportionate in length and inappropriate. The presented evidence that the movement is ant-semitic is very weak. I see it primarily as anti-capitalistic and mostly a new name for socialism. As such, their critique is certainly disproportionate against capitalist states like Israel or the US in Iraq. Very little is said about for example China in Tibet, Syria in Lebanon, Sudan in Darfor, India in Kashmir, Turkey and Iran in Kurdistan or Morocco in south-west Sahara. In general, relatively little critique of the directorships, genocide, persecutions and lacks of rights in states not capitalistic. The movement should not be criticized for antisemitism but for almost exclusively focusing on possible crimes by the most capitalistic states while mostly ignoring the usually much larger atrocities committed by other states. Ultramarine 00:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is an anti-capitalist movement, so you have to expect it to concentrate on criticising capitalist states. I mean, you don't hear the movement complaining about animal rights or how nobody opens doors for people any more, but that is not a deficiency in the movement. The very same people "wearing different hats" are quite likely to complain about those very issues. Indeed, I have been to a demonstration protesting the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, and the people were just the sort that you might see at an "anti-globalisation" demo on another occasion. Chamaeleon 00:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another factor is that, supposedly, France, Israel, the US etc... are democratic countries with a rule of law. As such, they are supposed to uphold the values that they display. Not doing so is seen as hypocrisy. Furthermore, as they are democratic countries, one can suppose that enough civil dissent may result in their changing the course of their actions.

In comparison, China, Syria etc. are dictatorships that pay little to no attention to the opinion of their own people (within certain limits), let alone the popular opinion in other countries. Whatever number of demonstrations you do against it in Paris, New-York etc., the Chinese government will not alter its policies.

I note, however, that there are often protests directed not so much against the governments in those countries (well, the protests are directed against them, but these governments don't care), but against the governments of the democratic capitalistic countries that have trade etc. links with them. I remember for instance some outrage in France following from the state visit of the Chinese leader (and it went far beyond the anti-globalization movement – some conservatives were outraged at the good reception France did to the leader of a dictatorship).

In short: it does not make sense to march in a protest against Iran. It would make sense to march in a protest against our governments seeking deals with Iran without paying attention to the human right situation there. David.Monniaux 10:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. And I don't see as China could be seen as a non-capitalistic country. China is capitalistic. And the other nations named are capitalist too. When Italian president Carlo Azeglio Ciampi went to China and told that Italy would be favourable to abolish arms embargo against China, far as I know the only Party that has protested in Italy has been Communist Refoundation. In India, which is a democracy, the antiglob movement is very strong and there are always initiative. About Turkey in Kurdistan only antiglobalists have tried to drive some attention, while the US have always seen Turkey has one of their best alleys. So the charge doesn't resist at the analysis of the facts.--Juliet.p 11:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I extremely resent the notion that the most capitalistic democracies should be judged by a higher double standard. The dictatorships usually promise to respect humans rights and rule of law in their constitution and cannot somehow claim to have an excuse for doing human rights crimes by not being hypocritical.

Well, you can disagree with David Monniaux on that particular point, but it is not the main one. Chamaeleon 13:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that there are no protests against the less capitalist states. But it is extremely disproportionate against the US and Israel. You point out that a dictatorship may not be impressed by a protest but also that they may be affected by sanctions and boycotts. So why is not the movement demanding sanctions and other actions from their own governments against the countries doing most of the human rights crimes in the world? And why is the movement not organizing boycotts on their own against the imports from these countries? Why so much effort on the US and Israel so little on the worst offenders against human rights?

Why do you think that nobody protests against or boycotts any other countries? Note also that you have now slipped in "the US" after I pointed out that it gets more flak than Israel. Before, you were claiming that Israel was the big victim. The fact is that a range of countries in the world have governments that do bad stuff, and a range of people protest against them. If you feel that there is a particular régime getting off lightly, then organise a group in your local area to step up the protest. Unless of course, and I hope that this is not the case, you are not sincere about fighting oppression in those countries, but instead wish to cynically use them in a straw-man argument to attack the global justice movement. That would make you a hypocrite and invalidate your line of argument. Chamaeleon 13:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Amnesty has shown that even dictatorships care about public opinion even without economic threats.

