Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 8

message: Might this article be a typical two sides of the coin issue? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right.  Wikipedia is not a guide to contemporary political invective.  By the standards under which this article was created (see also Islamofascism, Islamophobia, and I'm sure many more), we could have American Fascism, BushChimpHitler, Feminazis, Red Diaper Doper Babies...etc., etc., etc.  All such articles ought be deleted.  They go up for AfD, and there are enough editors who either agree with their sentiments and/or don't know the policy to let them stay.  They're perpetually (and rightly) disputed, leading to countless wasted edit-hours.  None will ever be a good article, much less a featured one.Timothy Usher 06:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two sides of the coin? 

message: To avoid to much clutter at this page, I have made a subpage with my first categorization of links in broad groups. See Talk:Israeli_apartheid/RS for more. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources subpage 

message: I think the next step of the resolution of the content dispute would be to eliminate all entries in the article that are not based on reliable sources. The workshopping of a list of what are reliable sources at the subpage Talk:Israeli apartheid/RS is going fast, and I would like to have formal permission of the editors of this page to do eliminate all text based on non-reliable sources. Please, let me know if you agree or object with me doing that at this point (I will leave it open for a few days before doing anything).-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, did not feel like ending up at the admin noticeboard again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that.  You - and we - shouldn't even be in this position.Timothy Usher 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As for WP:RS, that is a guideline, so that is less easy to enforce. The related policies, WP:V and WP:NOR is a different story, and I agree, those should be enforced more rigourous at times. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, find someone else to take over from me who is acceptable to you and the other editors. I do this in my own time, and if it is not appreciated, I am more than happy to spend my time on other projects within wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, we all do this in our own time, so lighten up. I appreciate your efforts and have no doubt they are well-intended, but articles like this either have to be subjected to edit wars and emerge somehow at the end of them; or a mediator has to show that he/she understands both sides. You seem completely unwilling to understand the point I and others have gone to great pains to make here, which is that the very term "Israeli apartheid" begs the question - it assumes a premise that is in dispute. Unless you address that issue, you are not going to make progress on the mediation efforts and will inevitably come across as biased. --Leifern 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are doing is ask me to take a position about the term, which I am not going to do, because that is not my position. I read and understand the opinions of both sides and I respect those, and what I ask is to back those opinions up by verifiable reliable sources, without own interpretations. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: i.e. if you don't delete this article you are biased? --Coroebus 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Much of what you are deleting can be easily sourced using the sources you are listing on the subpage. For instance, Uri Davis' books assert most of the points made currently in the "analogy" section. Also, while the bullet on the Apartheid wall is not sourced, it can be by using a sources from the Israeli West Bank barrier article or the Economist. Homey 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I am at this stage just cutting out to eliminate bad sources. The next step will be to start modifying sections and adding new sources. I am willing to do it if others do not have a problem with those replacement of sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sabeel reference is completely unreliable. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I will have a look at it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with draging more time. What is not sourced need to be removed. These lines should not have been inserted into the article to start with. This was done in violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV in order to have an unblanced article protected . Enough of gaming the system. Zeq 03:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Fact tags as an interim measure?  Absolutely not.  This material should never have been placed on Wikipedia to begin with.Timothy Usher 04:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact-tagging is completely unacceptable. QUoting Jimbo Wales from WP:V: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Pecher Talk 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the page is protected and Kim is having to act unilaterally (unlike normally when someone could just find another source and reinsert the claim), so it would be up to Kim to find the sources, by fact tagging them she can get others to go find them so that she can insert them, or, if no one bothers, eventually delete the claim.  She'd get complete uproar if she just deleted claims willy-nilly without giving anyone the chance to back them up.  --Coroebus 10:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I guess reliable sources of opinion are sources that can be relied upon to report an individual's opinion accurately (e.g. newspapers generally).  What I think you're trying to get at is notability, whether we should care about these individuals' opinions.  I'd say that we are in this article because a considerable number of people are making the comparison, and we should say who and why.  It works similarly to Islamofascism and New anti-Semitism, we can't declare these 'real' phenomena because that is too contentious, but people would like to know what others means by them, hence the articles. --Coroebus 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are at least partially agreeing with me.  At least a majority of the sources do not really present reliable source issues, they present "notability" issues.  I have looked at the "workshop" page and while I think there were a few issues of translation, in most cases there is no dispute that the magazine or journal or whatever has correctly reported the person's opinion.  Once that conclusion is reached, the issue is not one of "reliability" because it is a matter of opinion and not fact.  The fact that the issue is one of "notability" leads back to my overall issue with this article, and that is, are the opinions that Israeli conduct is analogous to apartheid "notable" enough to deserve their own article.  A few weeks ago, I had never heard the term "Israeli apartheid" or Israel referred to as an "apartheid state."  Now I must conclude that these accusations have been raised by enough people that they deserve mention, and refutation, somewhere in some article on the Israeli-Arab conflict.  The question is, is the opinion so notable that the opinion itself deserves it's own article?  I think not.  I would be consistent with other articles as well; as I may have said previously, I do not necessarily think the term "Islamofascism" deserves its own article, and if it does, it should at least have a "qualifier" in the title.  I have never looked at the other article you mention so I don't know if it is analogous.  But as I have said, Wikipedia is not a journal of name-calling.  Or at least, it shouldn't be.  6SJ7 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request permission to eliminate all non [[WP:RS]] material 

