Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 14

message: This essay should be integrated into the criticism section.  Uri Avnery is highly respected on the left: [].  Even though the website on which this essay is found isn't amazing, the author, Uri, is notable.  --Ben Houston 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do: Uri Avnery Criticism 

message: There is criticism from the peace activists - Uri Avnery and Moshe Machover -- it would be useful to pull this out into its own subsection of the criticism section.  --Ben Houston 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion: Criticism from the Peace Activists

message: I'm making this a new section, because I think it is a) very important, and b) may be able to solve all the problems.  Avi, this is a great statement, and really clears the issue.  Since it does seem that the term "apartheid wall" is more about the use of the word, that makes a lot of sense, and supports making Allegations of Israeli apartheid the primary article.  However, Homey has a good point that it still does relate to Israeli West Bank barrier.  I think that if we make Allegations of Israeli apartheid the main article, but are sure to mention Israeli West Bank barrier in the section of this article referring to the "apartheid wall", we may be able to solve all the problems. -- Natalya 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I did that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=prev&oldid=63107482 and the  tag should point to a section here, like I show here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=63106903&oldid=63064705 Although, I am sure that it could be edited to make it even better. -- Avi 23:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really, really good.  After some cleanup, I would support putting those two edits in, and then having Allegations of Israeli apartheid as the main article.  Homey, would that be satisfactory?  If not, what can be done to improve it?  -- Natalya 11:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be nice if we could reach a consensus on this, and it appears we have a number of editors who prefer this formulation, and Homey who does not. Is there anyone else who would like to contribute to this discussion before any changes are (perhaps) made? Thank you -- Avi 18:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You can add me as another supporter to the proposal.  Dionyseus 03:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My apologies, John, but I beleive you missed the point. The redirect is not changing. The issue was which article should have the primary discussion of the apartheid elements of the wall. -- Avi 06:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "...the information about the apartheid portion of the term "apartheid wall" is not about the wall, but Allegations of Israeli apartheid"

message: "Israeli apartheid" is a controversial phrase used by some individuals and organizations to allege that the policies of Israel toward West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens are comparable to the actions of the white minority government to the non-white majority in apartheid-era South Africa. Opponents of this phrase's usage state that the allegation is without merit, and is misused to isolate and condemn Israel.
Arniep 07:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence seems too long.  I'd keep what we've got for now, since it's been up for a few days and nobody has been screaming much, which is as close to consensus as we're likely to get here. --John Nagle 07:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am not happy with it and I am sure others are not. It includes both the word "allege" which Moshe wants to include and the word "phrase" which others think should be included. The current paragraph is extremely bad english. Arniep 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be obvious that your "new" version is in fact very similar to the version that was recently changed for good reasons.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it is not obvious to me please allow for my slowness of wit. What are your objections to my version. Thanks so much. Arniep 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I like Avi's version (the one you reverted) better than what you reverted it to (which essentially is what I had written about a week ago and what you added to the article.)  It has the advantage of having the article title together at the beginning of the first sentence.  Neither solution is perfect but no first-sentence for this article will ever be perfect since, as I may have mentioned a few times in the past, the article should not have a first sentence in the first place because it should be part of another article.  I have left it alone for now to see if anyone else wants to express an opinion.  Also, in your edit summary you called the current version a "consensus" version.  It is not, and I wish people would stop claiming that there has been a "consensus" about things in this article when there has not.  What it is, is a version that I wrote that drew little objection because it was better than the mess that was there before.  However, it has no special status that prevents editing.  6SJ7 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote in the edit summary, if you really want to follow the heading style, then the entire phrase should tie together. Splitting it out but bolding the two sections is difficult to justify from a mark-up/stylistic basis. I didn't realize that I had to copy my edit summary to the talk page, however. -- Avi 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Avi's version is what makes the most sense due to the fact that the entire title is written together.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence of the article looks fine to me -- it is neutrally descriptive.  One sentence that says that some feel it is accurate or something to that extent should be added to balance out the what is currently the second sentence saying that those opposing it feel it is inaccurate.  --Ben Houston 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi's version is fine. Arniep 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure that is necessary, since the very fact that there are allegations means that the maker of the allegations believes that they are accurate. The second sentence shows that these allegations are disputed. Thus both sides are already represented, in my opinion. -- Avi 02:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Avi.  The first sentence is not neutral, for the same reason that this article's very existence is inherently POV.  The second sentence partially balances the first.  No additional sentence are necessary in the first paragraph.  It will never be good, but I think this is the most tolerable that it is going to get.   6SJ7 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is not inherently POV: it gives both sides of the debate. I see no reason why this information is not of encyclopedic value.--Cerejota 01:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New lead section suggestion

message: Moved the Chris McGreal section to its own article, keeping all the critical references. Linked to it under a section headed "Usage in the press"  --John Nagle 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I combined the three times it was references into one multi-linked citation. -- Avi 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone took out the Chris McGreal cite today, and someone else put it back in.  It probably should stay in.  We used to have a rather big Chris McGreal section, but it had become an individual bio embedded in this article, so I moved it out a week ago to a separate Chris McGreal article.  That's been stable for a while.  Nobody objected, and others fixed up some dangling cites, so that seems to be acceptable for now.  --John Nagle 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris McGreal 

message: I've been making some of the sources more explicit in the text. Rather than "Opponents claim", I've written "Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, claimed in 2004". This is consistent with WP:WEASEL, and is more journalistic in tone.   --John Nagle 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's good I found those two sources then, isn't it ;) Seriously, good pickup. -- Avi 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More explicit sourcing

message: Glaser, D. J. 2003. Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison. Ethnic and Racial Studies 26:403-421.
:Abstract: This article subjects to normative-theoretical scrutiny the common claim that Israeli Zionism is 'like' South African apartheid. Drawing on a range of historical and sociological evidence, it shows that this claim (or accusation) is substantially justified in two senses. Firstly, Israeli Zionism is, in many areas, morally bad in the same way as apartheid; secondly, where it is different from apartheid in character, it is in some respects anyway as bad - that is, the difference is not invariably morally favourable to Israeli Zionism. 'Israel proper' (within its pre-1967 borders) is neither much like nor as bad as apartheid. The justification of the analogy only becomes clear when we view Israel and its occupied territories as a single political entity. The article argues that we are justified in so viewing them.
I have the pdf available, if you are interested, send me an e-mail, I cannot post it here as it is copyrighted. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaser, D. J. 2003. Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison: pdf available 

message: See my proposal at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid#First post-arbitration proposal (by User:6SJ7).  I do not think that my proposal there necessarily applies to this talk page.  I would, however, propose that any proposals or discussions regarding merges take place on the central discussion page since it involves other articles.  Part of the problem in the past was that discussions of the same issues were taking place on too many different pages.  6SJ7 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion proposal for post-arbitration period 

message: James Bowen, Making Israel take responsibility, Haaretz, September 15, 2006.
Quote:
:"Many members of the IPSC are veterans of other anti-racist campaigns, such as those concerned with South Africa, East Timor and rights for Native Americans. IPSC members also support campaigns for West Papuans, Kurds, Tibetans and others. The Belfast branch is affiliated to a network which opposes attacks on immigrant workers in that city. With this wide perspective, we see that hafrada (separation) is the Zionist form of apartheid, so we argue that Israel should be treated like the old South Africa.
:Our campaign is gaining momentum. Recently, several Irish cultural events rejected Israeli embassy sponsorship and Irish trade unionists prevented use of Dublin trams for training staff of the projected tram system between West Bank settlements. But this is only the beginning. This campaign, part of a world-wide effort to help Israelis overcome their dysfunctional denial of responsibility, will cease only when Israel conforms to International Law."
--Ben Houston 11:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haaretz article 

message: When quoting, we should be careful not to confuse quotes from primary and secondary sources. In the Rufin paragraph, we're mixing up translated quotes from Rufin with quotes from UPI about Rufin, using single and double quotes in a way that's very confusing. I've fixed it, but the changes have been reverted at least once. Please quote only Rufin, or else attribute the quote to the secondary source so it's clear who is saying what. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current solution is much better than it was.  Previously, and why I added in the exact quotes, was because it contained references to "criticism of Israel" was a pretext for justifying armed struggle when the source made no reference to criticism of Israel but rather "acts against Jews".  My main goal was to ensure accurate of the quoting.  Best.  --Ben 16:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quoting