Talk:Apartheid wall/Archive1

message: Please recall, the article lists the arguments that both sides make, as they present them.  People don't "NPOV" their own arguments. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments are presented 

message: This article ought to be deleted. Almost nothing links here and odds are the majority of people searching Wikipedia for it are allready aware of its official name. If it means that much to someone, put a section like "claims of racist intent" in Israeli West Bank barrier and back it up with some sources. This article has only three external links for fourteen points. I won't put the vfd tag up until someone comments, but I really think it ought to go before degenerating into a "he said she said" mountain of factless POV. --Uncle Bungle 03:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually gotten quite a number of compliments, and has helped stopped "Apartheid wall" arguments.  The term itself is notable, as are the views of those who use it, and those who object to it. More links to it would be a good idea. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note, the contents of this article were entirely taken out from Israeli West Bank barrier and placed here as a separate article. It was previously under the heading "Accusations of Apartheid" in the main article. Some felt that the phrase "Apartheid Wall" was an epithet and should not be part of the original article, while others argued that it is a very common label among those opposed to the wall. I think that the phrase "apartheid wall" is common enough (just given by the coverage it gets plus the number of foreign activists who come to protest the wall) that people would look it up on Wikipedia. It does need to be enhanced though, either here or on the main page, because some arguments presented seem to be editors' own OR. Ramallite (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, the arguments on the anti-side are all taken from the linked article. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True- but there are a couple of only partially sourced statements on the top half ;) Ramallite (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Sourced arguments for the top half would be good.  More of them would help balance things. Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems quite informative, and is also reasonably limited in size; there are only so many arguments each side is advancing.  The  arguments used on the bottom half are frequently used; the link used just happens to be a convenient summary. Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest deletion 

message: Jayjg one is actually titled "Not an apartheid wall" and the other, stopthewall, is particularly insistant on the term (as opposed to major media outlets). I you want I'll put each URL in line with the point, but its just going to get cluttered and ugly. Up to you. --Uncle Bungle 22:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of groups use the term.  Do you have a link to a group which explains why it is appropriate? Links on this page should be to pages discussing the use of the term, not merely talking about the barrier itself. As such, only the last link against the use of the term was relevant, but I took it out as well, because it would seem biased only to have arguments from one side. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop the wall may not say "this is why the term is apropriate" but it does say "these are the characteristics of the apartheid wall". Further, if I am not mistaken the purpose of this article isn't to define the term as correct or not, but simply to state positions of those who use the term, and those who don't. --Uncle Bungle 23:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This article cites arguments for and against the use of the term.  The other article presents the details of the actual barrier itself, and its (alleged) effects. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only seen one article, the one you provided, which actually makes a case for or against the term. --Uncle Bungle 23:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Ramallite, I'm a little troubled by your additions to the article.  They appear to be arguments against the barrier itself, not arguments as to why the term "Apartheid Wall" is appropriate.  In fact, from what I can tell, the document you've used as a source doesn't even use the word Apartheid. The Israeli West Bank barrier article is already filled with arguments for and against the barrier itself; I can't understand why you would want to repeat them here, rather than presenting arguments about the applicability of the term. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have sworn the title of that article was "Apartheid Wall" - either it never was, or they purposefully removed any reference of apartheid for presentation reasons. My mistake. Can some of these arguments be included in the Israeli West Bank barrier article then? Ramallite (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramallite's additions 

