Talk:Criticisms of globalization/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merger

I merged anti-globalization movement. Thoughts? Sam [Spade] 03:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

At the suggestion of User:Dandrake I wanted to make a note here--just a sentence or two-- about the Bricker Amendment as the anti-globalization movement has same concern over international organizations that prompted Bricker's proposal. But where in this would be a good place for it? PedanticallySpeaking 21:56, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph

This paragraph was removed, it needs some NPOVing:

Some, by analysing those claims and rationalizations, and what the word anti-globalization suggest, see in it a cover for the emergence of new forms of political nationalisms and economic protectionism, and for the idea that economic development and scientific and technological progress would be contrary to the true human goals.

In particular weasel term "some" needs to be clarified, who is "some"? Also, just because the term "anti-globalization" is applied to members of this movement, does not mean that those members are pro-protectionism or opposed to "economic development and scientific and technological progress". As noted elsewhere in the article, the majority of people in the "anti-globalization" movement dislike the term and disagree with what that term implies and in fact are not explicitly against globalization per se (of course there are some that are). The title is inherently non-neutral, but for better or worse the term has stuck, and so according to our naming conventions we title the article accordingly, which means we must be extra vigilant to not let the "word anti-globalization suggest" anything. --Lexor|Talk 16:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

anti war = anti glob

In 2003, the movement showed wide and deep global opposition to the war in Iraq. Following the most spectacular show of numbers on the weekend of February 15, when about 10 million or more anti-globalization protesters participated in global protests against war on Iraq, the New York Times dubbed the movement as the "world's second superpower".

---> I don't htink there is any relation between the Anti-gloablisation movement and the rejection of the USled war in Iraq. Needs NPOV-review. Those 10 mio people were not an anti-globalisation movement.

Furthermore there are other non western groups which also reject globalisation such as muslim extremists, this has to be mentioned as well.

don't think there is any relation between the Anti-gloablisation movement and the rejection of the USled war in Iraq.

No? Saw what I wrote on the page European Social Forum! Perhaps a NPOV version should say: antiglob. constituted an important part of the broader pacifist movement... It's sometime difficult to say if a political mobilitation is made by antiglobalists or not, since none of the organizations which forms the antiglobalization movement (except perhaps ATTAC) was founded with the explicite aim to fight globalization. The article is perhaps a little bit "US-centric", since in Europe the connection between antiglobalists and pacifists was very tight and evident. juliet.p

World and European Social Forum

I'm sorry for my bad English (I'm Italian actually). This voice seems to me rather incomplete. It doesn't speek about Social forums, which have been the most important meetings of the so-called antiglobalization mov. Furthermore, for me there is no doubt (at least for what concerns Italy and Europe) about the connection between antiglob and pacifist mov. At the first European Social Forum (FSE) in Florence there were just two conditions for the acceptation of an organization: 1 to be against the war 2 to be against neoliberalism. The most important Italian pacifist association (Emergency) was one of the partecipant of the forum and its president one of the most popular speecher. Juliet.p

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by clicking the edit this page tab at the top of the page. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --fvw* 10:13, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

OK, I put another paragraph and changed the errors in the paragraph about Genoa (thank to God just a demonstrator was killed, not three!). Hope my English is not too bad! juliet.p

The article, it is a changin'

I hope everyone likes my new addition to the article. I also forsee many more changes to the article so it more accurately reflects a quality NPOV Wiki article and not an advertisemtn for Indemedia. Ciao. TDC 07:44, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Antisemitism and antiglobalization: a dishonest charge

I'm sorry but your addition doesn't seem to me NPOV at all. Protest by anti globalization organization have been filled with comparisons of Israel and Nazi Germany, glorification of Palestinian terror tactics, and other openly anti Semitic imagery. During a by anti globalization protest in Milan Italy, an counter demonstrator carrying an Israeli flag was severely beaten by several of the marchers.. I'm from Italy, I symapathize for the movement (I wrote the paragraph about Social Forums), I've been to a lot of demonstration and I've never seen anything of this. I saw instead Jewish oraganizations ("ebrei contro l'occupazione") at our demonstrations, I've been at meetings, organized by the antiglob mov. with Israelian pacifists and I read interwiews with Israelian pacifists on the mov. magazines. Maybe a very very little portion of the people at the demonstration has cried stupid slogans, not because they are antisemitic, but because some extremists hate the US and see Israel as an instrument of the US. The opposers can have used these very little episodes to charge the movement with antisemitism. But I have to remind you that everybody who opposes Israel, Jews and Israelian included, has been accused of antisemitism. The position of the movement toward Israel is not very different by that of the United Nation's Assembly or the International Court of Justice, which has recently condemned the "wall", and by the position of Israelians who oppose the occupation. In Italy there has been a strong antiglob. movement, but no episode of antisemitism, except for those carried by the neofascist right, that has of course nothing to do with the movement. In France antisemitic assaults had been carried by Northafrican and Arab young immigrates, often apolitics and with no connection with the antiglob. movement.

