Talk:Anti-globalization and antisemitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 4 March, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-22. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Contents

[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. --LeflymanTalk 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)


I have had neutrality issues with Jayg previously myself. On an article about political epithets, he, for a time, refused to allow the inclusion of "self-hating Jew" claiming there was no evidence that it was used as a slander against critics of Israel, despite all evidence to the contrary. Nonetheless I do believe the issue of antisemitism and anti-globalization politics is prominent enough to deserve an article. Mobius1ski 18:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph was replaced

The photograph which showed a poster featuring an image of Satan and an antisemitic depiction of a pointy-eared Jew appears to have been replaced with a picture including Osama bin Laden and the Muppet Bert.

Mobius1ski 18:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critics argue...

Critics of this view argue...intended to discredit legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and U.S. policies in the Middle East.

changed to

Critics of this view argue...intended to discredit legitimate criticism of globalization and free trade economic practices.

Neither is cited in the lead. Later in the article Kalle Lasn is mentioned as making the argument about Israeli government policies, but I don't see anyone cited in the article saying it is meant to stifle criticism of about globalization and free trade practices. This is the problem with things like "Critics argue...": Who specifically says it? On balance the first wording is better supported in the article, so I have restored it. Tom Harrison Talk 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the mention of Lasn in this article doesn't even make sense. See below. -- 138.89.181.34 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing "below" to see. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This is J.R. Hercules. I'm the one who made the preceding comment, but I got sidetracked because I was automatically logged out for some reason; hence, the ip address. There's "nothing 'below' to see" because I haven't even finished writing it yet. You responded to my comment above and reverted my edit in the article almost immediately after they were made. I'm going to edit this talk page now to provide my explanation as to why I deleted the paragraphs, and then I will perform the edit in the article. And this time, try to wait longer than 120 seconds (or less) before making any action. -- J.R. Hercules 19:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's an even better idea; propose removal of the material here first, discuss it, and then take action depending on the outcome of that discussion. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kalle Lasn paragraphs don't belong in the article

Reading the links provided, I discovered that neither Kalle Lasn nor his publication "Adbusters" fit into the "anti-globalist" category. Lasn, it turns out, isn't an anti-globalist activist; he's some kind of "anti-consumerist" activist, with a bent towards street-theater antics. As the mission statement of Adbusters says (mentioned in the Adbusters' article): "They describe themselves as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age."