Here are the worst human rights offenders: Burma, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. [2]

Those are the worst in your opinion. Others would disagree. Note how those are official enemies of the world superpower. Régimes that the US government has actively supported, such as Indonesia and Israel, are conspicuous by their absence from that particular list. Chamaeleon 13:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have you read my next paragraph?

I note, however, that there are often protests directed not so much against the governments in those countries (well, the protests are directed against them, but these governments don't care), but against the governments of the democratic capitalistic countries that have trade etc. links with them. I remember for instance some outrage in France following from the state visit of the Chinese leader

I often see criticism in the French press about relationships with China, including from the alterglobalization movement.

As for North Korea, they don't care what we think, and many Western countries don't even have formal diplomatic relationships with them, and certainly no economic relationships.

What you are right upon, however, in my humble opinion, is the complacency with which many in the European left consider Cuba. My impression is that Cuba's resisting US "regime change" counts a lot in this. (Though I see many people criticizing Cuba for being a dictatorship.) David.Monniaux 13:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, I hate it when certain people on the Left are uncritical of Cuba. I suppose it is the inevitable consequence of Cuba being the underdog. Chamaeleon 13:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon, you mistake me for TDC. I mentioned the US in my first post. Regarding the worst countries, it is not my opinion but that of Freedom House. See the link.

I saw the link, your source. It is still your opinion, and not objective fact. Chamaeleon 16:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, you miss my main point. The critique is disproportionate against Israel and the US. Boycotts and sanctions would have an effect on many of the dictatorships. But most boycotts are against Israeli goods or even academic exchange.

So it's not good enough that we protest against the guys on your list, but we have to protest even more to satisfy you. Or would you really just prefer there not to be criticism of Zionism? You miss my point on sincerity and hypocrisy. How much activism have you personally undertaken against Sudan, for example? Unless you are active, you cannot attack people who at least do something against some régime. Chamaeleon 16:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Amnesty shows that the most dictatorships care about public opinion.

Show me the text where Amnesty says that dictatorships care about (marginal) public opinion in far-off countries that are their official enemies. Chamaeleon 16:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now this could be acceptable if the movement openly explained that they are anti-capitalist and mostly interested in protesting against capitalist states and the capitalist system. But to claim that it is protesting for "global justice" in general is misleading as long as the main focus is the comparatively minor human rights crimes by Israel and the US in Iraq.

The movement has no unified name. Sometimes it is "global justice", sometimes "anti-globalisation", sometimes explicitly "anarchist". It is very diverse. As for the idea that the movement is not for global justice because it focuses on Israel and the US, I fear you are constructing a straw man. The focus of the movement is not countries (the point is that nations are being made irrelevant) but corporations. Read No Logo. It's not about Israel; it's about Nike, McDonalds, factories in China and Mexico, advertising strategies, etc. And again, if you wish the movement to attack Uzbekistan more, then join your local group. Chamaeleon 16:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is another extremely important list. http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable2003.htm Ultramarine 14:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About the "academic exchange" bit: one must have some more background on this. The European Union has some special agreements with Israel on some issues, and research programs are one of these. Essentially, Israeli institutions, though they are not in Europe, can participate in EU research programs. Some criticize this as discriminatory (why Israel and not some other countries?).

Still, I essentially agree with you that they focus on "capitalist", First World states, while they conveniently ignore the crimes from some other sources. David.Monniaux 14:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The activists that we are talking about are mainly citizens of the developed countries. It is normal for them to focus on what they know. I don't think most of them ignore crimes of other states, except perhaps Cuba, which Leninists adore. It's just that North Korea etc are condemned daily on the TV news by the likes of Dubya, so it seems a bit pointless to repeat what is mainstream. And yet again, I say to anyone who thinks a certain régime/corporation/individual is not getting enough flak, join your local group and make a difference, unless your criticism is insincere. Chamaeleon 16:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am doing my part for a better world by spending considerable time writing in Wikipedia. The naive activists who supported communism supported states who killed over 100 million people. Meanwhile, the corporations you seem to despise where the ones who actually improved the world. The world is rapidly getting better thanks to globalization. Doubling of life expectancy in the developing world, halving of poverty and reduced income equality for the world as a whole. No Logo is one of the worst "science" books I have read, only some anecdotal evidence. And directly dangerous since it is against the very system who right now are improving the lifes of the poor in the developing world.

That Amnesty year after year gets results for their prisoners is proof that dictatorships care about public opinion. That the activists do not protest against the many dictatorships because they do not know that they exist or think that the capitalists are somehow more dangerous is not a justification, just ignorance. That they are against capitalism due to ignorance makes them the enemy of the poor in the developing world. Ultramarine 20:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And yet you don't even have an account apparently. Look, you are coming here with the baggage of prejudice against activists, so there is not much more we can say to you. If you want to add something factual to the article, do so; otherwise let's just drop this. Chamaeleon 19:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Despite all that, I think that is a reasonable, and measurable criticism against the movement. I would support replacing the flimsy anti-semitism section with a criticism of the disproportionate focus on Israel and the US. Anyone else?--Che y Marijuana 20:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am obviously for it. If TDC does no object I think we can replace the anti-semitism section with a paragraph discussing disproptionate activism against Israel and the US. Ultramarine 20:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I certainly would not and will revert to prevent it from happening. Toodles. TDC 00:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Right now the anti-semitic section is longer than all the other critique together which is ridiculous. How about reducing it to one paragraph? (Or two). The presented evidence that the anti-globalization movement is anti-semitic is extremely weak. Some individuals may be, not the movement in general. Especially when looking at other countries than France. Ultramarine 07:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right now the entire article stands at roughly 15 pages. The anti-Semitic criticism section stands at about 2 pages with about one page of material devoted to the charges and one page to countercharges. One page out of 15 for critical content is seen as too little? How, exactly is the material weak? I could include more photos other than the yellow star stamped Sharon and Rumsfeld at Davos, but I though that made my point the best. Seeing as how the rest of the criticism section was written by usual contributors to the article, it is not much of a criticism section anyway.

Possibly the section could have something included alluding to the fact that "antiglobalists" are not really anti-semitic, rather anti-israelioccupation (or even anti-zionist), as this probably more accurately reflects thier views. G

Amnesty, capitalism, communism and human rights

Well, I'm an active member of Amnesty International which has been called in cause above, so let me say just a few words. Amnesty changed recently its mandate by the protection of civil rights and prisoner of coscience to a more spread conception of human right. This was done because, after the falling both of communist and anticommunist dictatorships (many sponsored by the US, as Chile or Indonesia), violations of human rights appears mostly to be violation of socio-economic rights or crimes that happens in conditions when the authority of a State falls (see Afghanistan or Iraq, for example). To think that violations of human rights are simply the product of "totalitarianism" it's ingenuous. That totalitarian regimes could care for public opinion is right, but a discrete, careful action (sending petitions, for example) is often preferible to a direct attack. See Cuba for example, or Saddam's Iraq. What years of sanctions have resolved? Millions of child in Iraq died of starvation. That's Saddam's responsability in part, of course, but is it the international community (US above all...) without guilt? Obviously the US are a democracy and the condition of their citizens is not bad as in authoritarian countries, but as the strongest country in the world have very big responsabilities in economic unjustice and lack of democracy in many parts of the world. About capitalism I would remind to somebody that when in Europe capitalism was unregulated there existed child labour (even in place as mines), 16 hours a day work time, absence of public health services, no state assistance, woman deprived of their right and often drived by their situation to prostitution and, even, no political rights for people that didn't possessed something etc etc etc. Is there somebody who would like to turn back to XIX century's capitalism? I would not.

Meanwhile, the corporations you seem to despise where the ones who actually improved the world. The world is rapidly getting better thanks to globalization. Doubling of life expectancy in the developing world, halving of poverty and reduced income equality for the world as a whole.

I could only add to this brilliant and totally undimonstrated sentences that in this world there is sufficent food for everybody, and yet in 2001 every 7 seconds a child under 10 years died of starvation. Not even Karl Marx has even denyed that capitalism has put in the hands of humanity a wealth never saw before. But capitalism is even this: unjust and irrational.

Talking about "The naive activists who supported communism" and "supported states who killed over 100 million people" in 2005 seems to me a good way to avoid the actual problems of our world. Our president of the Council of Minister Silvio Berlusconi is one who likes to do this old game when he has no arguments! (I would add that in 1989 I was 6... if somebody wants to put me between those activists...)