message: * Agree - I don't have time to engage in this game at the moment, but your approach seems sound.  Good luck, you're gonna need it! --Coroebus 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for WP:RS, that is a guideline, so that is less easy to enforce. The related policies, WP:V and WP:NOR is a different story, and I agree, those should be enforced more rigourous at times. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, find someone else to take over from me who is acceptable to you and the other editors. I do this in my own time, and if it is not appreciated, I am more than happy to spend my time on other projects within wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, we all do this in our own time, so lighten up. I appreciate your efforts and have no doubt they are well-intended, but articles like this either have to be subjected to edit wars and emerge somehow at the end of them; or a mediator has to show that he/she understands both sides. You seem completely unwilling to understand the point I and others have gone to great pains to make here, which is that the very term "Israeli apartheid" begs the question - it assumes a premise that is in dispute. Unless you address that issue, you are not going to make progress on the mediation efforts and will inevitably come across as biased. --Leifern 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are doing is ask me to take a position about the term, which I am not going to do, because that is not my position. I read and understand the opinions of both sides and I respect those, and what I ask is to back those opinions up by verifiable reliable sources, without own interpretations. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: i.e. if you don't delete this article you are biased? --Coroebus 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Give permission

message: For those who would like to see what it becomes, see User:KimvdLinde/IA. I have to reduced the impression that many sources are used by translating everything to foot notes, which also facilitates it for the user to check the acuracy of the articles. This is not the last word on cleaning, and comments here please. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of what you are deleting can be easily sourced using the sources you are listing on the subpage. For instance, Uri Davis' books assert most of the points made currently in the "analogy" section. Also, while the bullet on the Apartheid wall is not sourced, it can be by using a sources from the Israeli West Bank barrier article or the Economist. Homey 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I am at this stage just cutting out to eliminate bad sources. The next step will be to start modifying sections and adding new sources. I am willing to do it if others do not have a problem with those replacement of sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sabeel reference is completely unreliable. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I will have a look at it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with draging more time. What is not sourced need to be removed. These lines should not have been inserted into the article to start with. This was done in violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV in order to have an unblanced article protected . Enough of gaming the system. Zeq 03:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Fact tags as an interim measure?  Absolutely not.  This material should never have been placed on Wikipedia to begin with.Timothy Usher 04:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact-tagging is completely unacceptable. QUoting Jimbo Wales from WP:V: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Pecher Talk 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the page is protected and Kim is having to act unilaterally (unlike normally when someone could just find another source and reinsert the claim), so it would be up to Kim to find the sources, by fact tagging them she can get others to go find them so that she can insert them, or, if no one bothers, eventually delete the claim.  She'd get complete uproar if she just deleted claims willy-nilly without giving anyone the chance to back them up.  --Coroebus 10:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I guess reliable sources of opinion are sources that can be relied upon to report an individual's opinion accurately (e.g. newspapers generally).  What I think you're trying to get at is notability, whether we should care about these individuals' opinions.  I'd say that we are in this article because a considerable number of people are making the comparison, and we should say who and why.  It works similarly to Islamofascism and New anti-Semitism, we can't declare these 'real' phenomena because that is too contentious, but people would like to know what others means by them, hence the articles. --Coroebus 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are at least partially agreeing with me.  At least a majority of the sources do not really present reliable source issues, they present "notability" issues.  I have looked at the "workshop" page and while I think there were a few issues of translation, in most cases there is no dispute that the magazine or journal or whatever has correctly reported the person's opinion.  Once that conclusion is reached, the issue is not one of "reliability" because it is a matter of opinion and not fact.  The fact that the issue is one of "notability" leads back to my overall issue with this article, and that is, are the opinions that Israeli conduct is analogous to apartheid "notable" enough to deserve their own article.  A few weeks ago, I had never heard the term "Israeli apartheid" or Israel referred to as an "apartheid state."  Now I must conclude that these accusations have been raised by enough people that they deserve mention, and refutation, somewhere in some article on the Israeli-Arab conflict.  The question is, is the opinion so notable that the opinion itself deserves it's own article?  I think not.  I would be consistent with other articles as well; as I may have said previously, I do not necessarily think the term "Islamofascism" deserves its own article, and if it does, it should at least have a "qualifier" in the title.  I have never looked at the other article you mention so I don't know if it is analogous.  But as I have said, Wikipedia is not a journal of name-calling.  Or at least, it shouldn't be.  6SJ7 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preview