What does this have to do with "anti-globalization" or free trade or the WTO? Nothing. The only reason, I suspect, this Lasn guy was even mentioned in the first place is because some Wiki editor wanted to pad the article out with as many alleged examples of anti-globalization activists engaging in anti-semitic behavior as possible. However, not only is Lasn not an anti-globalization activist, but his Adbusters blurb -- supposedly the very reason his name was added to the article at all -- doesn't even discuss globalization; he makes claims about the alleged percentage of Jews as part of the neo-conservative movement. So what was discussion of Lasn's Adbusters' piece doing in an article about "Anti-Semitism and Anti-Globalization"??? (You see what happens when people fact-check references?) -- J.R. Hercules 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-consumerism article states "There is also significant overlap between anti-consumerism and anti-globalization."
Here's an article from Forbes, posted on the Adbusters site itself: You might get the idea by now that Lasn isn’t your typical Chamber of Commerce member. He’s an antiglobalization campaigner and publisher who’s also running a company.
Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally support Jayjg on this matter. The Lasn section is an important aspect of the issue.--Cberlet 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, is there a reason why anyone should care that you "totally support" Jayjg on this? Either back up his arguments with facts, oppose mine with facts, or otherwise keep your "support" to yourself. -- J.R. Hercules 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I support Jayjg and CBerlet. The term "anti-globalization" is of course contested and vague, but AdBusters is certainly part of it, even though their central concern is anti-consumerism. BobFromBrockley 10:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg : First of all, Wikipedia articles are not to be considered sources to back up other Wikipedia articles. To say that "The Anti-consumerism article states 'There is also significant overlap between anti-consumerism and anti-globalization,'" is intellectual dishonesty at its most laughable. Second, you didn't even bother to check the sources you linked to. The Freerepublic link, for instance, is dead. Most of the other links don't do anything other than label Lasn and/or Adbusters as "anti-globalist -- but without stating why. If you had bothered to read the links (and I already demonstrated that you didn't), you would have discovered that Lasn never once calls himself an "anti-globalist", never discusses the issue of free trade, and, most importantly, doesn't talk about globalization in a negative fashion. In fact, he's quoted in many of the links as advocating a "global community" of like-minded "culture jammers". Furthermore, he's quoted (link I have to re-find) as calling himself "probably Jewish".
Actually, after all is said and done, all that matters is the Adbusters article in question: Lasn claimed that half of the "neo-cons" are "Jewish". Besides the dubious allegation that Lasn's claim automatically qualifies as "anti-Semitic" in the first place (there's a self-proclaimed "neo-con", of Jewish heritage, Murray Friedman, who | wrote an entire book proclaiming that the neo-conservative movement was largely the product of Jewish intellectuals), there's the unavoidable fact that Lasn's Adbusters piece doesn't touch on the topic of globalization or anti-globalization at all. So, why was the Adbusters article used as an example of the "connection" between anti-semitism and anti-globalization when it has nothing to do with anti-globalization in the first place?
Once again, the inclusion of the Lasn section is just empty padding to help justify the article's questionable reason to exist in the first place. -- J.R. Hercules 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have made your POV clear. You need not repeat it over and over. Some of us simply disagree with you. --Cberlet 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the links I posted, of course the Freerepublic link worked when I linked to it; it has since died, but your claim that I didn't "bother to check the sources" is fairly absurd. Second, Adbusters itself includes an article describing Lasn as "an anti-globalization campaigner". Third, I have no idea what point you're trying to make now, but I haven't seen you put forward any good reason for removing this obviously relevant, properly sourced, and properly written material. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The Freerepublic link was actually mis-linked. [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3a3a6249d6.htm Here's the corrected link.] You'll notice that you incorrectly attributed the reporter's words to Lasn.
Now back to the topic at hand. Without any justification, you arbitrarily term the Lasn material "obviously relevant, properly sourced, and properly written material". That's nice, but you blithely saying so doesn't make it so. I had already made the point that, if nothing else, Lasn's "neo-con" Adbuster's piece doesn't have anything to do with the topic of "anti-globalization" in the first place; hence, it can't be used to prove a connection between anti-globalization and anti-semitism. (The Toronto Now link, which speaks about the Adbuster's article, is the source of my earlier mention that Lasn said "I suspect I have some Jewish blood"). Not surprisingly, you steered clear of addressing my point on that precise matter when forming your above response.