Anyway, I remember that the problem of antisemitism has been discussed by Naomi Klein in an article appeared after the exploit of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France a few years ago. In the article she told that the movement (her included) had underestimate this question, giving for grant that antisemitism was so unpopular and confined to little groups of fascist extremists that didn't worth to protest against it. She told that the movement should do some addictional efforts to achieve the trust of Jews, whose fear of antisemitism was exploited by Israelian right. I don't now if this article is still reperible.

I think that is not NPOV to dedicate a whole paragraph to this charge. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the paragraph "critics", together with the charge of anti-americanism , which is a little bit more grounded, since many people in the movement see globalization as something sostantially ruled by the US and in the interest of the US.

If you want to discuss this questions with me you can write to me at my page of discussion on the Italian version of wikipedia. I don't understand why in on the Italian version somebody has accused me of anticommunism while here I feel a little bit the dirty communist of the situation! juliet.p

Wow! I found Naomi Klein's article almost immediatly. It was first published on The Globe and Mail the 24 of april 2002. The english version is available on no logo.org. The Italian version (maybe nobody is intested at it, but I am!) is on internazionale's web page!Here's the web page of jews against the occupation

I reorganized a little bit the article and I put some parts that seemed to me to speak about the same things together erasing repetitions. I put some addictional sentencesin the introduction and changed the paragraphs about "antiempire" and "antisemitism" in a way that seem to me NPOV now. I didn't make changes at nothing else. I don't know if I can't remove the NPOV advice at the begininning of the page! Ciao!

I restored my version. I'm sorry for having done this, but TDC had restored his version not taking in any consideration the addictional information I furnished and my objections to his modifications. I think that my version is more neutral anyway. I have to stress that I didn't censore his photo, nor his quotation of José Bové. I would please TDC to discuss on this page his objections, rather then to put back the article on a version that seem to me to report only the point of view of fanatic critics of the movement. I hope somebody shares my view and is going to back me! Juliet.p

I think that you removed way too much material from the article. The section on anti-Semitism in the anti-globalization movement is almost notable enough to have an article all to itself, let alone a subsection in this particular article. I have no problem with you editing my additions, or posting a reply (so long as it is done in moderation) but I must object to the deletion and reincorporation in the general criticism subsections. I also have to stress that it is not your prerogative to censor anything, much less a photo or a quote. TDC 20:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

And you removed everything I had written! I didn't censore anything! I hope that somebody would prevent you to go on like this! (anyway, your behaviour doesn't wonder me very much, considering that you believe in the struggle of good against evil...

Heavan forbid I should beleive in something as silly as that! Viva la Capitalisme ! TDC 17:24, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Vive le Capitalisme if you wanted to write in French, or Viva il Capitalismo in Italian...

senatnce needing verification

During a by anti globalization protest in Milan, Italy, an counter-demonstrator carrying an Israeli flag was severely beaten by several of the marchers.

Please provide a cite for the above, since it is disputed. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 13:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I made some little changes (for examples, I replaced the "glorification of Palestinians terror tattics" - that I've never heard - with "Palestinian reistence", explaining that the expression is ambiguous), and I added two paragraphs about what people in the movement think of these charges! I would like to stress that real antisemitists as Le Pen or (obviously) Hitler have never denied to be antisemitic. The paragraph seems to me now quite balanced, but I don't know what other people can think--Juliet.p 16:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The anti-Semitism section should be deleted...

The entire article purporting to link the so-called "anti-globalization movement" with anti-Semitism is a ridiculous joke. The slander and conscious distortions belong in a different section. What's proposed is guilt by association: sure, there are anti-Semites in the movement for global justice, just as there are anti-Semites in every movement. Many of the people involved in the pro-life/anti-abortion movement, for example, consistently compare abortion to the Shoah. Such a comparison is a sick insult to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust; nevertheless, arguments against legalized abortion have nothing to do with anti-Semitism, most of the people involved in the anti-abortion movement do not make those statements, and so the charge that the anti-abortion movement is anti-Semtiic is absurd on its face.

The author of this piece is guilty of defamation, plain and simple. The section constitutes a grotesque attempt to link critics of unregulated global capitalism to images of the Nazi extermination camps. The author's conduct is absolutely reprehensible: it cannot be justified in any imaginable way.