message: Ok, done. With the permission. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Done

message: Since the article is now locked, I can only propose here that the article be deleted. No progress is made on it, the sources cited only illustrate the concept as a rhetorical tool. It is time for a delete, and possibly a speedy one. --Leifern 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may make a suggestion, I would not try to decide on individual articles, but discuss the whole series and try to find a single solution for the issue of the apartheid pages at large. I think discussions at he seperate pages will result in the same no consensus over and over again, because of the unclarity in the larger context. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who says you can only propose that the article be deleted? You could ask to have it unlocked. Maybe made into a feature article even. There are tons of things you can propose. His Excellency... 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think the use of the term is intended to be inflammatory but explanatory (i.e saying they use it, not endorsing it), and it certainly isn't grounds to delete it (there may be other grounds as you can see in the discussions here).  See below for my comments, I've moved your edit into the criticisms section --Coroebus 18:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to delete article 

message: I wll be away from wikipedia for the second halve of this month, as I have to go to a conference at Long Island. I will probably leave at the 18th, and be back at the beginning of July (around 3-5). I might chim in from the conference when I feel like it, but that will be minimal. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are going to have to dock your mediation pay for that.  :)   6SJ7 17:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine. :-) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibreak (June 18, beginning of July) 

message: Where are we going from here? I have heard various suggestions, and I think we have to get this sorted out. The ideas go from deleting the article althogether to merging in as a small section into Apartheid outside of South Africa to expanding it considerable. This brings us to the larger question of all the apartheid related articles and the structure in those combined. I do not see we can resolve the question of this article alone outside the context of those other articles. Do people agree with this assesment, or should it be resolved as a narrow question, this article alone?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the problem: Apartheid has several meanings that are being confused in the debate. One is the policy of apartheid that was articulated and practiced in South Africa; the other is the legalistic definition of the crime of apartheid, for which no country that I'm aware of has been charged; the third is the moral accusation of policies that resemble apartheid. "Apartheid outside of South Africa" doesn't make it clear which of these three we're talking about, but in practice (of course) it's always the latter. If we wanted to be precise, we'd concede that "apartheid" in its broadest sense, refers to a policy of systematic discrimination of a country's residents on the basis of ethnicity or race, especially if it enforces a separation between groups. And that it's a subset of institutional discrimination. We would have a much richer and useful set of articles if we dispensed with the "apartheid" cliche and focused on institutional discrimination. We could ascertain the extent to which it happens in Israel, Palestinian-controlled areas, and even countries like Norway; and those who highlighted such phenomena wouldn't be forced to prove (which they never could) that "apartheid" is an apt comparison. --Leifern 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From here: this article alone or with context? 

message: Humus has noted several articles that the usefull information (if any) from this article could be merged to.
Who else supports this ? Zeq 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: comment - This is not a 2nd AFD. This is a ersult of the fact that the article can not be NPOV. such dadlock should reword any particular version of the article. Zeq 17:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oppose This is not an AFD, but an AFD is where you're driving this. There is no consensus to delete this article. His Excellency... 18:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess those who vote to keep should also present a way out of the deadlock. Zeq 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see evenly divided fractions, as usual. As far as I am concerned, the article remains protected untill the dispute has been resolved, because that was the primary purpose. However, if you can find an uninvolved admin to unprotect it, I will not protest. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete and merge into articles about Israel and/or Palestine-israel conflict 