Does Lasn's "neo-con" Adbuster's piece have anything to do with the topic of antiglobalization? Yes or no? Unless you can prove that it does, I'm going to remove the Lasn material in the article. -- J.R. Hercules 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't attribute the words to Lasn, I shortened the quote to remove irrelevant bits. I see now how it could have been interpreted that way, though. Regarding the rest, Lasn is an important figure in the anti-globalization movement, as reliable sources show, and his article in the anti-globalization magazine Adbusters has been seen as antisemitic, which is why so many anti-globalization activists criticized him for it. In addition, it's not just me who rejects your arguments, but every other editor on the page. And finally, I haven't commented on the "Jewish blood" issue because it was nonsense that was singularly irrelevant to the topic at hand - what point could you have been conceivably been trying to make? Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant the issue of you not addressing the anti-globalist content (or lack, thereof) regarding the Lasn article; the "Jewish blood" aside I made was simply a follow-up to my prior comment when I didn't have the source to cite ("Furthermore, he's quoted (link I have to re-find) as calling himself "probably Jewish".") . As far as "every other editor on the page" who rejects my arguments -- who cares? "Every other" adds up to a grand total of two editors, one of whom added absolutely nothing of substance other than saying "yeah, ditto". Can we say for the record that you consider "Yeah, yeah, ditto what he said!"-type comments qualify as substantive opinions for edit disputes? -- J.R. Hercules 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Why would that specific article need to have anti-globalist content? He's a famous anti-globalist, who wrote, in a famous anti-globalist magazine, an article that many (including other anti-globalists) saw as antisemitic. I still don't understand your argument about him being "probably Jewish", or having "some Jewish blood", but it sounds like you're saying that his "blood" somehow "immunizes" him against being antisemitic. And 75% is a strong majority, no matter how you slice it. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I could care less about Lasn's "blood" or what he says about his "blood". I was saying, though, that his claim to Jewish heritage is a possible argument against accusations that he's an anti-semite. It doesn't matter, though, as that's hardly anywhere near my main point. The content of his "neo-con" article is relevant, however, as the topic of the Wikipedia article in question is "Anti-globalization and anti-semitism."
I see several problems with your comments, but two are especially disturbing:
First, although I've already demonstrated that Lasn is an "anti-consumerist" and not an "anti-globalist", you're happily willing to keep repeating the same dubious assertion that he's a "famous anti-globalist" (he's so "famous" that I've never heard of him until I read this particular Wikipedia article). Maybe you think that if you repeat and repeat and repeat variations of it enough times, it then becomes "true", even if it's not necessarily true.
Second, the employment of double-standards. Just as one example, from this article, your acceptance of the following: "Kalle Lasn, author of "Culture Jam" and founder of Adbusters, two influential and widely read anti-globalization texts..." (bold text, mine). On the other hand, when I added qualifiers in the New antisemitism article to characterize the content of Foreign Policy magazine, you reverted my edit on the grounds that it was "WP:NOR and 'poisoning the well'". In other words, it's ok for you, when citing sources, to add qualifiers regarding a journal's ideological bent in order to provide context and make a point, but it's not ok for other editors to do the same. Something's not right here. -- J.R. Hercules 00:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A claim to having "Jewish blood" would seem to me to be a stronger argument for him being an antisemite; it's about on the same rung as the "some of my best friends are Jews" argument. Regarding your "demonstrations" regarding what Lasn is, they're pure original research; on the other hand, my statements are cited fact. As for Culture Jam and Adbusters, the topic of the article is antipro-globalization, they're famous for being anti-globalization journals, and the inclusion indicates the relevance to this article. On the other hand, you just invented the notion that "Foreign Policy" is an "anti-globalization" journal, and your invented characterization has nothing to do with the topic of the article it is in. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"you just invented the notion that "Foreign Policy" is an "anti-globalization" journal"
?????????????
How did "pro-globalization" turn into "anti-globalization" on my part?
In any case, I can see that there's no point in further discussion with you on this matter. Your claims of original research (among other things) as a way to arbitrarily negate other editors' work (like, my own) make it impossible for anyone other than yourself or like-minded editors to make contributions. I'll elaborate using a more appropriate venue elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- J.R. Hercules 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I accidentally wrote "anti" instead of "pro", and that's all you can comment on? If you are not doing original research, then which reliable sources back up your claim that Foreign Policy is "pro-globalization"? Jayjg (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note, J.R. Hercules, that the New Internationalist issue specifically mentions Lasn and has references to antisemitism in the "global justice movement." Please refrain from further disruptive edits based on failure to check cites. This borders on vandalism to make a point.--Cberlet 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You're mixing up my Clark edits with the New Internationalist edits: the Clark article was what I said had nothing to do Lasn or globalization; the New Internationalist article was what I pointed out didn't have a working link (and actually, it still doesn't have a proper link to whatever article you're hoping to reference). As for your bogus accusations of "disruption" and "vandalism" -- this is the second time you attempted to push that canard. If necessary, using the proper procedures, I'll take the matter up with the community. -- J.R. Hercules 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

