Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 10

message: Tasc, you seem to be removing references.  Are they not working? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've done it again. Each quote has to be referenced, whether there is a later quote with the same reference or not. That is standard practise. Could you put back the first Matas reference, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't removed them. As clearly was written in my summary i rm broken ref. do you need any help to understand what i've done? Regarding matas ref. they are in one paragraph! and it's not normal to quote every word. It's not a standard practise. To reference whole paragraph full of quotation is standard practice. -- tasc talkdeeds 13:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tasc, could you please stop changing things as I'm editing? I don't know when you're making edits in between mine, so when I see certain things have changed, I'm assuming that I haven't done them properly and I'm going back to fix them. It's wasting both our time. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: After reading all comments to the proposed lead section, it seems to me that the first sentence of the proposed lead is acceptable for most people. However, the second line is clearly not. As such, would the following lead be acceptable to everybody:
:Israeli apartheid (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel to describe the country's policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the term see it as a political epithet and argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and that it is used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel.
From a NPOV, I think this lead is acceptable, but I could be wrong in that. Please comment if you agree or diagree, so that we can move forward. (Whether I myself agree with this lead will remain upin the air as that is not relevant at all)-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed above I think there are many inaccuracies in this intro. Zeq 04:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed this per wide support which includes all editor minus one. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with that intro paragraph, but I'd suggest that, when any indication of support is requested, we should wait at least 24 hours for opinions to come in. It's the middle of the night in North America in the middle of a weekend, after all.  Not everyone is monitoring this 24/7. (Feature request: we need the ability to have an RSS feed of your Wikipedia watchlist sent to your mobile.) --John Nagle 05:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, the consensus in question dealt with the first paragraph, not the entire intro section.  Therefore the edit that Homey made today, deleting a second paragraph, is not supported by that consensus.  6SJ7 06:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That link proves I am correct.  That deals with the first paragraph, not the second.  6SJ7 06:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus lead section 

message: * -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Could we try to not make major changes to the article this Sunday?  Some of us need time off. And a cooling off period wouldn't hurt.  Thanks. --John Nagle 05:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish we hadn't inflammatory propaganda posed as encyclopedic articles. Then we could cool off and do something productive and enjoyable every day. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we take Sunday off? 

message: This is now an interesting intro, with all the different views, different uses, and particularly with Desmond Tutu, Nobel Prize winner, supporting the analogy, juxtaposed with Dr. Jean-Christophe Rufin, former VP of Médecins Sans Frontières, wanting it to be criminalized. It gives a very accurate portrait of the divisions. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted, I hadn't noticed that was a direct quotation. --Coroebus 13:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good intro

message: I guess if no better material is found on this subject article from 1969 will do. After all nothing have changed in the area since 1969 . ... Not . ! 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article from 69 - diff attached 

message: and repetative: "The phrase Israeli apartheid, the description of Israel as an apartheid state, or otherwise drawing comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa" - this is not howw an article should start, the lead should be a mini article and not a repeat over repeat. Zeq 15:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is tooooooo longgggggggg 

message: what does this has to do with anything ?
I don't pratice judasim also. so what. Zeq 18:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "do not practice Judaism" 