message: I would be prepared to try partially unlocking the article if editors promise to leave the opening paragraph alone and work to add to the rest of the article rather than remove items. I'd also like to see the article continue to be locked against moves so we don't have any more renaming without consensus. Homey 14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, is User:Zeq/apartheid propeganda your idea of an NPOV article?Homey 16:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It is  not  and this is why it is in my user space. It is however a POV that is completly missing from your article. Zeq 16:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if you sourced it some of it could be integrated. --Coroebus 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: I think the best way forward, and to see whether the article can be unblocked because people are conscious enough not to edit war and to discuss changes, I have created a sandbox version Israeli apartheid/Sandbox. I suggest people edit this according to WP:NPOV, WP:ISNOT, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and come up with a better version. Good does not equate to longer, writing concise is a skill in itself and improves the quality of an article dramatically as it is easier to read for people and they get faster to the main content. I am curious. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see a proposal for a title that doesn't beg the question. --Leifern 18:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, what would be a title acceptable by all, and which is not in violation with wikipedia policies? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked my 'Allegations of Israeli Apartheid', shame no one else did. --Coroebus 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that one is ok as it does not violate policies, and if there is a consensus to move it there, I will do it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "acusations "  seems more accurate Zeq 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still prefer a merger, but if this thing has to have a title, I would go along with Accusations or Allegations.  I don't see much of a chance of consensus as such a title would not promote the political agenda of certain editors, which is what this is really all about.  I also sense an implication that the previous proposed titles including a parenthetical such as "epithet," violates policy, and I think that is a subject of dispute as well.  6SJ7 19:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is about the phrase 'Israeli Aparthied'. That phrase is used quite often, and its mention here for that reason is defended in the AFDs in relation to it. It is not an advocacy piece under that label. Renaming the article would convert it into something else altogether. The title of the article should stay as is. The fact that some may be offended by the terminology shouldn't  be weighed into whether it stays or not.  His Excellency... 20:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:Not Zeq 00:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is inherently an "advocacy piece."  As for the phrase being used "quite often" there are many phrases that are used in English but only a fraction of them merit their own encyclopedia article.  "Israeli apartheid" is not one of them.   6SJ7 21:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If those phrases are of such significance and popularity, they should be here as well. Zeq, I know WP:NOT, my point was that the article should be a factual account of the use of the phrase. On both sides of the issue, there's alot to be said. The phrase 'aparthied wall' and 'israeli aparthied' is as popular amongst some people as 'war on terror' might be here in the US. It's significant, it's present in public discourse, it should have an article about it here. His Excellency... 01:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Leifern 15:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His Excellency...: I understand your point. This all article is an excersize in WP:Point Zeq 13:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox version 

message: The question whether an article has the right to exist on wikipedia is generally notability. And I think that this is the question that needs to be answered first, bascially, is the term Israeli apartheid notable enough for wikipedia to have its own article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, this question was settled long ago.  The term has been used heavily and by many notable sources. Al 05:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Settled" how?  When?  Where?  What was "settled"?  6SJ7 18:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not clear that any articles about terms ought exist at all.  I've not seen one which looked like it really needed to be here.Timothy Usher 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Timothy and have been saying the same thing with regard to "Apartheid Wall" (since merged elsewhere, fortunately), "Wall of Shame" and all these "Whatever apartheid" articles. I tried to think of a term that deserves its own article and the first one I thought of was "Whip Inflation Now" (from the mid-70s in the U.S.) and then I looked and saw that it does have an article -- but when I read the article, I remembered that "WIN" was more than just a term or even a slogan, it was a whole campaign, initiated by a U.S. President no less, and it deserves the stub article that it has on Wikipedia. Then I thought of "Star Wars," not the films, but the nickname for the strategic missile defense program. That term does not have its own article. It was one of the most widely-debated issues in the U.S. for years, and usually called "Star Wars" in the media, it was certainly "notable" under that name, yet it does not have its own article under that name. Instead, the nickname is mentioned in the first sentence of the story about the actual program, the Strategic Defense Initiative -- where it belongs. There are probably other and better examples, but these were the two I thought of first. 6SJ7 05:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it wasn't notable, we wouldn't have this many people arguing over it.  We have a tough NPOV problem, but not a notability problem.  --John Nagle 17:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have such problems, we can't even agree what problem we have.   6SJ7 18:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: In the article under the subjecy "criticism" it is stated that: "With the exception of Arabs residing in East Jerusalem [citation needed], the Israeli Arab minority have voting rights and are represented in the Knesset (Israel's legislature)..."
There is NO EXCEPTION Israeli Arabs in East Jerusalm,can vote both in Municipal and parliamentary elections in Isarael AND are in a special status that allows them to ALSO vote for the Palestinian parliament, but not instead.
The fact is that most of them boycott Israeli elections, and don't consider themselves Israeli, but saying they are not allowed or able to is outright falsity.
The fact that I need to write this whole section about this instead of making a minor correction by deleting this falsity is itself outragous and I beleive that if Wikipedia cannot allow its users to edit an article then maybe such an article doesn't belong in Wikipedia! I suggest this article will either be deleted or merged in another article, or else it should be opened for editing.Tal :) 07:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only Homey version should stay. No one else is allowed to edit. Is that what you suggest ? Why not open the article for editing ? Zeq 19:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, calling my edits "outburst" is an insult. I was comenting about what you wrote above, you wanted to keep the content as you like it and that is  exactly  what i was comnting on. I can not know what you do in other pages so I can based my comment about what I did not know. I am now glad to hear that you too want the article unlocked. Zeq 19:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli Arabs is East Jerusalem Have the right and ability to vote!