<-------Good grief, this is ridiculous. The links are in the cites. If you click on them, they take you to the New Internationalist issue and specific articles. I have tried them now on two different computers. They work fine. Here they are for testing:

http://www.newint.org/issue372/index.htm
http://newint.org/features/2004/10/01/keynote/
http://newint.org/features/2004/10/01/arab-antisemitism/

What is the problem? You actually have to read the articles to claim that they are not related to the entry. Do you mean to say that you have not read them, and yet are deleting the text and claiming they are not related to the article? Strange indeed.--Cberlet 03:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No redirect without discussion

A redirect without discussion on a controversial page is not acceptable and is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.--Cberlet (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't fancy another war of words with the Wikipedia branch of the Israel lobby, so I'll leave it be. But this article is hugely unbalanced, nothing more than a quote farm for every political hack who's useful to prove its WP:POINT. It's as if somebody wrote an article "Israel and fascism", and casually slapped together every offhand reference to Sharon, Netanyahu, Religious Zionists etc being a "fascist" movement. It's a POV forked duplicate of New antisemitism, which at least discusses a notable concept even if the thesis underlying the concept is fashionable nonsense. It should be merged. <eleland/talkedits> 02:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased view of subject

This article focuses almost exclusively on blaming anti-globalization activists with antisemitism without serious discussion that there is a large segment of the anti-globalization movement who oppose Israelli foreign and domestical policy. Opposition to the Isrealli government is not synonomous with antisemitism and it is a cowardly tactic to hide behind accusations of racism to justify government policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovian77 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed for deletion.

The reasons are given in the template but anyhow, in more detail:

  1. Irrelevant viewpoints (at the very exposition): Most of the arguments are about certain fascist militants making some sort of comments.
  2. Propaganda (1 - selected images): There is an ill-intentionate imagery association with a surely anecdotic (and unsourced image of someone (how representative? was that person an infiltrate provocateur? a nuthead?) holding a questionable banner at a San Francisco rally with classical anti-semitic imagery, wanting to create an association of ideas in a really propagandistic style that can be anything but worth of a encyclopedia.
  3. Propaganda (2): Tendentiously argues that anti-Zionist icons identifying Israel with Nazism are "displaying swastikas". You can or not agree with the wiewpoint of Israel being Neonazi but you cannot claim that denouncing the arguably nazi nature/activity of Israel is Nazi propaganda.
  4. Propaganda (3): Tendentiously favors those viewpoints that identify anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. This issue if anywhere should be in the anti-Zionism entry.
  5. Confusionism (1): Ignoring that the anti-globalization movement is very plural and complex and a lot of different viewpoints can converge at such meetings, most often intended only for open debate. Anecdotic anti-semitism by indvidual people (Ramadan's case) is not grounds anyhow to to disqualify a whole and so plural movement.
  6. Confusionism (2): Not everybody can make the difference between the Israel lobby and the "Jewish lobby". I do but I don't expect anybody in the world to do it. Making accusations of anti-semitism to what is just sheer ignorance is likely to be more propaganda or, in the best case, hysteria.

Additionally it's a very bad article stylistically speaking, with extremely poor structuring, a clear POV and all what makes a Wikipedia article a candidate for deletion WP:NOT.

And that resumes all the article. I find little or nothing that can be saved. Maybe a few items can be moved to their resepective relevant articles but that's all. --Sugaar (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] afd again?

This is obvious case of WP:SOAP. Its not an encyclopediatic entry, but an article that sole function is to argue a point. --Soman (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I think that this can peacefully be AfDed. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You may have mistaken this article for the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Jay, remember that that article, while terrible, is not as bad as your favourite article, so every time you bash it when there's no need to, you make yourself look bad. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
RR, remember two things. 1) My favorite Wikipedia articles are actually Night (book) and Rudolf Vrba. and 2) Use Talk: pages to discuss article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This principle would be undermined by your comment at 1:06, 6 May. As usual. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Err, no. Unlike you, I didn't refer to other editors in my comment. You really must desist from following me to article pages for the purpose of insulting me. As WP:NPA says, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Do calm down, Jay, I was stalking Soman, not you.
And, as I pointed out, not directly referring to other editors but implying things about their behaviour is also a violation of WP:CIVIL as written. Oh, and so are spurious accusations of stalking. Have a nice day! --Relata refero (disp.) 05:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I never voted 'keep' in any of the afds on that article. My editing in that article is limited to reverting vandalism from our Zionist serial vandal. That said, I think the State of Israel is a somewhat more clearly defined entity than 'anti-globalization' (which in itself is a very dubious concept). --Soman (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Israel is more clearly defined than anti-globalization, but "Israeli apartheid" is rather less well defined. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)