Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-globalization and antisemitism (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was No consensus to delete; default keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:31Z 

Anti-globalization and antisemitism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates "What Wikipedia Is NOT": Wikipedia is not a soapbox or platform for personal opinion or agenda, etc. J.R. Hercules 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This is the second AFD nomination of this article. See Votes_for_deletion/Anti-globalization_and_Anti-Semitism
 * Weak keep. Doesn't seem too NPOV to me, but I wonder if we really need an article. I'd keep this one on a short leash. --N Shar 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm also not seeing too much NPOV there, but I'm still pretty iffy about keeping the article. As it is, it does seem like a soapbox article, and it reads a lot like a personal essay. If it's kept at all, I think it should be renamed Debate about anti-globalization and anti-semitism as suggested on the talk page -- and it needs a major rewrite, avoiding weasel words ("some writers have argued"...) If it violates policy, that's obviously merits deletion, but as is I'm leaning more towards renaming it and doing a major cleanup than deleting it outright. Eeblefish 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge: I have read multiple articles about a purported new wave of anti-Semitism within the New Left's anti-globalization or peace movements, but I don't think this intersection of topics in particular is notable enough for an article of its own. The controversy about a rebirth of anti-Semitism on the left bests belongs in the article on anti-Semitism itself.--NeantHumain 03:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: This article appears to have been written with bias, so barring a rewrite to qualify for a merge, I vote delete. 71.109.127.31 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not NPOV that's easy to see. Seems covered in anti-semitism. Any usable content could be merged there.--John Lake 04:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP. This article appears to be on a point of view rather than an actual subject. Any legitimate content about a relationship between the two subjects can be described in the relevant articles. --Shirahadasha 07:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and previous comments. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 07:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per nomination.  . V .  [Talk 12:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per nomination. MarlaB 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Its just peoples thoughts its not valuable content, therefore failing WP:V and WP:NOT. Telly  addict Editor review! 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination Manzhivago — Manzhivago (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - No legitimate reason for deletion. As the refs show, there is a correlation. Deleting the article won't make the problem go away. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   -- ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I took the time to read over the article's references. Many of them say little or nothing about the anti-globalization movement; their focus is on "the left" in general. In the Naomi Klein article, the anti-Semitism angle is focused on the presence of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who showed up to at an anti-World Bank/IMF rally. But Le Pen is a far right-winger; he was there for the "free Palestine" rally, not the anti-globalization rally. The Toronto NOW article (http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2004-03-18/news_story6.php), talks about the possible link between anti-Semitism and some of those who are opposed to the American neo-cons. It says nothing about any link between anti-globalization and anti-Semitism, except that it mentions a prominent anti-WTO activist who condemned an allegedly anti-Semitic Adbusters article. Doesn't exactly support your thesis, does it? And the references from FrontPage and Mark Strauss are inherently biased sources: FrontPage and Strauss' "Foreign Policy" journal are furiously PRO-globalization. If anything, the references provided for the article weaken, not strengthen, any argument for retention. J.R. Hercules 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article was significantly improved today, mostly by SlimV. I just added another source, Walter Laqueur. Hope it addresses some concerns raised here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't address any concerns raised here. Curious how you didn't address a single point I mentioned earlier. Instead, you simply made the generic, unexplained statement that the article was "significantly improved today". J.R. Hercules 13:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Very POV & conflates criticism of Israeli military policy with anti-Jewish bigotry. Subject matter could be dealt with elsewhere. Also, why is one "anti" hyphenated, and not the other? --MacRusgail 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page isn't well written, but there are reliable, scholarly sources available who explicitly address this issue, and who can be added to improve it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've tidied it a little and added some more material. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are good sources discussing this topic. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. If the article is deemed not to be compliant with WP:NPOV, it can be fixed. Lack of NPOV is not a reason for deleting an article. Is it?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The primary issue isn't NPOV in of itself; the primary issue is that the article is a blatant violation of WP:SOAP. The article is NPOV by default. But even if some forced "balance" of opposing viewpoints were to be stringently applied in this case, it still wouldn't undo the overwhelming reality that the article itself exists as an utterly unencyclopediac point/counterpoint exchange of viewpoints. And that's classifying the article in the most charitable fashion I can think of; it's clear that there's a political, not scholarly, agenda underlying the article. J.R. Hercules 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Humus & Jossi; this is an encylopaedic topic with available sourcing,  Tewfik Talk 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to future recreation of an article on the subject (possibly at a better title). The current article is worse than no article as a starting point, and I think it makes more sense to include the topic in the main Anti-Semitism article for now, and split off later if it gets too long. --Delirium
