See also: Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism
Chameleon claims the spinoff was because this subject was controversial and wikipedia discourages that. More likely is that the defenders of the original page wanted to keep the page as pure uncritical POV. An analogy would be the communism page where the "purists" did not want the baggage of the communist state in their article. That the communist state was deplorable is not even controversial, it had to be spun off because the communist purists did not wanted to be painted with the practical consequences of their ideology.-- Silverback 00:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No. This fork was spun off not because it is controversial, but because it was bloated. One criticism is being blown out of proportion, and given a section the size of all other criticisms combined. The reality is, the economic and human rights criticisms are much larger and much more important issues and need to be accorded space that is proportional to their importance. You, and several others, refuse to allow an NPOV summary of the section, and so you decided to spin it off hoping to avoid NPOV if you took it to another page. This issue is addressed in the globalization article itself, and does not need its own article.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 03:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
(Copied from voting page)
If I could briefly respond to that note: This isn't about notability, it's about it being a pov fork in that the phenomenon is too marginal to be written on outside the main article (and when it does, pov is the result). It should be made clear this is what many on the delete camp are arguing, better referencing and npov language notwithstanding. El_C 02:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(copied from the voting page) Within the movement it is a marginal phenomenon. Of course, I remain open to persuasion. El_C 04:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The reading of the article has given me the impression that there is an extremely tiny minority of "Anti-globalization" people who are indeed borderline to antisemitism (as in the overall population), and that this is used, deliberately or by clumsiness (unnuanced comments), to taint the whole movement. This can work quite well in the the USA, since it is usually pro-Palestinian and anti-Israelian; in Europe, where a critical view of Israelian policies is a common public opinion, this sort of story has very scarcely been reported, if ever. Also (I do not mean to imply that I am an authority in the subject, but) having patroled the "Anti-globalization" camp during the WEF of Davos (on official duty for the government, not as a militant), I have seen nthing of the sort. What I did see were very naive people who are a very easy target if somebody wants to deform their statements. I thank you for the improvements made on the article; I even considered changing my vote. Yet, the article summarises very well into "Some people, particularly on the Right-wing, accuse the movement of having a tendency to anti-semitism (insert refs here). The Anti-globalization militants and other institutions (insert refs here) point to the fact that in these studies, opposition to the Israelian governement is often assimilated to anti-semitism". And that's it. The numerous quotations show a nice documentation work, but face it, they are mainly ranting and counter-ranting a add very little to the whole point. Rama 05:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rama, bear in mind that all that was done with the article was a copy edit and adding some references. It hasn't been expanded yet, and discussion is continuing at Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism regarding how best to do that. I wouldn't agree that this issue is not discussed in Europe: it's discussed quite a bit as I recall, particularly in the UK and in Holland. It's just a question now of tracking down the references, and providing an analysis (so long as one has been published) as to when this started, why, and how widespread it appears to be; and also how "anti-Semitism" is being defined by the various authors, and what the concrete examples of alleged anti-Semitism are. My worry about this VfD, and the attempts not to allow this material to be included in Anti-globalization (though admittedly it was not properly referenced), is that it looked as though some editors were trying to defend the movement rather than describe what people say about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:00, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Actually it's not another story, but it's THE story. I don't believe that the anti-globalisation movement is antisemitic, but there was a media fuss that it was. This article should look into that media fuss, see what was correct and what was not, how the different actors reacted, etc. I don't think it should be deleted since many less relevant subjects have their own page (e.g. different Pokemon characters, for Heaven's sake!!!). Luis rib 10:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, wouldn't the page be the perfect spot for identifying "canonical" criticsims? Personally, I don't know much about the subject; I only remember the Ramadan case and the José Bové case. But it seems that there were also other criticisms (e.g. Chomsky). Since it is indeed a marginal subject, putting it back into antiglobalisation would be stupid, but since it did generate some controversy, I think this page should be kept and NPOVed and cleant up. Luis rib 12:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It seems to me that the relevant questions are:
My answers:
