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

message: 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)
thread_title:  proper place for conspiracies to run free 

message: These two links
* http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1460339,00.html 
* http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1574061,00.html 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Kaldari, why did you delete my response to you above? . Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic? 

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

text: On what table will I find this "disputed merge proposal"? Jayjg (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't see a merge proposal on this Talk: page; where will I find it? Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Remove tag?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What you call consensus is not consensus. zen master    T  17:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I propose we remove the title tag. --Cberlet 18:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree, remove the title tag. --Mrfixter 19:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Title disputed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of FrontPageMag as a source 

message: 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)
replies: text: Your changes look good to me. zen master    T  13:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've made another edit to try to accomodate that point; what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Works for me.  Thanks. --Cberlet 20:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuance

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite of 'allegations' section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reorganisation of material 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Addition of material on Kalle Lasn

message: Is NPOV and accuracy still being disputed, or can the tags be taken down now? Andjam 04:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, and no one has objectd for over a month, so I took it down.   FRS 15:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove NPOV and factual accuracy tags? 

message: 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)
thread_title: STATISTICAL FOUNDATIONS OF GLOBALISATION AND THE JEWS