Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism


 * This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Thus, the article is kept. It is now clear that this VfD will not reach consensus. Deletion is supported by slightly over half of the voters. Many voters expressed concern about POV problems and this should be discussed in the article's talk page. The possible renaming of the article should also be discussed there. Carbonite | Talk 02:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism
This article consists of content that was at Anti-globalization, where the general opinion was that it was a load of rubbish added just to try to slander the anti-globalization movement. It was disproportionately long compared to the rest of the criticisms in the article. People such as myself wanted to shorten it to a summary. User:Sam Spade had the bright idea of saving this by creating a spin-off page. Our policy discourages the creation of spin-offs consisting of the controversial bits of other articles. This content was not good enough to be a section in another article, and its not good enough to be a full article. The accusations are only notable enough to justify a quick summary in the anti-globalization article. Chamaeleon 12:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: the article has been tidied and references have been added. The allegations are certainly notable: for example, there's an article about the issue on a website run by Yale University. SlimVirgin (talk)  20:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * El C, I'll answer you in full below. Suffice to say here that this is not, in fact, a marginal topic. It may have started life as a POV fork but it's now shaping up to be a legitimate article. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * If I could still have the last word up here. ;) Please see comments by Rama in talk. El_C 07:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Votes should go in the table and below. Comments below please, or to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

Keep All sources are cited. Just as we have Arabs and anti Semitism there is no reason we cant have the anti globalization movement and anti semitism. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:28, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (leaving summary in anti-globalization) Chamaeleon 12:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was about to post a VfD myself, but it looks like User:Chamaeleon beat me to it. Good to know I'm not alone. This was originally a section of the Anti-globalization article created by User:TDC. It was overwhelmingly rejected on the Talk page for that article on NPOV grounds, and reverted multiple times. Since TDC continued to revert it back, he was eventually given a 24-hour block for violation of the 3RR. As this edit shows, TDC was clearly writing with the intent of furthering a specific POV. After several more reverts by various users, User:Sam Spade unilaterally spun this section off into a separate article. This article should be deleted: it consists entirely of content that was rejected for NPOV reasons, the article title is inherently NPOV, and the topic is not broad enough to warrant an article. Firebug 12:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete ...obviously. (isn't it a candidate for speedy deletion?) ?Christiaan 12:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How would that be? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No it appears not. Pity. Now we have to waste time dealing with this. ?Christiaan 12:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork. - Mustafaa 12:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is anyone bothering to read Talk:Anti-globalization? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Lord, what obvious axe-grinding.--Calton | Talk 12:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "Axe-grinding"? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Meaning of axe grinding ?Christiaan 13:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV spinoffs. -Hapsiainen 12:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork. El_C 13:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete uninteresting rants and counter-rants Rama 13:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another pov rant--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 18:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup and rename to something like Anti-globalization movement and the Middle East. Okay, that's a terrible name, but I think the article raises a useful point. The debate over globalization intersects with the debate over the Middle East in several significant ways, producing effects that may or may not be deliberate, and I think it's worthwhile to talk about it here. FreplySpang (talk) 20:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But there's no reason why this topic cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 20:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The anti-globalization movement tends to be congruent with pro-palestiniancruft that gets very close to and often is anti-semitism. Keep and allow for organic growth. Klonimus 21:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But there's no reason why this topic cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 22:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same as Antisemitism and Arabs, it needs it's own article.
 * Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Cannot be made NPOV. And, according to comments here on the history of the article, it's not only POV, it's a POV fork. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. RickK 22:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete delete this article, it dresses itself up as informative but is totally biased. It does not define anti-globalization, or anti "neo-liberal" policies, which are about opposing richer countries using indebtedness and trade law (and war) to control smaller economies and enrich a very tiny fraction of the world's population at the expense of the rest.  To the extent that this is being imposed on the middle east, yes, people in those countries will oppose it, but this article has nothing to do with explaining those policies themselves. Ovalrock] POV fork!
 * Note: User's first edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's alright, I can vouch for this person. ?Christiaan 01:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's enough, Christiaan. El_C 01:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve. Naomi Klein has acknowledged the issue. Neutral. ? Sesel wa  06:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But there's no reason why this topic cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 08:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, rantish POV fork. Megan1967 06:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rant. Indrian 07:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork. Dave the Red 07:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Needlessly combines two complex and controversial subjects for the purpose of POV. zen master   T  07:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork, rant. Jonathunder 08:54, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fant - David Gerard 09:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but first provide references for the quotes. User:Sirkumsize (sig added by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC))
 * Strong KeepTDC 13:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep article does not seem POV. Hotly debated issue that deserves mention if someone is willing to write about it. This was an inappropriate VfD --Dzimmer6 15:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork.--Chammy Koala 21:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. 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.