There's plenty of debates on this issue (see above). The first version of the paragraph was far worse... I agree with you, but since there are people who accuse the movement perhaps we should keep the paragraph. The stupidity of this charge and its clearly defamatory intention qualify themselves these people. TDC could at least cite some of his sources (if they are so many) or say who are all this people that accuse the movement of antisemitism... juliet.p

Of course it can be justified. There are more than enough sources for this allegation to make it noteworthy. This and this alone is the primary reason I included it. If you don’t like it, tough. TDC 14:04, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

That seems a little arbitrary and ridiculous. If you are going to include a whole section on a fairly serious and damaging allegation, then you are resonsible for providing proof of said allegations, or modifying said area to include the fact it is only and alleagtion. You do not have the authority to just say "tough" because you believe it. If you continue to mainain that position, you are responsible to include citations. Any links, citations, or quotes form any Neutral source would be more than adequate. -Luke A.F.

Wikipedia encourages us to be bold. So for once, I will be. If there's anyone other than TDC who thinks that the section should be there, speak up. Otherwise, wikipedia isn't your own personal pulpet, when you have a serious version of it, with proof, then you can bring it here, we'll discuss it, and see if we should put it in. Till then, I don't see why we should keep it there.--Che y Marijuana 11:59, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not to throw a wet blanket on your boldness but you are out of line with the deletion my little red one. Now onto the meat of this bitch fest.

How do you all want this sourced, and why cant you take it at face value? If you google anti-semitism and anti-globalism you will recieve about 80,000 hits for it, so clearly people other than myself are taking about the relationship between the two, even Michael Kozak, Acting US Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy and Human Rights [1]. The arguement I have added are all general ones, and If you want me to me more specific about who to attribute them to, I can be. TDC 16:56, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Riiiiight. If you want to cite the declarations of US government officials, please cite them, but attribute the citation. Obviously, the Bush administration has an objective interest in drawing links between the "anti-globalization movement" and alleged antisemitism. David.Monniaux 19:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hows about the thousands of citations from Google? [2], or even Wikis own article on Modern_anti-Semitism Do you people really live in such a bubble that criticisms like this never make it to you?

Or a short list might suffice (dont worry, I wont be like Adbusters adding a star by the names of the Jewish ones)

Mark Strauss, Senior Editor, Foreign Policy Magazine [3]

Christopher Caldwell, Senior Editor, The Weekly Standard

Natan Sharansky, Soviet dissident, Israeli politician and an author

Daniel Pipes, author and historian

TDC 04:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:cite your sources. This is not a question of "living in a bubble", but of attributing opinions to those who utter them. If you are to cite US government officials, then please do so, but please attribute the citation. Ditto for the four people that you cited. Phrases like "critics say..." are weasel words; their use is discouraged.

One problem with the José Bové quote is that there does not seem to be an original quotation to be found. This may allow considerable distortion of what he said. David.Monniaux 08:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The quote is from an interivew Bove gave on Canal Plus. What he said:

after a pro forma denunciation of anti-Jewish violence, informing viewers of the TV channel Canal Plus that the attacks on French synagogues were being either arranged or fabricated by Mossad. "Who profits from the crime?" Bove asked. "The Israeli government and its secret services have an interest in creating a certain psychosis, in making believe that there is a climate of anti-Semitism in France, in order to distract attention from what they are doing. [4] TDC 05:59, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Truncated quote. For all we know, he could as well just be saying that Israel had an interest in blowing incidents out of proportion, and had engineered publicity with this goal. I'd appreciate if one could get hold of a full quote. I'll look on Canal Plus. David.Monniaux 08:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In Italy only some right-wing Jews have accused the movement of antisemitism because they identify opposition to Israel with antisemitism. I'll see if I can find this "famous" interview with Bové. From the citation it doesn't seem to me that he directly accuses the Mossad of having fabricated antisemitic attacks. He just says that the opponents of Israeel have no interest in making antisemitic attacks. I don't understand why the google results should be a so definitive proof. --Juliet.p 12:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. Thank you, David.Monniaux for having correct my language errors!

...and actually here you are some quotation of Bové on antisemitism. It seems to confirm my view, that Bové has actually said only that antisemitic attacks damage the Palestinian cause:

Pour en revenir à l’impact de votre action en France, comment réagissez vous lorsque des représentants de la communauté juive de France ou des intellectuels issus de cette même communauté fustigent votre discours et vous accusent même d’attiser les « ressentiments » voire « l’antisémitisme » parmi la communauté musulmane de France ? Souhaitez vous leur opposer un démenti par voie de presse, par exemple ?