Perhaps the antiglobalization movement doesn't always have the answer to the problems of our time, but at last it poses the good questions, and would it not existe, one would have to invent it. --Juliet.p 23:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

... I agree, however, with the proposed substitution of the horrible section about antisemitism...--Juliet.p 00:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P S: Freedom house, the source of this list [3] is a ONG that evaluates the countries only in respect of civil and political rights (freedom of speech, elections...). Of course Europe and US don't have serious problems of this kind. To have cited this report as a response to antiglobalist accuses, that cover another area of issues, seems to me not very fair. I would suggest, however, to cast a glance on Freedom House report on Israel. Notice that the score on civil right is only three, very bad for a liberal democracy. Are they antisemitic? [4]

Of course no-one wants to go back to XIX century capitalism. Yet you should not forget that early capitalism did not invent all the wrongs you cite. Child labour existed in ancient Greece, in the Middle Ages, etc. Women had no more rights before the industrial revolution. Blaming early capitalism for all this is a fallacy. Luis rib 15:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Luis Rib)

Should we not blame Pinochet cause he wasn't the first dictator in history? The reality is, Capitalism not only exploited these problems for profit, but it took near revolutions by anti-capitalists to solve each and every one of them. None of the social liberalizations have come from the capitalist structure itself, all of them were the result of years of struggle, sometimes bloody, by workers and the workers' movement, and even what we have won is barely a victory. Nominally, we won universal sufferage, womens' rights, etc... In reality, none of them are implemented in any significant way. Women are still treated like shit. Minorities are still treated like shit. The poor are still treated like shit. And every chance they get, the profit-seekers look for a way to undo our gains. No, we can't blame capitalism for the creation of these problems, but we sure as hell can't blame Feudalism for its continuation anymore. "We didn't start it" just isn't gonna cut it.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:36, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

You know pretty little about the world. How many female leaders of Communist countries were there? How many Tibetans rose to high ranks in China? Capitalist Sweden has the laws most favourable to women equality. Capitalism, where it was truly implemented, managed to reduce poverty significantly - while Communism just produced generalised poverty. Could capitalism do better? Certainly. Nothing is perfect in this world. But blaming capitalism for all the world's wrongs is ridiculous. Luis rib 21:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalist Sweden? Perhaps you mean socialist Sweden.Kirkbroadhurst 3.15, 31 May 2005 (GMT)

Anti-globalization is not inherently anarchist

I'm apposed to the recent addition of the anarchy template. Many members of the anti-globalization movement are not anarchists, and the movement is not directly related to anarchy. Sure, some or most anarchists may back the movement, but that does not mean it is only an anarchist topic. -- LGagnon 20:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

The template only says "related to Anarchism", and it most certainly is. Chamaeleon 21:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's POV. Many people don't consider it related to anti-semitism; if we had an anti-semitism template, would it be fair to put that here? It's the same with it being related to anarchism. "Related" is very vague in how it explains the relationship and can easily be seen as backing one POV. -- LGagnon 23:50, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

It obviously has no relation to anti-Semitism whatsoever. It is, however, the main area of activity for anarchists. Chamaeleon 10:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Freedom is a major part of both democracy and anarchism, so do we put the anarchism template in the freedom article too, despite it not being an anarchist-only concept? This is the thing you're ignoring, that by putting this template here you are backing that one POV, whether you intend to or not. -- LGagnon 20:49, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

But see, the thing is, a huge part of the anti-globalization movement is anarchist, and it wasn't considered a movement till its biggest media grabbing events, which were all organized by anarchists. The blac bloc put the movement on the map. Seattle? Quebec? Miami?--Che y Marijuana 21:53, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

The Seattle event had a considerable amount of Green Party members organizing it and running it. Many of these were not in fact anarchists, and few were advocating anarchy. And you are still supporting one POV; many would not consider anti-globalization to be anarchist, and by using this template you are making it seem to be an anarchist concept by using the vague term "related" without any explaination for how it's related. And like I said, we would not put this template in the "freedom" article, despite freedom being "related" to anarchism. If there were specific events in the anti-globalization movement that were run by anarchists, then you could put the template in the articles for those events. However, marking the whole movement as anarchist because of some of the events makes the articler appear to support one POV. -- LGagnon 22:38, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