message: We had five (5) "mergeto" boxes at the top of the article, which was just silly and had reached the point where WP:POINT was starting to be an issue.  I reverted some of the recent additions in that area.  
Although there are various people who've proposed various merges and renames, it's clear than there's no consensus.  Unless we go through a formal Wikipedia process that leads to a merge or rename, it's not likely to happen.  I suggest avoiding unilateral action in that area.  It's too disruptive, and it gets reverted anyway.  Give it a rest.  Thanks. --John Nagle 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article only has 5 merge suggestions, and they are all good faith ones. On the other hand Apartheid outside of South Africa not only has 5 merge suggestions at the top, but another 18 merge suggestion scattered throughout the body of the article.  If anything those merge suggestions are WP:POINT.  Please take these merge suggestions seriously.  Alternatively, if you really think that too many merge templates are disruptive, then remove the excess from both articles. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg: are you being funny?  It is a reliatory point battle and you are one of the main parties involved.  The whole article Apartheid outside of South Africa was created to merge this article into it -- talk about the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point or in your case false equivalence.  --Ben Houston 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense.  The Apartheid outside of South Africa article existed many months before this article was ever created; it was created in July 2005, whereas this one was created in May, 2006.  Eventually a consensus was reached at Apartheid outside of South Africa that all allegations of Apartheid were essentially non-encyclopedic, and the relevant information was either merged into various articles, or removed.  However, Homey has disruptively decided to spread the allegation of Apartheid against Israel all over Wikipedia, in as many articles as he can find, ignoring the previous consensus, and even creating multiple stubs to support that effort.  Since we are now asserting that allegations of Apartheid are an encyclopedic topic, we certainly need to have an article which contains them. And if there was ever an example of WP:POINT, it would be adding 23 merge templates to a relatively small article on the topic of Apartheid allegations, but insisting that a stub like this, and three other small stubs, all on the same topic, can never be merged to it. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That article already had an "Israeli Apartheid" section, and it was agreed that the epithet was non-encyclopedic.  You went against consensus on that article by unilaterally creating this article. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't attempt to put nonsensical and false words in my mouth, or make strawman arguments on my behalf.  If allegations of apartheid are encyclopedic, then Wikipedia needs to deal with them in an encyclopedic and professional way, which means neutrally, properly sourced, and in context - i.e. the Apartheid outside of South Africa article.  I've been saying the same thing for weeks, so it's rather tiresome to see you continually try to twist that into something else. Your use of dishonest argumentation makes collaborative work quite difficult. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you not read my comments at all?  Allegations of Apartheid are common; in fact, the sheer numbers and breadth of "apartheid" allegations makes the phenomenon itself notable, and it benefits the reader to see them in context, so they can be compared and contrasted.  Rather than trying to "disappear" claims of Israeli apartheid, I have actually been trying to include them in a far more interesting, informative, and useful article.  Your opinions that the Israeli apartheid stub is "too long" to merge and "independently notable enough to merit its own article", is just that, an opinion; however, the fact remains that the entire Apartheid outside of South Africa article, including the material about Israel, still does not exceed 32K, so it's hardly too lengthy. Finally, regarding your continued pejorative speculations, they are violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF; as mentioned above, these kinds of tactics make collaborative work quite difficult. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think they should all be moved to Allegations of Apartheid, along with Israeli Apartheid, Sexual apartheid, Gender apartheid, and Global apartheid.  This proliferation of tiny little political POV articles is helpful to no-one.  Frankly, History of South Africa in the apartheid era is a terrible name for the article.  While I understand that there was a consensus to name it that, and I respect that, I think the main article should be about the real Apartheid, that of South Africa, with a small section describing use of the term outside of the actual Apartheid, and linking to the Allegations of Apartheid article. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, your opinion on that is clear, and has been from the start.  And I have made it clear that the article is a stub (along with several others), and needs to be included in a larger discussion, ideally that of the entire phenomenon of apartheid allegations.  Other reasonable possibilities involve including it in articles discussing the Israeli-Arab conflict, among other things, as this is just one component of the ongoing propaganda war. Rather than deleting material from and inserting two dozen merge templates into article in an attempt to forestall any merger, why not just accept that there are different points of view, and work in a collegial way towards consensus here? Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think they should all be moved to Allegations of Apartheid, along with Israeli Apartheid, Sexual apartheid, Gender apartheid, and Global apartheid.
If that's what you think then there should only be one tag on this article "mergeto:Allegations of Apartheid"Homey 22:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In my view that's the best choice; however, the other possibilities are reasonable as well. As I said above, this is just part of the ongoing Israeli-Arab conflict, specifically the propaganda war. Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There hasn't been a good discussion yet on the merger proposal, both articles still needed to be cleaned up, and in any event the issue was broader than the two articles.  Both articles still need work, particularly the Apartheid outside of South Africa article, but it's a start.  Now we can draw in a wider set of eyes, discuss the entire issue (not just these two articles), and build a consensus one way or the other. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merges, renaming, etc. 

message: Do you agree that all the merger proposals listed in Israeli apartheid should be rejected and the tags removed?
*Yes. Homey 20:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on [[Israeli Apartheid]] merger proposals 

message: Do you agree that all the merger proposals listed in Apartheid outside of South Africa should be rejected and the tags removed?
*No, unless they are removed from both articles. Alternatively, the one merger proposal of the two articles could be examined. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this discussion be on Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa?Homey 21:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the two issues are intimately related. Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on [[Apartheid outside of South Africa]] merger proposals