J.B :Bien sûr, si on me donne l’occasion de contredire publiquement ces accusations infondées, je le ferais volontiers. Je ne suis malheureusement pas surpris de ces prises de position que je réprouve bien sûr. Car ces mêmes représentants de la communauté juive de France se gardent bien de dire que j’ai condamné toutes les agressions commises contre tout lieu de culte que ce soit et considéré à cet égard que l’attaque de synagogues ne peut en aucun cas servir la cause palestinienne. C’est justement leur attitude qui est déplorable, elle déforme volontairement nos propos et le sens de notre action. Ce genre de comportement malhonnête sert justement le communautarisme. Nous sommes dans une optique complètement inverse. Le combat que nous menons est celui de tous les gens épris de paix et de justice quelle que soit leur communauté d’appartenance.

Pour vous donner un exemple, à Rodez dans l’Aveyron, des Chrétiens se mobilisent pour dénoncer les massacres commis contre la population palestinienne, ils jeûnent dans la cathédrale pour dénoncer cette injustice. La communauté musulmane est venue aussi en nombre pour leur exprimer son soutien. C’est ainsi que les communautés s’associent pour dénoncer le pire. Les représentants de la communauté juive qui contrefont le sens de notre engagement vont à l’encontre de ce message de paix. Mais ce n’est guère étonnant car leur discours camoufle en réalité un soutien déguisé à Sharon, une solidarité qui, eu égard aux crimes de ce gouvernement, me paraît insupportable.

If there is supposed to be something anti-Semitic in this call for peace and unity, I would call the accuser's sanity into doubt. Chamaeleon 15:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, its nice to read that Bove has a snuggle bunny side to him, but this is not the same interview Caldwell sited in his piece. An interview which my local library will be able to get for me in about a week or so, so we can include the entire statement. But why does it surprise you so that Bove would say something like this, or does it surprise you at all?

Or a better question, why the obsession with Israel? We live in a world full of wars, civil wars, dictatorships, oppression of indigenous peoples and occupations. Why so much emphasis on Israel?

After reading your latest revision, I wanted to add a few more names to our list, and once again no stars by the Jewish ones like they do in Adbusters.

Robert Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Oriana Fallaci

Anti-Defamation League

Victor David Hanson

Even Salon.com did a rather sympathetic piece on it

TDC 16:19, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to quote policy at you, but just stop the childish ad hominem, simply because it is getting tiring. I don't know much about Bové, and don't care. I was just saying that if that quotation was supposed to support your view, then it didn't. If you have any more Bové quotations, post them here and I will read them. If they are anti-Semitic, I shall say so, and if they are not, I will also point that out. Chamaeleon 17:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTc)

And why your obsession against the antiglob movement and antisemitism? Well, you cited Oriana Fallaci has an authoritative voice. Can I add here, for non-Italian reader, that Miss Fallaci is viewed by many Italian as a fanatic and a racist, and that in France antiracist organizations had even thought to bring her in court for instigation to racial hate? I wrote something about Fallaci's view on antiglob on the page European Social Forum. She predicted catastrophs for the ESF in Florence and, of course, absolutely nothing but pacific demonstrations happened. Well, right now there are four people that think that the antisemit section should be deleted, against a single person that wants to keep it!--Juliet.p 19:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guess what sweet cheeks, Wikipedia is not a democracy. If I have fulfilled the requirements for an addition to an article, guess what, it stays. Thankfully Sam Spade has added his 2 cents and it is now 2 against 4. I could seriously give a flying funk what a bunch of whiney bitches think about Mrs Fallaci. She has a point, and a valid one at that, and some people are so disinterested in hearing it that they want to shut her up by any means possible (sounds like what is going on in this article). I wonder if she will end up like Theo Van Gogh or Pyn Fortyn? Seems like Europe has a problem keeping dissident voices alive. TDC 03:34, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

No, sourcing is not enough. Otherwise, you could add Nazi opinions to every article. Chamaeleon 04:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who are the "whiney bitches"? Are you alluding to other editors? And what are we supposed to understand from this generalization to "Europe" of two murders committed in the Netherlands? David.Monniaux 08:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I furthermore think that you have misunderstood Wikipedia's policies. Having one's edits or references kept in Wikipedia is not some kind of right that is guaranteed once one has fulfilled the "requirements for an addition to an article"... because these requirements are largely community-based.

Apart from this, I don't see myself anything wrong with keeping Oriana Fallaci's quote, provided that it is properly attributed, with a link to the author's page on Wikipedia. David.Monniaux 08:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually I asked for the intervention of Sam Spade as a moderator, and he forced you to leave behind your charge about an alleged antisemitic attack in Italy. I don't understand how you can cite him as your supporter! About Miss Fallaci, she's got all the interest to represent herself as persecuted (or maybe she suffers of persecution mania) but the thruth is that the Italian government adore her and she's no dissident at all! About you calling me and the others bitch, no comment...--Juliet.p 14:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attn: whiney bitches w sweet cheeks

Please review Wikipedia:Civility / Wikipedia:Wikiquette. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)