This is possibly the worst article in wikipedia on politics at the moment. I have been to *tons* of these protests and the make-up of protesters at any given protest described by the media as "anti-globalisation" is social democratic, new left, green, socialist, communist, anarchist *in that order*. The anti-semitism point should be shortened to a paragraph with an external link. The anarchist banner should be removed. Both of them are eqivelent to putting an anarchist banner up on an article about the student movement of the 1960s. It's totally wrong and not neutral at all. -- visitor

External links: a messy laundry list

Could some sorting of this animal farm, by hair and feather's size and color, be made?

My last change

I reverted to a summary of the anti-semitism charges. Accidentally left the "minor change" thing on, sorry, it was a major change. But I think a good one. Comments?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is good. As stated by me and others before, one paragraph is enough. One could fill many pages claiming that libertarianism is racist since a few important figures may have made racist comments and since they oppose affirmative action and similar laws. Ultramarine 22:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue of antisemitism is a rather minor one in the context of anti-globalisation. Maybe it could be discussed more thoroughly on the José Bové page, but nor on this one. Luis rib 23:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus to summarise the anti-Semitism thing. Only TDC wants to ruin the article by having a long and pointless section about this irrelevant topic. Chamaeleon 11:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there is not concensus to delete huge chunks of the article, does this look like concensus? And whats with that "thought you could sneak this bit in, eh?" comment? I made it clear what I was doing in my edit summary. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That referred to a small change to the version by TDC. Chamaeleon 21:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TDC, you have left my summary of the anti-Semitism section in. We don't need the summary and the whole section too. Chamaeleon 21:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification, and I apologise for being terse. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my recent intervention (reverted). I don't have any position in the dispute. Mikkalai 05:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is absurd to spend nearly 6KB of a 44KB article on the anti-globalization movement on charges of anti-Semitism. To do so grossly magnifies the impact of such charges beyond anything that is justified, and clearly violates NPOV. I've participated in various debates in weblog comments and Usenet about globalization and anti-globalization. Anti-Semitism simply is not a particulary significant part of these debates. Most of the debate centers on differing views of economic theory (especially trade theory) and differing views on the effects of Western military, political, and economic power. The inclusion of this long section - giving more room to charges of anti-Semitism than all other criticisms of anti-globalization combined - is clearly unjustifiable. Thus, I am going to revert it. Firebug 10:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, it is not 6KB, it is far less than that. About half is spent on the bullshit defense of the anti-globalization movement. Secondly I know plenty of Jews, real “progressive” ones at that, who are disgusted with the talk that is coming out of the anti-globalization movement. Just because you don’t see it does not mean it does not exist.TDC 14:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

This page ought to be protected. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? Because people disagree with you? I gave a detailed explanation of why this section violated NPOV and needed to be removed. Nor was I the first individual to bring this up or to redact this portion of the article. If you feel the section should be retained, please provide an explanation of why. Firebug 11:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because ity is factually accurate. If you think it unbalances the article, lets make it a spin off page. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that I don't think anyone is saying the charges of anti-Semitism should be totally removed. They should just be summarised, as I did in this edit. You can disagree with the wording of my summary, but I'd say that there is a consensus that such a summary is better than the disproportionately long anti-Semitism section largely authored by the problem user TDC.

Actually, making it a spin-off page is not a bad idea. It would remove the chaff from the article, and I would immediately list the spin-off page on Vfd and it would be deleted. Chamaeleon 11:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-semitism seems to be extremely marginal, if existant at all -- there is a very well-identified trend of some right-wing organisations to assimilate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism. Having patroled big anti-globalisation congresses myself (on official duty for the government, not as a militant), I could testify that antisemitism was not something proheminent. Unless there are some very specific trends which developped in this direction (but then there should be an alysis of this), the focus given in the article was very clearly overly excessive. Rama 12:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Think (and read) before you revert. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spinoff article referred for VfD. Firebug 12:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to say a couple of things. I think that without the uncivilised and destructive presence of TDC, we should be able to avoid making too many reverts to the article. I for one am going to try to avoid doing so. I'd like us to talk about this. I think that there is no reason to want the content which is now in a separate article. It is an unencyclopaedic attempt to smear the movement. I don't believe it is possible to want it here unless one has a certain agenda, TDC-style. I'd like to point out that I do not wish to censor the allegations, but cut them down to a reasonable length and not pad it out with unneeded quotations. Chamaeleon 14:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As with other articles where our resident protest warriors are fighting their pov-battles against the left, two people should never be allowed to hold an article hostage. Except for sam and tdc, we all see the need to summarize the accusations rather than parade them around to skew and unbalance the article.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:36, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality, and lack thereof