How fucking ridiculous is this, anyways? Some Wikipedians do not like a certain segment in an article so they work to have its content banned from Wikipedia all together?


 * For example, a couple of right-wingers can only revert an article a total of four times before violating the three-revert rule. Ten progressives each committing to voting just once can easily overcome this and more. By working together, we can stamp out certain POVs.

Let me be a bit more specific who I am talking about here, Chamaeleon. Here we have a contributor who sees it as his mission to band together with likeminded folk and marginalize ?certain POV?s?. Not all POV?s, not dishonest POV?s, but POV?s that he sees as representing ?bad stuff?.

First the information is stripped from its original article, and shoveled into a new one which then can be speedily deleted.

They have a term for tactics like this, its called airbrushing, and has no place here.

Vote to keep! TDC 13:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. This does seem to be a legitimate topic judging by Google searches. I've tidied it up a bit, have added a couple of extra sources, have found links for the quotes already there, and have added a references section. The article needs to be expanded, and examples should be given of actions or statements by anti-globalization protestors that are regarded by others as anti-Semitic. SlimVirgin (talk)  20:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Anti-semitism has been an issue with José Bové and his support for Yasser Arafat. Clearly article has to be NPOVed, but that does not mean it should be completely deleted. Luis rib 22:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But there's no reason why this topic cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 22:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't allow it to be covered in Anti-globalization; and further research has shown it to be a larger topic than was previously thought. Also, for the record, you're going around deleting links to this article on other pages, perhaps in an effort to show that, because it links nowhere, it ought to be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you please substantiate your baseless claims I "wouldn't allow it to be covered in Anti-globalisation." How do you know what I would and wouldn't do??? Also, for the record you have being going around slapping links to this article, perhaps in an effort to justify its existence. ?Christiaan 22:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And note please that you are in danger of violating 3RR. ?Christiaan 22:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note. Below are the reversions made to Anti-globalization from April 1-4 by User:Chamaeleon, User:Christiaan, User:Che y Marijuana, User:63.173.114.141, User:Firebug, and User:Rama in an effort to stop either any discussion of the material, or even a link to another article about it, even though the material is properly referenced to credible sources, on the left and right, including a website run by Yale University, and it is clearly not a tiny-minority view. The article written in accordance with No original research, Neutral point of view, Cite sources, and Verifiability. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a little challenge for you SlimVirgin. Please point out any edit of mine that that does anything apart from remove a link to this POV fork. After that, you might like to apoligise for your concerted effort to try and paint me as someone pushing a POV. You seem to have a real habit of labelling your political opponents. ?Christiaan 23:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork Refdoc 22:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Apparently a heated topic, but it is a real phenomenon being discussed by credible, mainstream sources, like Yale University as SlimVirgin points out.  Should be improved and NPOV'd, but not censored. --MPerel( talk 23:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * And there's no reason why it cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 23:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point; however, it is desirable and certainly not uncommon to create sub-articles when the main article becomes large, as in this case.--MPerel( talk 00:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the phenomena of anti-semitism in the anti-globalization movement certainly is notable, although it may just be anti-Israel as a state, but the vitriol suggests it is more than that, especially since Israel's socialism should result in a natural affinity.--Silverback 23:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And there's no reason why it cannot be covered in Anti-globalization. ?Christiaan 23:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Israel's socialism? What does that mean? And Christiaan, are you going to repeat that comment after every keep vote? I am of the opinion that once or twice should suffice. Lastly, TDC, as per the statement:  Can you try to relax? El_C 00:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably, can't be too careful. :) ?Christiaan 00:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork. Kaldari 03:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that it has been tidied up and properly cited. Too large to fit back in the original article, so it's a logical choice for a sub-article, as is recommended when articles get too large. Jayjg (talk)  03:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * One article does not need to invariably mean one html page, even though it seems to. Forking an article almost invariably means an extraction out of a single, general narrative. Also, aggrendizing the issue by virtue of which per se. (unlike in the main article: as paragraphs, subheaders, etc.). Fact is: This was rejected from the main article – now, if there is new info that makes it worthy to be included, it should be re-inserted not forked into a new article. El_C 03:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The original article is already 38K, well above the suggested 32K limit. Since there's no room for it anyway, it might as well stay in its own article, with a summary and link in the main. If not this section, then it will have to be something else, which is just more work. Jayjg (talk)  03:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yet the main criticisms against anti-globalization don't get their own articles. This is clearly politically motivated as a smear campaign to elevate this topic beyond its notability. The article already summarizes this issue, and there is no reason to give it its own article, especially when there are more important criticisms which would be first in line for a spin-off if that was decided.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 04:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Again, the page size need not be an insurmountable hindrence, and we should not treat the topic differently (and I dare say, better) simply because it was rejected from the main article the first time (rewarding, if you will, poor editing after the fact). El_C 04:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As the edit history makes clear, the section was not "rejected from the main article the first time"; rather, it was co-operatively edited and accepted, and then stayed in the article for over a month. However, more recently one party to that agreement decided to renege, and delete the section instead, and was supported in this by a number of other editors. We should not "reward" those who break their own consensus after the fact, especially when they have explicitly stated that this VfD will be a good way to get rid of the material once and for all. Jayjg (talk)  04:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you distinguish "main criticisms against anti-globalization" from other criticisms? How do you decide which ones are more "notable" than others, and which are mere "smear campaigns"? The article itself seems remarkably "resistant" to any sort of criticism; a perusal indicates that fully half of the small "Criticisms" section is itself devoted to "counter-Criticisms" defending the movement.  