message: I'm confused as to why my addition to this article was removed. In the section defending the relevancy of the term "apartheid wall" I wrote:
"Its extension into the occupied territories consolidates Israeli settlements in the area and lends the appearance of legitimacy to the settlement project, which, like the apartheid regime of South Africa, is a colonial and imperialist venture. See colonialism and imperialism."
The reason given for its removal is a lack of source material. Nevertheless, in the section dedicated to opponents of the term, an argument of the same form is made, also without sources. The point reads: 
"Apartheid was an outgrowth of imperialist, colonial policy; Israel's Jewish population consisted mostly of refugees with a deep historical relationship to the land."
Why is this point allowed to remain while the counter-point in defense of the term is removed? I respectfully request its readmission, or, if that is denied, the removal of its counterpart.
In the meantime, I have rewritten the point and provided a source to clarify.--142.150.48.189 17:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The counter-argument has a source; I'll look at your source the argument you have added. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I've looked at it; it doesn't even give a page number.  Exactly what are you referring to in that source? Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I've edited it again to conform with Wikipedia standards, and removed unrelated rhetoric. It's also completely grammatical. Jayjg (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The source was included, in a comment. Sources shouldn't be included inline like that. Also, your text still contains too much POV rhetoric. I'll fix both issues. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: O.K., current version is gramatically correct, and addresses all issues in your previous comment. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The argument has to actually be about the barrier itself and its relationship to Apartheid, it can't just be a general rant about Israeli policy.  And there are no "final" edits on Wikipedia. :-) Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, please try to make sure the points don't duplicate each other; for example, how was the point, as you added it, significantly different from points 2 or 5 below it? Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to barge in, but if the argument has to be about the barrier itself, and not general rants on policy, what is "South African blacks did not seek the destruction of South Africa, but merely the reformation of the government; however, the majority of Palestinians in the territories dispute Israel's right to exist" doing here?? Ramallite (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not barging in, your input is always welcome.  That's an argument against the use of the "Apartheid" designation in "Apartheid Wall". Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The issue is that it appears to duplicate arguments made in other points (see my point above).  There is already a point about "discrimination", and a point about "expulsion".  Each point should, ideally, make a unique argument, not just repeat the arguments made in other places.  Would you prefer to remove the other points instead? Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Your point refers to "occupation", "discrimination" and "expulsion", and "colonialism".  However point 3 refers to discrimination/racism, and point 7 refers to expulsion, and "occupation" had nothing to do with Apartheid.  My edits serve to make the points more cogent and relevant, and less repetitive, and that is entirely intentional. If you prefer, we can remove points 3 and 7 instead; let me know. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Quote the source, and stop repeating arguments in multiple points.  Expulsion is expulsion, discrimination is discrimination, and South Africa wasn't "occupied". Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the quote; I've cleaned it up again, mostly adding links and removing the claim that the settlements etc. are "projects", which is your own POV. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "Bantustan project" is a neologism that you appear to have invented, and the notion that the settlements are a "project" is original research on your part.  You keep claiming that any difference from your specific wording "undermines" the argument, or makes it "shaky", but there is no evidence that that is the case here. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "Bantustan project" is a neologism gets almost no google hits, and original research is forbidden on Wikipedia.  The points make perfect sense now, and do not violate Wikipedia policy.  Your contribution is fine, but please do not imagine that you have sole ownership of everything you contribute.  You seem completely unable to explain why removing your neologisms and original research make the points "nonsense", and your claim of "censorship" is the same nonsense that all editors claim when they insist that they own text, and that they don't have to follow policy.  Another policy, by the way, is the three revert rule which you have violated.  Revert again and you will simply be blocked. I recommend working this out on the Talk: page instead. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "Bantustan project" is a phrase, and a neologism. If it was in common use, then the phrase would get thousands of Google hits; yet it only gets 36 Google hits, and many of those are, in fact, a pejorative reference to the Oslo Accords.  Google really is a pretty good test for neologisms. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: When you talk about The Bantustan project you are clearly referring to a specific set of actions or historical events which together constitute something that is commonly known as The Bantustan project.  That being the case, the question that arises is "is or was there such a thing as a Bantustan project, and if so, was it commonly referred to that way?"  Well, South Africa promoted a Bantustan policy, but if it existed as a project it certainly wasn't referred to that way.  Compare, for example, the "Manhattan Project", which was indeed commonly referred to that way, and which gets over 650,000 Google hits, or the "Human Genome Project", which gets over 715,000 hits.  And when you mention that you are "game", picking any two or three words in a sentence and claiming they are "original research" if not commonly put together that way on the internet is, indeed, game-playing, and I'm not keen on game-playing. Jayjg (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So is the word "project" the only remaining item of dispute? Would "endeavor" be better? I was asked by Jude to try and help out... Ramallite (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, that's the only remaining item of dispute, because I've already given in on all the others. What makes it an "endeavour"? Who calls it that? And in what way would it improve the accuracy or readability of the point? Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm glad, because I wasn't sure either that a word after "settlement" was actually necessary to convey the (good) point you were trying to make. Ramallite (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wall as Colonial Project 