Good lord, one look at your sig and anyone can tell your not neutral. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

God help us the day any of us become "neutral". Heh. —Christiaan 23:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Alignment, I'm Neutral Good w Pure Neutral tendancies ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Neutral" are the bourgeois then. Ugh. —Christiaan 23:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I forgot that we weren't allowed to have strong opinions, and still be rational enough to apply a balanced approach. Your "true neutral" bull is far more dangerous. At least someone like me admits that I am a human being with opinions, who has to work to ensure they aren't a negative factor in edits. You however, and others like you, falsify an image of perfect neutrality, failing to admit any biases. Neutrality doesn't come by or labeling, neutrality is not a philosophy or an ideology, neutrality is a method of conduct. The fact that you attempt to apply a philosophical and ideological meaning to neutrality is a strong indicator of your own issues of neutrality. Your argument comes down to "pinkos can't be neutral". So I would avoid such hypocrisy.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 01:26, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

My potential biases are listed here. You can have any opinion you want (we have commie wikis, satanic wikis, nihilist wikis, etc...). I am simply pointing out that you wearing yours on your sleeve invites little confidence in yout ability to promote Wikipedia:NPOV. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with that line of thinking at all. This might be useful for mediators (I haven't really thought about it), but for an editor I have far more confidence in those who are up front about their biases. Those who are not just come off as devious to me. —Christiaan 19:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TDC's argument

I think a good place to start my argument it to examine what the prereqresites for a Wikipedia article are.

One generally recognized qualification is the topic in question notable? In the case of Anti-Semitism in the Ant-globalization movement a Google search turns up 12,300 on the subject [5]. This is certainly much more notable, at least by this commonly used standard, than many articles in Wikipedia.

Secondly, is the material well sourced. Even a cursory look at the material in question will show that all opinions are very clearly stated as such and all opinions are sourced back to the individuals who made them. These individuals are, I might add, not obscure kooks, but are relatively prominent individuals.

There have been articles about this written in the Financial Times, Washington Times, National Review, The New Republic,

Now with this in mind, ask yourself this question “even though I may not agree that the anti-globalization movement is rife with Jew haters, is there a significant number of people in the world that do believe this?“, if you answered yes, and I think that by the Google citation alone we can see that there is a significant number of people who believe this to be the case, then there really is not other option then to vote to keep this or have it included on this page. TDC 14:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

It will be included on the page. But 12 000 google results does not justify giving it a section as large as all other criticisms combined. It will be a summary, no more.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, score one for me, it is notable. Now that you have agreed that it is notable, perhaps you will go to the VFD page and change your vote? TDC 19:26, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

When did Google become the absolute word on any given subject? Would any professional use the amount of results on a search engine as a resource? Honestly, that's a pretty rediculous justification IMO. -- LGagnon 22:59, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I am sure you are well aware that Google searches are at least a decent indicator of subject notability. Or do you have a different way of determining notability?TDC 23:07, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Real research would help. Merely throwing around Google results is not research. Actual articles from reliable sources would be research. -- LGagnon 23:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Real research? You mean like original research? Thats is not allowed here. I simply put the google results up to show the notability of the subject, nothing more. If you cannot see that, oh well. As for "actual articles" what exactly do you call an article from Mark Strauss, or Werner Bergmann's report, or Christopher Caldwell, or Naomi Klein (whose comments are far more supportive of my these than you may beleive)? I realize that you may not think these are "reliable" sources, but considering that the rest of the article reads like a press release from Indymedia reliabilty is lacking everywhere. Toodles. TDC 02:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

It is not notable enough for its own article, no. It is notable enough to be summarized on this page, nothing more. As I said earlier.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 01:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

That is a subjective observation on your part Che, many articles on Wiki with far less notability exist on Wiki. TDC 02:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

Christiaan, you're getting into the habit of deleting all my edits, and I'm beginning to feel that you're acting like a bully, which I'm sure you don't mean to. If the VfD goes through, then is the time to delete links to the article, but not before. I have tidied it so it reads a little better now (though still needs some work), and it has a reference section showing that this is a legitimate subject. You are simply trying to establish that it doesn't link anywhere in order to support your view that it ought to be deleted. Please leave it alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'd appreciate very much if you didn't try to label me. The bullies first tactic of course is to cry wolf. It is a POV fork to discredit leftists and slapping links everywhere is simply an effort to justify its existence. Please leave as status quo until vote is over.—Christiaan 22:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your user contribs show that you're going around deleting my edits. I am telling you that I feel you are trying to bully me, and I am requesting that you stop. Your deletions are vandalism. This is a legitimate article as things stand. Go and read the articles in the References section. If the community votes to delete it, then you will have community backing, and I will go around myself and remove the links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am very much agreed with SlimVirgin's addition of the link. His solution allows both to relieve the article from the parts which we have seen before and are commonly seen as misplaced, but also to make he pressure drop for the users who think that the informations in question are valuable and feel frustrated.

I am too confident that Christiaan means no harm, but his removing the mere link is unwise. Rama 22:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What ever the outcome I would ask that SlimVirgin refrain from trying to label me a bully. This is very much the first tactic a bully themselves. —Christiaan

Personally I like to think of myself as having a bully pulpit :D Anyhow, what you are doing is agressive and against policy, Christiaan. Links are not to be deleted until after a VfD, and following a user about (while not against policy) is widely frowned upon in cases other than vandalism. If you have reason to think SV is a vandal feel free to list her on ViP and we'll all follow her around, but otherwise let the VfD determine what links should be kept and which not. Oh yeah, and SV is female rama, as hard as it is to believe there are actually females on the internet! Wahoo! (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How does having articles on ones watchlist constitute following around? —Christiaan 21:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since I wouldn't have meant to interfer in SlimVirgin's life, I didn't inquire this and use the neutral (!) male pronoun. I hope that she didn't take it negatively (no insult was intended).

What about letting that "bullying" story settle by itself and see whether people cool down when they cease to be provoked ? Rama 09:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not keen on getting involved in editing this article, but the recent anon IP's edits about anti-Semitism constitute original research. This is his/her own analysis or personal essay with no third-party attribution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Naomi Klein and others on the left have warned that anti-globalization activists need to avoid anitsemitic stereotyping. I don't think the current short sentence is an accurate portrayal of their views, which are more complicated than simply dismissing the issue. See: [6] and Naomi Klein article. As Klein says: "And yet I couldn’t help thinking about all the recent events I’ve been to where anti-Muslim violence was rightly condemned, but no mention was made of attacks on Jewish synagogues, cemeteries and community centers. Or about the fact that every time I log onto activist news sites like indymedia.org, which practice 'open publishing,' I’m confronted with a string of Jewish conspiracy theories about September 11 and excerpts from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This interview with Penny Rosenwasser is also useful. [7]--Cberlet 17:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is more accurate, especially with Klein and JVP: "People such as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein and Jewish Voice for Peace have argued that this is not necessarily indicative of anti-Semitism."--Cberlet 16:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the JVP are "people such as...". I also don't understand why the three entities named are all, it can be argued, Jewish to a greater or lesser extent. We don't wanna fall into the trap of pretending that because some Jewish people said something about anti-semitism thats the whole story, end of discussion. Thats as crazy as saying Jewish people can't be anti-semitic or that racism is solely the preserve of white people! Lets include some non-Jewish commentators and get rid of the horrible bias. --Mrfixter 17:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

That's an understandable argument, but I think at least Chomsky and Klien should be left in there, since they are 2 of the biggest backers of the movement. -- LGagnon 18:30, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

periods to commas in numbers

i dont understand this. wikipedai has shown a standard, for whatever reason, of having an English, American writing style. I don't understand why 90% of articles would say 60,000 and this one says 60.000. Lockeownzj00 16:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

woops! referring to old edit, i see that its been edited now. good work. Lockeownzj00 16:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)