 * Delete as (essentially) a POV-fork.  semper fictilis 03:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The issue is real. Antisemitism on the Left is real--even if it is exploited by defenders of Israeli poliies. Shameful that this issue is raised once again.--Cberlet 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - well cited to established, reliable publications. Tom Harrison Talk 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm curious as to why you say the article's references are "well cited to established, reliable publications." Did you check the references out? If you did, you would have found that most of them don't even talk about any alleged link between anti-globalization and anti-semitism. A few of them do: 1) an archived 1999 opinion piece from an obscure Dutch group's website; 2) a hit-piece from the conservative frontpagemag.com site; and 3) Mark Strauss' article for Foreign Policy journal -- a journal whose very existence is based on the pro-globalization stance (which hardly qualifies it as an unbiased source for an encyclopedia article's information, especially for this particular encyclopedia article.) J.R. Hercules 04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, and Paul Berman, Naomi Klein, and Werner Bergmann and Juliane Wetzel of the Berlin Technical University. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read those references? The Naomi Klein piece has her specifically saying the following: "The globalization movement isn’t anti-Semitic..." And yet, the Klein article was cited by a dishonest Wiki editor as an example of a link between anti-globalism and anti-Semitism? And the editor's rationale for making this connection? Why, Naomi Klein is "one of the leaders of the anti-globalization movement". Therefore, uh, there's a connection between anti-globalism and anti-Semitism (sarcasm). J.R. Hercules 05:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the closing admin: J.R. Hercules, who nominated the page for deletion, has posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour, asking people to vote here. SlimVirgin (talk)  05:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, my notice to that talk page is in keeping with Afd etiquette. Much more so than inclusion on a themed deletion source page (an allowed practice I disagree with). J.R. Hercules 06:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, sourced and cited, puts many pieces together. Keep. --Shamir1 05:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, sourced and cited, and deals with a major issue in responsible fashion. I have read the sources cited and they substantiate the article.  Rjensen 05:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (being the nominator). J.R. Hercules 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty self evident. THE KING 06:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not: votes are automatically tallied at the end of the debate, and even the nominator needs to formally include his/her vote for it to be counted properly. J.R. Hercules 06:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: An AFD discussion is not a vote. Keep/Delete/etc. comments are a convenience to clarify recommendations by editors. Tallying isn't done "formally", but is based on the consensus of discussion participants not the quantities.-- LeflymanTalk  08:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tom Harrison; enough evidence from the Jerusalem Post *to* the Guardian. --tickle me 06:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. POV of the article is not a serious reason for deletion because it can be fixed, and deletion wont make the problem go away. This is a legitimate topic with adequate sources, so i see no reason for deletion. THE KING 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how the article meets the basic requirements for deletion.  I do see an article that requires cleanup and an effort to improve it. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this sad, and sourced, record of our perilous times. Satisfies WP:FACT. IZAK 07:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - While controversial, the topic is a component of New antisemitism and is sourced to discussions in numerous publications. The best way to balance would be to provide sourcing which counter the claims, if such exist -- rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.-- LeflymanTalk 08:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Leflyman, Tom, Humus etc. The charge of soapboxing is easily countered with deleting it being whitewashing. The fact Naomi Klein needed to respond to the issue, means there is one. Better to improve the article. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 08:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now since there appears to be a good effort at cleaning this up and adding sources. The first line of the article is in desperate need of a rewrite however, "Some writers and researchers have argued that there is rising acceptance of antisemitism within the anti-globalization movement" screams of WP:WEASEL. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with the main anti-semitism page. I'm not really sure this type of articles merits its own article. Yes, we are aware that there is a trend towards anti-semitism in some sectors of the global left, and that obviously, with some of these people also in the anti-globalization movement, this trend migrates to the latter movement. Again, this goes into what does and does not constitute an article on its own merit. I would argue for a section on secular anti-semitism to be created in the main anti-semitism page, whereby it could be made more congruent with the main article. The Prince 10:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, but unfortunately the phenomenon is too old and is/was too widespread. The main AS article is already too long and is being split. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - rather unbalanced at present, but there's no reason why that couldn't be addressed. Warofdreams talk 11:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unfortunate but very real established phenomenon. Satisfies content policies; NPOV issues should be addressed through the regular channels. JFW | T@lk  13:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like an article about an observable phenomenon, in search of a more precise title. There is some NPOV in opposition to antisemitism, but I'm sure we can find someone who will add the pro-antiSemitism view. Gzuckier 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While we're on this antisemitic article binge, why not create a few other articles that have MUCH more relevance and source material available, namely Anti-Americanism and antisemitism, Anti-communism and antisemitism, and Anti-capitalism and antisemitism? --WassermannNYC 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable and documented phenomenon. Isarig 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Blatant POV violation with feeble "documentation" consisting mostly of ad hominem allegations and guilt-by-association, as pointed out by Editor review!  and J.R. Hercules -- Orange Mike  04:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is notable. --Bondego 09:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and previous comments. Daizus 15:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The people arguing for delete are actually trying to make a case, but I don't see much of that on the other side.Sockem 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User's 10th edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Highly relevant and sourced and encyclopedic. Amoruso 04:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is well sourced. It appears to be an intersection of Anti Globalization and Antisemitism, and possibly also New Antisemitism. As such, given that it has fairly significant content, it can't easily be merged into any of them, IMO. Crum375 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per SV, Crum375, and JFW. JoshuaZ 06:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Commentary At this point, it would be useful to include some historical context regarding this article. Almost two years ago, it was subject to another Afd challenge. One of the principal defenders of the article from two years ago? User:SlimVirgin, who's back to lobby once again for the article's retention. This is what SlimVirgin has to say today in defense of keeping the article:
 * "Keep. The page isn't well written, but there are reliable, scholarly sources available who explicitly address this issue, and who can be added to improve it."
 * "Comment. I've tidied it a little and added some more material."

Now contrast SlimVirgin's current remarks with what she said two years ago during the first Afd challenge:
 * "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."
 * 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."

Well, it's nearly two full years later, and the "tidying up" from the first time around has turned into..."tidying up". If the article merely had to be "tidied up" two years ago, and yet its defenders are still saying that all that needs to be done is to apply some "tidying up", just how viable of an article could this be? J.R. Hercules 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, she significantly improved it in April 2005, and improved it even more now. I can only surmise that you were making your comments to thank SlimVirgin for her tireless efforts to improve Wikipedia articles. It's becoming one of Wikipedia's best articles - no doubt that's why the discussion here is even more strongly in favour of keeping the article than in April 2005. If only the early commenters who almost unanimously voted "Delete" could have seen the article in its current condition, I'm sure the non-politically motivated among them would have voted quite differently - one can see how the trend has changed on this, concurrent with SlimVirgin's diligent work.  Of course, Wikipedia articles are always a work in progress - no doubt someone will come along one day and improve it even more - odds are that person will again be SlimVirgin, she seems dedicated to actually helping Wikipedia, rather than just pushing a political agenda. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hercules, the reason my first attempt at tidying petered off was that I was confronted by editors who were trying to slant the article to imply there is no antisemitism in the movement, so I gave up and took the wretched thing off my watchlist. The only reason I returned was that I saw it was up for deletion again. This happens a lot around these articles &mdash; people try to fix them but get discouraged by the shenanigans. Aren't you glad your nomination led to its finally being improved and (it appears) kept? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as it is notable, well sourced and documented. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, sourced, and recent improvements by SV. -- M P er el ( talk 07:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.