Furthermore, a review of the edit history indicates that the excision of this material was done after it had existed there for over a month, and after an apparent consensus to leave it in by the very editor who decided weeks later to excise it. Jayjg (talk)  04:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Encyclopedic, very notable. Hopefully the attempted POV-pushing, which allows no critical analysis of the anti-globalization movement, will be stymied. "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." --Mrfixter 03:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How can an article that consists of nothing but accusations be encyclopedic? If there was some actual anti-semitism documented in this article, I might change my mind, but as it is (and will probably always be), there is nothing in this article but accusations. Kaldari 23:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Copied from above: 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)
 * It's clear from Anti-globalization that there was an attempt by several editors to delete all mention of anti-Semitism from the article, or drastically reduce it, which is worrying. Therefore, that section was moved to its own space and has been extended and referenced, and if it stays, will be extended further, so it is no longer appropriate to move it back. This is a legitimate topic, much discussed in Europe by academics and journalists, and is part of the drift of the far Left to the right, focused in particular on the anti-globalization and anti-war movements. I've yet to see an argument, as opposed to an assertion, from anyone that this topic or the title is either non-notable or is inherently POV, which is what would have to be shown for it to be legitimately deleted. Here is a paper  (pdf) on "The British Left and the Jews" by Ben Cohen, a journalist and broadcaster who has served with the United Nations Protection Force. He argues that "the delegitimisation offensive against Israel presently pursued by sections of the anti-globalisation movement, the far Left and certain periodicals of the moderate Left ? many of whose themes are shared by Islamists and parts of the far right ? can reasonably be said to have begun in the aftermath of the 1967 war. It was then that the difference between the anti-Zionism of the ancien Left and that espoused by its new incarnation was established. As Robert Wistrich has argued, in becoming a ?code word for the forces of reaction in general,? Zionism assumed a global importance for the contemporary Left that not even Marx and Lenin could have foreseen. Consequently, ?[t]he extreme Left in western societies not only denigrates Israel and Zionism in a systematic manner, but its irrational hostility frequently spills over into contempt or antipathy towards Jews and Judaism as such." Perhaps if we want to continue this, we should go to the talk page so as not to take up more space. I'll copy this to there. SlimVirgin (talk)  04:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that  should not have been the solution to this, nor should it remain (for all the more important resasons cited). The solution is/was continuing to work within the main article and go through the usual motions &mdash; I am against such emergency forking. As for those claims you cite above, and how they all fit in this, I agree that the talk page is more suited for such a discussion, but I am afraid I am as yet unconvinced. El_C 05:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it matters why it was originally moved. The solution was not working within the main article or there wouldn't have been an edit war. But regardless, it now has its own space, so the important thing is to find references on both sides and make it a well-referenced, NPOV article. As I said on the talk page, I've yet to see a single argument (as opposed to assertion) that this topic is non-notable or that the title is inherently POV. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, kill the quotes. Yes, this is a real phenomenon. Rhobite 04:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Real, or real marginal? ;) Heh, sorry. Again, the contention isn't notability. See the vfd's talk page, esp. the comment by Rama (read that 1st). El_C 05:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You say "the contention isn't notability", but then you say it should be deleted because it's only marginally notable? Rhobite 05:57, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, within the movement as a whole, not per se. As in it having been forked out of the main article. I encourage you to give this VfD and talk page a 2nd glance. El_C 06:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (Moved from above) Within the movement it is a marginal phenomenon. Of course, I remain open to persuasion. El_C 04:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But how can you know that it is a marginal phenomenon within the movement? And in any event what matters is not how marginal it is within the movement, but how much it is debated by reputable, mainstream sources, and it does seem to be the subject of significant debate. We must, as always, go with the references. We should continue this on the talk page. I'll copy this to there. SlimVirgin (talk)  05:00, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously I would approach establishing this in such a way, but all this should be happening in the main article. It is there that such a dialogue should be taking place. El_C 05:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep after surviving the necessary POVectomy. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 05:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is a legitimate topic of discussion. RK 20:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete this content could go on either the anti-semitism or anti-globalisation pages. too many quotes for what essentially amounts to "a lot of people in the left don't like israel, a small proportion of them don't like jews". do we really need a "neo-liberalism and anti-islam" article? FrancisTyers 08:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure -- Prob' delete . The technical argument that this article arose as a POV fork seems to be valid. But I am against deleting on technicalities. The Anti-globalisation article is already quite large so it wouldn't nesicarly be that worth while to merge back in. On the other hand the Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism doesn't seem to contain large amounts of info' just quotes and counter quotes, all it tells us is that some people say that either is anti-Semitism in the anti-globalisation movement (some sections/all?) (or possibly in the foundation ideas of the movement?). Should we give the article a chance to turn into some thing NPOV and factualy interesting? Or will it be stuck as a POV fork with little info'? I'm not sure.--JK the unwise 10:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) (P.S: For the record I believe the allegations are false and based on the incorrect lableing of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism. However, while it is generally people who oppose the anti-glob' movement who make these allegations, there is also some real disagreement within some small sections of the movement, at any rate the 'movement' is much to diverce for much of this discusion to make that much sense)
