Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/RS

message: Reliable sources. The aim of this subpage is to identify reliable source, both used currently in the article, as well a new sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

message: * BBC news http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4111915.stm
*:News story
*:Author: Lucy ash
*:Title: Battling against Israeli "apartheid"
*:Quotes:His long battle is a protest against what he calls "Israel's apartheid"; The bill was narrowly defeated and the former Justice Minister Tommy Lapid said he opposed it because "it smelled of apartheid".
*:Comment attributed to random Palestinian; Lapid remark is indirect comparison to defeated bill.Timothy Usher 04:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainstream News

message: * [CoIOPT The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory] 
:* [Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 27 May 2021] English version
:** Human Rights Council decided to “urgently establish an ongoing, independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate, in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel, all alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law leading up and since 13 April 2021”.  The resolution further requested the commission of inquiry to “investigate all underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability and protraction of conflict, including systematic discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity”.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:F68:AD20:AC69:5776:9E07:F89F (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: * Comment - This is a briefing by Amnesty International. AI proclaims to be politically neutral, but it was widely condemned for its anti-Israeli bias: JCPA  ngo-monitor Aish CAMERA more CAMERA SPME [YNet ADL JVL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: **By sources of which at least some are considered partisan. What I mean with this is that if you allow a partisan souce to debunk things, you should allow those same sources also confirm things. It can not be selective, either they are accaptable, or they are not, but not when it suits. So, which of those are fullfiling WP:RS. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: ***I am afraid it would be practically impossible to find neutral sources acceptable to both sides in the divisive and emotional Arab-Israeli conflict - and that is another reason not to exacerbate it with propagandistic defamatory namecalling. Earlier, I have added and then removed Front Page Magazine article. If some other links above are problematic, let's talk about it, but shouldn't the accused party be allowed to defend themselves? ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: ****Sure, they should have that right, but I think it is not fair to allow that only for one side, and so if we would allow opponents to the term to use partisan sources to counter WP:RS, than we also have to allow proponets to use partisan sources to counter WP:RS. I am only asking for symmetry in the arguments. It is easy to eliminate a source that one does not like, and include the sources than one likes, but I think the rules for inclusion/exclusion of sources should be equal to everybody. I am not saying that we can or cannot include sources as you mentioned above (because WP:RS leaves some space for that, by using clear qualifyers), that is up to the editors, but I do not allow different sets of rules for different sides of the debate. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UN

message: *Jerusalem post and Bar-Ilan university http://www.biu.ac.il/rector/academic_freedom/files/Gerald%20Steinberg.doc 
an important source describing the use of the apartheid accusation as part of the propeganda war against israel. Zeq 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative leaning

message: *Feb 23, 2006 
*:Author:
*:Title:
*:Quotes:TO THE Israelis it is a security fence or separation barrier; to Palestinians “an apartheid wall”
*:Comment Attributed to "Palestinians".Timothy Usher 04:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Economist]]

message: I can probably get the full text of many of these, especially newer ones -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds great.  A lot of journals have articles in Wikipedia too -- or should have, see ACM Transactions on Graphics which includes information on its "impact" as compared to other journals.  It would be good to capture reputation for future discussions.  --Ben Houston 17:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources: scholary articles

message: * B'Tselem http://www.btselem.org/english/Freedom_of_Movement/Checkpoints_and_Forbidden_Roads.asp
*:Title: "Forbidden Roads: The Discriminatory West Bank Road Regime"
*:Quotes: "The roads regime, which is based on separation through discrimination, bears clear similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa until 1994. An individual's national origin determines their right to use various roads. This policy is based on a racist premise: that all Palestinians are security risks, and it is therefore justifiable to restrict their movement. Thus the policy indiscriminately harms the entire Palestinian population, in violation of their human rights and of international law."
::Comment: Btselem completly ignore the fact that palestinians who are either citizens or resdients of Israel and drive a car with Israeli license plate can drive all roads in the west bank. So it is  not  national origin or race  but based on residency/citizenship.
::PS I will be the last one to argue that  in the occupied Palestinian territories  the population enjoy full rights - they don't. This is a place which is under military occupation (which hopefully would end) but we already have many articles about the occupation and the territories, no need for a new one. Israel never annexed any parts of the territories (excpet Jerusalem where Palestinians are either residents or citizens and can drive where they want on every road) so don't confuse between an area under military occupation to an apartheid which is something that inherntly decribe what is inside a specific country. Zeq 05:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be but it is your OR as it currently stands.  --Ben Houston 15:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights

message: * http://www.sundayherald.com/55992
::The sunday herald translated "Hafrada" as "apartheid in Hebrew". This is utter nonsense. 
::There is a word in Hebrew that is used for "racial segregation" it is "Hafrda Bein Gizi'it"  all the other uses of "Hafrada" are "speration", "demarkation" "spliting and distancing from one another (one at each side") etc...
The athorative Hebrew dictionery (Eben Shoshan) sais:
Hafrada : distancing one thing from another such as seprating between church and state, speration between husband and wife who end their marrige. Zeq 06:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW there is an article Hafrada in wikipedia now to centralize discussion of what that term means.  --Ben Houston 15:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsure

message: * http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2004/israel/08/0408301020.html - is a criticism of official PNA news piece: www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2004/2004_08/179.html ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly it, Humus sapiens.  What we have here are reliable sources reporting mentions of the phrase.  It's a misconstrual of the source policies to suppose that this establishes the phrase as accurately referring to something real.Timothy Usher 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not reputable

message: I have read many of the sources and concluded that it boils down to the question:
*Does one agree that the jewish people desrve to have a state ?
Those who are against it, are calling it racism and even apartheid to show their deep hate to the idea of the jewish people state Right to exist. Thu sit may be appropriate to merge the article to a section in Zionism in which it would be argued that Zionism is racism ? Zeq 08:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my recent readings it seems there are multiple uses of the allegations of apartheid.  In some cases there is overlap with Zinoism is racism and some of it also falls into advocating for a binational solution.  Other cases apply it to the humanitarian situation just within the occupied Territories.  The claim has also been made by at least one professor who specialize in international law.  I am unfortunately going to be busy for the rest of the week.  I've backed up the current contents of this article so feel free to go nuts on whatever direction you want to go.  I should say that I actually think some middle ground is possible.  I am leaning towards an article entitled "Allegations of Apartheid in Israeli" which classifies and discusses the various ways the allegation is used, by whom and for what purposes and it would include criticism of each use by the appropriate parties.  I think it would be very informative since it would help clears up what are currently many conflated motives, etc.  --Ben Houston 15:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Zionism]] 

message: Are all the sources here relevant and going to be used for the article ?
Please remove sources from this list cause it is impossible to see what is going on.
We should frist focus on sources already in the article. (so many of them are trashy sources that idenitfiying the few that can be used (according to WP:RS) will shrink the article. Zeq 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  see the forest for the trees 

message: Kim, with all respect to your professor: "The nation" is not a scholarly source. (and nither is camera)  btw, this link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/letter is not even available. 
In any case we should focus on sources now in the article and keep in mind that in such article  ArbCom decided only scholrly sources can be used . Tutu is not a scholar iin the area of israel-Palestine history. Zeq 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nation is a respected serious magazine that has a left wing perspective.  It isn't a peer-reviewed journal though.  These are different things.  Anyways, I think that my suggested solution of an "Allegations of Apartheid in Israel" is a good way to cover the whole area for those are wondering what is up with the various claims and counter claims and general incomprehensibility of the issue -- that doesn't have to scholarly only but rather notable since it would be a survey article.  --Ben Houston 18:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a scholarly source. Zeq 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Than why is it in web-of-science social database, which deals with scolary sources only. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, it is not a scholarly source. this is a fact. It is a news paper and not a scholraly source. ArbCom was very clear about using scholarly source only and I will tell you why:
*scholarly magazines are peer reviwed
*Books by faculty staff memers refelct on universities they work in so there is great care on book s by universities not to be caught with lies.
All other sources can not be used as the main source for this article.
Question: Are you the mediator or are you activly looking for and justifying sources for one of the sides in this debate (which is fine, just we need to find an  impartial  mediator. Zeq 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, there is no rule restricting wikipedia to peer-reviewed journals.  The Nation is a venerable, respected periodical which *is* used as a source by academics. It is a notable and reliable source does fall within the WP:RS guidelines.Homey 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I explained this already to you before at your talkpage. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain it here, as more and more I see you operate in one direction only. Zeq 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just the opposite, Homey. I noticed that Zeq behaves responsibly for quite some time now but I never had a chance to commend him. In this case, he refers to WP:NPOV policy and you chose to respond with ad hom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Nation is a source of opinion, not fact.  It is as a reliable source as any for the opinions of the American left.Timothy Usher 02:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The nation", camera etc... 

message: We do not have to argue if the nation is or is not a WP:RS because the nation represent a tiny minority.  we can not base a wikipedia articles on the views of "the nation"  for the simple fact that
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.  Zeq 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the opposite, Homey. I noticed that Zeq behaves responsibly for quite some time now but I never had a chance to commend him. In this case, he refers to WP:NPOV policy and you chose to respond with ad hom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Nation is a source of opinion, not fact.  It is as a reliable source as any for the opinions of the American left.Timothy Usher 02:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The nation" as non [[WP:RS]] - a moot point 

message: I cut and paste Jimbo Wales words from WP:NPOV and the reply from Homey was to attack and claim that "You make stuff up". I have nothing to say about his behaviour. KIm. I think we need to quickly weed out all the material that does not conform to wikipedia policy. This is an encyclopedia not a collection of links and quotes. Zeq 03:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think we are done here 

message: Kim seems to have confused an encyclopedia with a dictionary.  The issue is not whether the term "Israeli apartheid" or some variation is in use. And the issue isn't whether the comparison is notable. The issue is whether the title "Israeli apartheid" is apt, or whether it begs the question. --Leifern 21:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone is well advised to re-read WP:not, this include admins and mediators.  Zeq 12:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus