Talk:Anti-globalization and antisemitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-22. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Contents 1 Archive 2 Added template for proposed deletion 3 Response section 4 Jayjg's edit reversions

[edit] Archive

/Archive 1

[edit] Added template for proposed deletion

This article is clearly propaganda. As per "What Wikipedia is Not": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#SOAPBOX "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." J.R. Hercules 00:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response section

I've removed this and incorporated it into the text, because it was hanging off the end like a sore thumb. It would be good if we could find more responses to weave in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've come across a letter specifically in response to the Mark Strauss article, which is stated to have been written by Richard Grossman, co-founder of Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD): in text and in PDF format. However, I can find no further verification of it, or any other sources referring to Grossman's letter. --Leflyman^Talk 02:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder whether that counts as a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayjg's edit reversions

Jayjg, I'm disturbed by the reversions you've made to General Idea's edits for the article. You went out of your way to revert his first edit, and then did the same with his second edit. I'm not going to back up General Idea's edits, as that's his responsibility. But the fact that you're in favor of retaining the article, and have reverted an anti-article-retention editor's work, while at the same time leaving untouched all pro-article-retention editors' work, raises red flags (mostly of neutrality and edits made in good faith). J.R. Hercules 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

GI was a sockpuppet account of a banned editor so his edits were reverted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. This is the second time within 24 hours that two editors, both of them in favor of deleting this article, have been declared 'sockpuppets' by Jayjg. The other editor banned by Jayjg, like General Idea, had never been previously accused of being a sockpuppet; they were simply banned by Jayjg without any of the usual customary discussion and accusations. And Jayjg's prior reversion of General Idea's edits to the article made no mention of sockpuppets. J.R. Hercules 06:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Quit the back-handed allegations in edit summaries. It was you who changed that link; [1] we then had an edit conflict, but one which didn't prevent the edit, meaning I edited the previous version and not your changed one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. I figured that it was simply a mistake or something similar and nothing more. No harm, no foul/no foul, no harm. J.R. Hercules 01:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)