 * Rename (to Allegations of anti-Semitism within the anti-globalization movement) if NPOV issules can be satisfactorily resolved and enough info added, otherwise Delete. --JK the unwise 12:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, should be in the two separate articles. Radiant_* 12:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Anti-globalization and Anti-Zionism - there is a definite correlation between the two points of view, and it is possible to be an anti-zionist without being anti-semetic. -- 8^D gab 21:34, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
 * Another alternative would be to rename the article Allegations of anti-Semitism within the anti-globalization movement. Although it is a bit long. Kaldari 20:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd have no objection to renaming it: your suggestion is long but it's accurate. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:40, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * The sources describe it as "Anti-Semitism", not "Anti-Zionism"; you can't just decide they meant something else. As for the name, "Alleged" is not used in article titles; rather, the topic is cited neutrally, and the pros and cons are hashed out in the article. Jayjg (talk)  17:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, legitimate article, well written and well-cited. Claims about POV should be solved in the Talk page, not on a VFD. MathKnight 08:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly POV issues can be addressed but there is no reason not to discuss the subject. (posted by GabrielF)
 * delete, I could also vote "rename", but how is renaming and rewriting an article different from deleting? This is not even related to Anti-globalization in particular. leftist anti-Semitism would be an ok title to make such a case as there is, even though I think it is self-contradictory (you cannot be a (classical) leftist and think in racial categories, as soon as you even accept that a "semitic" race is of any consequence, you cease to be a leftist) dab (&#5839;) 08:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * changing my vote to find a better title. dab (&#5839;) 12:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: You can find quotes to support any kind of crap, QED. Once again, a) some rather minor views inside a movement are blown up out of proportion, b) anti-israel is once again confused with anti-semitism (and of course everything remotely critical with Israel appears as anti-semitic to some), and c) anti-semitism is such a handy accusation if you want to demonize something. No way this article could ever be NPOV. -- 10:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are some POV problems with this article, but I don't believe they're inherent. I wouldn't oppose a new title if a more suitable one were proposed. Carbonite | Talk 14:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: describes fringe elements and mostly includes citations of commentary and editorial; is used to wage an ideologicaol war. There are things to say about the issue, but the current title is "loaded", the choice of pictures is biased, etc. It is as if we started an article Capitalism and Anti-Semitism and we listed cases of famous or not-so-famous Capitalist antisemites. David.Monniaux 14:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is just slander. -- LGagnon 18:52, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not an article. It's a completely superfluous list of "A wrote this, B wrote that, but C wrote this." I think any article that has "and" plus an "-ism"-word in the title is bound to the become a POV-edit war ground. Strongly reminds me of the fiasco at Socialism and Nazism (moved to Nazism and socialism; both are today simple redirects). We don't need such articles. One can find X-haters anywhere, in any group. Discuss the phenomenon in general at an article "Anti-X", give a few pertinent examples there, and don't try to denounce any group that was ever accused by somebody of being "anti-X" or of having members behaving "anti-Xish". Substitute your favourite POV/religion/sex/doctrine/... for X. If the "X-hate" in a group G dominates other aspects of that group, and is reported by various sources, discuss the phenomenon at length in an article on group G. But do not create "articles" entitled "G and Anti-Xism" or similar. BTW, I think all the proposed renamings below fall under "similar". Just delete this article. Lupo 20:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In short: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Lupo 06:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lupo's just outlined what I'd say:) Tobyox 02:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this is in, we have to include articles such as Pro-choice and Homicidal Tendancies and all sorts of other WP:NPOV non-notable original research philosophising about weak links between personal politics and personal psychology. --User:Halidecyphon 06:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Cannot be made NPOV. Dsmdgold 09:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Having directly suffered anti-semitic comments from anti-globalization protesters, I know this to be a valid subject.Nasrallah 11:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've suffered, for example, anti-american comments from pacifists. Should I write an article on Pacifism and Anti-Americanism? --Halidecyphon 14:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep A controversial issue is perfectly acceptable for an article; even if you don't believe there is a connection, this is the place to examine the evidence. Last editorial comment is that when I see the ludicrous assertions that are made against anything remotely Jewish here, I can't see why this perfectly reasonable issue should be squashed.  --Leifern 17:56, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
 * Keep. Censorship is not an acceptable response to an article on a controversial topic. --Briangotts 20:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Expand article and work on NPOV issues.  --Viriditas  | Talk 22:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no connection. Of course that type of writing is never intended to be taken seriously by the thinking segment of the population. Some contributers here might support it for other reasons, but they should keep in mind that Wikipedia is unsuitable as an outlet for such material because the great masses of susceptible people who are the target audience don&#8217;t read here. Meggar 05:17, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
 * "the thinking segment of the population" is hilarious!  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 02:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. A valid and actual topic. The POV (alleged or real) is not a reason for deletion. And if someone doesn't think it exists, edit the article. We keep Zionism and racism, and bunch of other X and Y, after all.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 02:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Title
I propose that the current title, and any other proposed titles, redirect to which ever title we all can agree to. I am pretty open minded about titles, and having written the one in use now, I don't claim it to be beyond question. I also think that separate articles could well be written using different proposed titles. Lets list proposed titles below:


 * 1) Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism
 * 2) Allegations of anti-Semitism within the anti-globalization movement
 * 3) Anti-globalization movement and the Middle East
 * 4) Anti-globalization and Anti-Zionism
 * 5) leftist anti-Semitism
 * 6) Anti-globalization and racism

Discussion of possible titles
I think the title should be the one most likely to be linked to by encyclopedia readers using the search bar. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, regarding article titles, the sources describe it as "Anti-Semitism", not "Anti-Zionism"; you can't just decide they meant something else. As for the name, "Allegations of" or "Alleged" are, as far as I can tell, not used in article titles; rather, the topic is cited neutrally, and the pros and cons are hashed out in the article. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  17:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, but as I said there is probably more than 1 articles worth of content here. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree - sources may discuss "anti-semitism" instead of "anti-zionism", but all of the discussion relates to opposition to Israel/support of Israel. "Jewish" is not necessarily synonymous w/"Pro-Israel", and just b/c the sources are misusing the terms doesn't mean we must as well. -- 8^D gab 21:10, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * All we are here to do is reference expert sources and citations, any conjecture beyond that edges towards original research. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Lupo 06:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The entire article consists of allegations, even the primary article header states this. I see no documentation of actual anti-Semitism in this article, thus using the term "allegations" seems entirely appropriate. Kaldari 14:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.