Also, I don't see this as an issue that's confined to the U.S.; in fact, it's less of a problem in the U.S. than in Europe. The focal points seem to be the UK, Holland, and of course Germany. Rama, you said elsewhere that the UK isn't representative of the views of Europe, but it's part of Europe and a large sector of the anti-globalization/anti-war movement comes from the UK, so it can't just be excluded. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Rama. Your views are, as always, insightful and helpful, and I do take your point that, if not enough material can be found, it would fit better in the original article. I also agree with your point that forks take material out of context: that's a very important point actually. Thank you for raising it. The problem with Anti-globalization, as I see it (and I was not involved in editing it), is that one or two editors, primary Chamaeleon, appeared to have taken control of it, and wouldn't allow more than a cursory reference to the anti-Semitic charges. There's very little discussion on the talk page, but around 20 reverts in 2-3 days of the anti-Semitic references. With that kind of attitude, it becomes almost impossible to add intelligent material in a nuanced and context-respecting manner. If there were no independent references to support the material, then I'd support reverting and nominating any POV fork for deletion. But there are references, and they seem to be credible. So the question becomes: how representative are these sources? And we won't know how to answer that until we've done the research, but we can't reasonably be expected to do that research while the VfD is going on, in case it's a waste of time. So once again, the same editor (Chamaeleon) is distorting the editing process by having nominated this article for deletion so quickly (and said on the talk page he thought it a good idea that the material become a fork, so that he could have the material deleted entirely from Wikipedia). It would have been good if reasonable editors could have gotten together, done the research without feeling rushed, and then come to a reasonable NPOV conclusion: either yes, there's enough here for a separate article, or no, there isn't, let's write an intelligent, well-referenced section about it for Anti-globalization instead. So I feel there's a lesson to be learned here about the importance of giving people time to put a case together (so long as there are references; I'm not including material here that has no third-party support and is original research) without having serial reverters bearing down on them. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I can't understand why people with few article edits to their name should have less of a say than those who have several, or many - unless this is a case of voter fraud, in which individuals create new accounts for themselves just for the purpose of voting. -- Leifern 21:44, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
Oh, for Heisenberg's sake, you all stop it ! Or at least, cancel each other out in a blow of pure energy and let grown-up use the resources of Wikipedia Rama 14:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism
Chameleon claims the spinoff was because this subject was controversial and wikipedia discourages that. More likely is that the defenders of the original page wanted to keep the page as pure uncritical POV. An analogy would be the communism page where the "purists" did not want the baggage of the communist state in their article. That the communist state was deplorable is not even controversial, it had to be spun off because the communist purists did not wanted to be painted with the practical consequences of their ideology.-- Silverback 00:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No. This fork was spun off not because it is controversial, but because it was bloated. One criticism is being blown out of proportion, and given a section the size of all other criticisms combined. The reality is, the economic and human rights criticisms are much larger and much more important issues and need to be accorded space that is proportional to their importance. You, and several others, refuse to allow an NPOV summary of the section, and so you decided to spin it off hoping to avoid NPOV if you took it to another page. This issue is addressed in the globalization article itself, and does not need its own article.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 03:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
(Copied from voting page)
If I could briefly respond to that note: This isn't about notability, it's about it being a pov fork in that the phenomenon is too marginal to be written on outside the main article (and when it does, pov is the result). It should be made clear this is what many on the delete camp are arguing, better referencing and npov language notwithstanding. El_C 02:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(copied from the voting page) Within the movement it is a marginal phenomenon. Of course, I remain open to persuasion. El_C 04:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The reading of the article has given me the impression that there is an extremely tiny minority of "Anti-globalization" people who are indeed borderline to antisemitism (as in the overall population), and that this is used, deliberately or by clumsiness (unnuanced comments), to taint the whole movement. This can work quite well in the the USA, since it is usually pro-Palestinian and anti-Israelian; in Europe, where a critical view of Israelian policies is a common public opinion, this sort of story has very scarcely been reported, if ever. Also (I do not mean to imply that I am an authority in the subject, but) having patroled the "Anti-globalization" camp during the WEF of Davos (on official duty for the government, not as a militant), I have seen nthing of the sort. What I did see were very naive people who are a very easy target if somebody wants to deform their statements. I thank you for the improvements made on the article; I even considered changing my vote. Yet, the