Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 2

message: This article is about a phrase not a fact. IZAK 18:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about propeganda useage of a phrase. Zeq 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, but it's still a phrase. IZAK 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, this move is not properly done. Please discuss it further. Cheers -- Szvest 18:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure about that Zeq as i am not an expert but my comment is about the unilateral move and decision. Cheers -- Szvest 18:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homey seems to have confused quotation marks with parentheses. We frequently put words in parentheses on Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrase vs. a fact 

message: WHOIS results for 207.195.242.123
Location: United States [City: Wilmington, Delaware]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=prev&oldid=55781804
would anyone here care to tell us what IP address you edit from ? mine starts with 85.x.x.x .
Zeq 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq: you are acting very aggressively.  The IP restored a lot of material that did seem like it was deleted arbitrarily with a POV-intent -- especially since the detailed criticism section wasn't also deleted.  --Ben Houston 20:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both parts need to be deleted. New additions from Btselm are now used as far as e-Jerusalem but btselem never argued that such policies in e.jerusalem are "aparthide". This whole article is mostly a disgrace for wikipedia. If I would agree with IZAK that if the term is used we can have an article about it still does not mean that this article will become a freerange attck on israel. Serious  shortening  of this article is in order with great care taken to WP:NPOV it. So far not one of you have bothered to do that, so naturaly my edits (and arguments now limited to talk) may seem "aggressive". What is agressive is that i got blocked and this article is a disgrace for wikipedia. Zeq 20:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that B'Tselem never argued that it is "apartheid" (note the spelling), they just called it discriminatory. I can't help but wonder if all these claims and counter claims are covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. I owuld expect that they have been.  Maybe we can just link to them for the most part.  --Ben Houston 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we just summarize the book by Uri, and the Desmond Tutu article contents (which are both clearly notable) rather than try to put together something from other sources -- then it becomes contentious.  Also we should include only responses in reputable sources to these two articles -- let's also avoid a new original combination of sources in response.  Thus we are just documenting a book, and article and the response to them.  --Ben Houston 20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, there is nothing wrong with citing globalexchange except for a nuisance called WP:RS. Pecher Talk 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. see proposal at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29/sandbox  Zeq 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we have a sockppupet ? 

message: WC is listed as source for this article. To understand how far things have detoriorated here see this:
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Wendy+Campbell%22+nazi&btnG=Search
Zeq 20:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wendy campbell 

message: Apartheid wall not only repeats some of the ideas in this article but also seems that it would be a very good section of this article as the topics are very similar but this one seems to be more of an umbrella title which Apartheid wall would fit under. --Strothra 15:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tentatively agree, for slightly different reasons:  One preposterous name-calling article that should not exist is better than two preposterous name-calling articles that should not exist.  (See my comments, going back several months, on Talk:Apartheid wall).  6SJ7 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge would be a good idea.  --Ben Houston 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Merging would be a good idea.Bless sins 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Apartheid wall into article 

message: The current title is offensive. Clearly, the Jewish state is chosen for demonization: compare this proliferation of what some here call "NPOV" with the 3-line-long section Human rights in Saudi Arabia#Segregation. I think that salvageable content of this article should be merged into Israeli-occupied territories, and the content of Apartheid Wall - into Israeli West Bank barrier. The offensive epithets belong to hate blogs, not encyclopedia. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge too. Pecher Talk 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agrre with both. Zeq 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually not all that difficult to get into Saudi Arabia.  Many outsiders go in simply by claiming to be Muslim.  A few of my friends did this already and I am planning to go with them the next time they do it.  There's no Muslim test and there's nothing that they could do to prove that you're lying if you're American because your passport won't contain your religion.  It definately helps to know the culture and the religion, however. A lot of people do it and smuggle in alcohol which can fetch a good amount there but there are extremely harsh punishments if you're caught.  But also, I've never really heard the term Arab apartheid before.  Does that exist? --Strothra 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find this comment hypocritical. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I obviously didn't mean if the fact or idea of Arab apartheid existed but whether it existed as a term such as Israeli apartheid does.  I mean the term has been found in publications and I've heard it since the early 90's.  According to the article it's been around since the late 80's.  Is Arab apartheid an actual term is what I was asking. --Strothra 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you check the sources using this propaganda epithet, you'll find that they are not WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with a merger.  I do not know which article is the correct one for it to merge into, as there are so many articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I see a new one (with material overlapping other articles) almost every time I look around.  I have wondered if it wouldn't be best to wipe out ALL articles except the ones that are specifically about geographic locations (Israel, Jerusalem, Ramallah etc.) and start over.  The result could hardly be worse than the mess that exists now, and that was true even before this article came along.  Anyway, yes on merger.  6SJ7 00:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree. The "Israeli apartheid" is used to imply Israeli policies against Arabs within the 1967 borders. Merging that information would be relevent.Bless sins 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Israeli apartheid into Israeli-occupied territories 

message: While I personally tend to agree with Zeq that it is ridiculous to claim that not giving Palestinians living outside Israel the right to vote in Israeli elections is an act of oppression- by analogy, all Iraqis would have to be given voting rights (and citizenship?) in US. Still, the argument is often mentioned, and thus is notable. I edited to make it clear that this applies only to Palestinians living outside Israel; hope it is good now. -- Heptor  talk 11:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's so ridiculous.  Those individuals have families and interests which remain in the occupied territories.  Those territories are occupied and governed by the Israeli government.  Why shouldn't they have a say?  Those Palestinians are not foreign citizens but natural born citizens of the occupied territories and thus that government is still responsible to them in a democratic system.  The same works for American expatriates living abroad. Also, Iraqis living in the U.S. were allowed to vote in the last Iraqi election.  --Strothra 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting point. But voting for a goverment in a country is always limited to its citizens. Simply being affected by some Goverment does not give anyone the right to be represented in that Goverment, even if it may be considered unfair. Another point, Israeli Goverment is responsible for the Palestinians by the Geneve conventions (fifth, I think), there is nothing democratic in that. -- Heptor  talk 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian Voting Rights 

message: NPOV does not mean that we take any lunatic idea and write an article about it with two sections:
1. Why people think about thjis Idea
2. Why there are people who think the other way
Some ideas are so far fetched that we, as editors, must use judgment and just write: "This is a lunatic idea used by xyz for badmothing ABC"
As to your argument: The palestinians territories are run by the PA and the Palestinians  VOTE  to the PA parliment (PLC) and to the president. Yes, the raea is occupied by Isral, yes Israel claim to have rights for the area and the world say it is not so. (I happend to think that Israel is wrong) but all these issues are addressed in article about the west bank, the palestinian territories, israel and Int'l law, the Palestinian Authority etc.
Here, we should only say what a propeganda term this is and who invnted it and how they use it (against israel) to argue in the article the question of weather israel  is or is not  an aparthide state is exactly what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Zeq 17:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does [[WP:NPOV]] mean ? 

message: This is bad english, does not make sense and based on ridiculus analogy:
"Palestinians who live outside Israel and do not have Israeli citizenship do not have voting rights in Israel as do citizens of Israel (Israeli Arabs including), but they are under Israeli occupation and subject to the laws and policies of the Israeli government and its military. "
Zeq 12:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This is bad english, does not make sense and based on ridiculus analogy" ... I'm sorry but you don't seem like the type to be in much authority to correct English grammar. Thanks for attempting though. --Strothra 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed text 

message: User:6SJ7 writes in his edit comments "moved Israeli apartheid to Israeli apartheid (phrase): Moving back to having "phrase" in the title; maybe this is the start of a new standard for articles about controversial phrases"
Well, at least he's admitting that adding "(phrase)" to the name of an article that has an otherwise non-shared name is unorthodox (ie (phrase) is not needed to disambiguate the article). If 6SJ7 or Pecher want to change wikipedia's naming policy they should argue it out on the relevant Policy page not try to "start a new standard" here.Homey 04:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homey, I didn't "admit" anything.  I don't know that it is unorthodox or non-standard.  That is your claim.  I made a flippant remark within the limited confines of an edit summary, and it meant, if it really is a standard, maybe it's time for a new standard.  But the burden is on you:  Prove there is a standard against keeping "phrase" in the title.  If there is such a standard that is accepted on Wikipedia, maybe I will propose changing it.  But first, prove it.  Also, since the question of phrase vs. fact had been discussed before, I think it was inappropriate for you to move it without discussing it and trying to get some consensus.  It also seems to me that you think you own this article, and I know there is a standard against that.  6SJ7 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, I just looked at the section above on phrase vs. fact.  Pecher said that parenthetical phrases in titles are often done.  So I guess it isn't so standard.  But I will leave it to others to comment, should the name of the article be changed again?   6SJ7 04:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "If you wish to propose a new naming convention, do so on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, whilst also publicising the proposal at Requests for comment and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, it can be adopted as a naming convention and listed below."
You are proposing a new naming convention, you should go to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions and submit your idea rather than act unilaterally here. Homey 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, we wouldn't want to have anyone act unilaterally...  Anyway, I read the Naming conventions.  It gives examples of when parentheses can be used.  I didn't see anything that says they cannot be used in other instances.  And I think their use here is perfectly consistent with what it says in the naming conventions, because "disambiguation" is just a method of avoiding confusion.  Here, the "(phrase)" was employed to avoid confusion between something that does not exist ("Israeli apartheid") and something that does exist (the phrase, "Israeli apartheid.")  So the name was fine with "(phrase)" in it.  6SJ7 04:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, discussing it, "Israeli Apartheid" is a phrase; having an article called :Israeli Apartheid suggests that there exists some entity that is called "Israeli Apartheid", like "South African Apartheid" or "Italian Fascism", which is of course POV. Hence, the article should be called "Israeli Apartheid (term)" to avoid any possible confusion; :Israeli Apartheid should redirect to :Israeli Apartheid (phrase) to allow easy searching. -- Heptor  talk 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are somehow right Heptor. HOwever, what i am focusing on is to let editors avoid edit warring and conflicts. To do so, it is reasonable to leave it as it is and see what discussions would lead to. This is not the first time that this occurs and Islamofascism is the best example. Cheers -- Szvest 17:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (phrase)