article summarises very well into "Some people, particularly on the Right-wing, accuse the movement of having a tendency to anti-semitism (insert refs here). The Anti-globalization militants and other institutions (insert refs here) point to the fact that in these studies, opposition to the Israelian governement is often assimilated to anti-semitism". And that's it. The numerous quotations show a nice documentation work, but face it, they are mainly ranting and counter-ranting a add very little to the whole point. Rama 05:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rama, bear in mind that all that was done with the article was a copy edit and adding some references. It hasn't been expanded yet, and discussion is continuing at Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism regarding how best to do that. I wouldn't agree that this issue is not discussed in Europe: it's discussed quite a bit as I recall, particularly in the UK and in Holland. It's just a question now of tracking down the references, and providing an analysis (so long as one has been published) as to when this started, why, and how widespread it appears to be; and also how "anti-Semitism" is being defined by the various authors, and what the concrete examples of alleged anti-Semitism are. My worry about this VfD, and the attempts not to allow this material to be included in Anti-globalization (though admittedly it was not properly referenced), is that it looked as though some editors were trying to defend the movement rather than describe what people say about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:00, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Actually it's not another story, but it's THE story. I don't believe that the anti-globalisation movement is antisemitic, but there was a media fuss that it was. This article should look into that media fuss, see what was correct and what was not, how the different actors reacted, etc. I don't think it should be deleted since many less relevant subjects have their own page (e.g. different Pokemon characters, for Heaven's sake!!!). Luis rib 10:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, wouldn't the page be the perfect spot for identifying "canonical" criticsims? Personally, I don't know much about the subject; I only remember the Ramadan case and the José Bové case. But it seems that there were also other criticisms (e.g. Chomsky). Since it is indeed a marginal subject, putting it back into antiglobalisation would be stupid, but since it did generate some controversy, I think this page should be kept and NPOVed and cleant up. Luis rib 12:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It seems to me that the relevant questions are:
My answers:
Also, I don't see this as an issue that's confined to the U.S.; in fact, it's less of a problem in the U.S. than in Europe. The focal points seem to be the UK, Holland, and of course Germany. Rama, you said elsewhere that the UK isn't representative of the views of Europe, but it's part of Europe and a large sector of the anti-globalization/anti-war movement comes from the UK, so it can't just be excluded. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Rama. Your views are, as always, insightful and helpful, and I do take your point that, if not enough material can be found, it would fit better in the original article. I also agree with your point that forks take material out of context: that's a very important point actually. Thank you for raising it. The problem with Anti-globalization, as I see it (and I was not involved in editing it), is that one or two editors, primary Chamaeleon, appeared to have taken control of it, and wouldn't allow more than a cursory reference to the anti-Semitic charges. There's very little discussion on the talk page, but around 20 reverts in 2-3 days of the anti-Semitic references. With that kind of attitude, it becomes almost impossible to add intelligent material in a nuanced and context-respecting manner. If there were no independent references to support the material, then I'd support reverting and nominating any POV fork for deletion. But there are references, and they seem to be credible. So the question becomes: how representative are these sources? And we won't know how to answer that until we've done the research, but we can't reasonably be expected to do that research while the VfD is going on, in case it's a waste of time. So once again, the same editor (Chamaeleon) is distorting the editing process by having nominated this article for deletion so quickly (and said on the talk page he thought it a good idea that the material become a fork, so that he could have the material deleted entirely from Wikipedia). It would have been good if reasonable editors could have gotten together, done the research without feeling rushed, and then come to a reasonable NPOV conclusion: either yes, there's enough here for a separate article, or no, there isn't, let's write an intelligent, well-referenced section about it for Anti-globalization instead. So I feel there's a lesson to be learned here about the importance of giving people time to put a case together (so long as there are references; I'm not including material here that has no third-party support and is original research) without having serial reverters bearing down on them. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I can't understand why people with few article edits to their name should have less of a say than those who have several, or many - unless this is a case of voter fraud, in which individuals create new accounts for themselves just for the purpose of voting. -- Leifern 21:44, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
Oh, for Heisenberg's sake, you all stop it ! Or at least, cancel each other out in a blow of pure energy and let grown-up use the resources of Wikipedia Rama 14:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)