message: In my opinion, this article is not neutral in nature. It contains an elaborate list of counter-arguments to the opinion that the wall creates apartheid, rather than stating arguments in favour of the name given, which it should, since this is the title of the article. It is only superficially hidden that this article was created to refute arguments in favour of the name "apartheid wall". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.164.161.104 (talk • contribs) .
:In my opinion you could not be further from the truth.  As I have said before (probably in different words) the very existence of this article, and especially its title, represent a kowtowing to the anti-Israel POV-bullies.  However, since the bullying has succeeded to the point where this article is not going to go away, it should not be allowed to become worse than it already is.  If you look back in the edit history of this article, which pre-dates my arrival here, it appears that the incarnation of this article as an actual article (rather than a redirect) was originally written (by Jayjg) in an absolutely even-handed manner, containing a listing of the arguments on both sides, in the same format.  Other people have tried to make it much more anti-Israel POV, but Jayjg (and perhaps others) have resisted those efforts. Unfortunately, someone who claimed to be on the pro-apartheid-terminology "side" came along and rewrote the "list" in the first half the article into a single paragraph, which is probably not as effective.  Nevertheless, it does still state the basic argument in favor of apartheid terminology.  The same person, as I recall, invited those who oppose the apartheid terminology to similarly rewrite the second half of the article, but nobody has chosen to do so.  So your claim that the article was created to refute arrguments in favor of apartheid terminology, is clearly incorrect.  If it appears that way, it is because someone thought they knew better than the original author, how to present the pro-apartheid-terminology argument.  Evidently, they did not.   6SJ7 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's somewhat misleading. The first section was rewritten as a paragraph because the majority of editors on both sides believed the article's general format was not encyclopedic and needed to be changed (lists of arguments are generally avoided because they tend to express a point of view rather than present it). The second section hasn't been rewritten because defenders of the barrier now resist that change. One can only speculate on their reasons. If there is some concern about the proposed change in format, I would like to hear it voiced so we might come to some sort of compromise; I would also hope we could present all relevant arguments in neutral fashion and in such a way that they adequately represent the parties involved. Gregor Samsa 16:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gregor, based on the information that I am aware of (all of which is on this Talk page but I have not read the whole page), my statements are not misleading.  I have just re-read the section "Change of Format" above, which is where I think the relevant events unfolded, and I do not think it supports your chronology.  Unless you are referring to some other discussion, in which case can you put in the link(s)?  And if you are referring to the "Change of Format" discussion, can you identify who the "majority of editors" on both sides were?  I see one person, 161.184.46.161, who made a proposal about rewriting the "wall-as-apartheid" side of the article, and suggested that the people on the other side "rewrite their section along the same lines."  After that the proposal was picked up by several other IP addresses but it appears very much as if they are the same person as 161etc. (Are you them, Gregor?  Just curious.)  This series of IP addresses then had a discussion with Jayjg, which eventually turned to the subject of the poll.  Nowhere do I see "defenders of the barrier" ever agreeing that the second half of the article should be changed from the "list form," but as I say above, maybe there was another discussion that I do not know about.  6SJ7 00:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion under the "Change of Format" heading was the continuation of a discussion about a possible merge in which several editors expressed the opinion that a merge may be possible, but only if the article was substantially shortened and its format changed. This included several supporters of the barrier who felt that there was no need for a separate article devoted to the use of the term, but acknowledged that a brief description of the controversy could be included in the main article. You can find most of this discussion in the Israeli West Bank barrier archive,  here. Personally I think there should be a merge; I don't see why this subject requires its own article. But aside from the merge question(which is debatable), I haven't yet heard why the change in format is a problem. As far as I know, point-form lists are generally avoided because they are not consistent with encyclopedic form and often lead to the expression of different points of view, undermining the article's descriptive intent. Finally, concerning your question about the IP addresses--yes, I was the 161er who rewrote the first section as a paragraph. I was still new to Wikipedia then, and wasn't aware of conventions. I was not, however, the anon who posted the comment which begins this section. I hope this clarifies matters. Gregor Samsa 19:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous comment

message: The article now contains the following sentences: "These concerns have been echoed by Israeli left wing groups such as Gush Shalom and more recently by the Israeli State Prosecution itself (referring only to the part built beyond the 1949 Armistice lines). According to a recent UN report, the land between the barrier and the Green Line is currently the home for over 49,400 West Bank Palestinians living in 38 villages and towns, and it is feared that they will eventually be expelled or forced to migrate.". This article is about the term "Apartheid wall", not about the Israeli West Bank barrier in general. Therefore, it should discuss only the term, not the whole barrier issue. The sources in question discuss certain concerns relating to the barrier, but do not refer to the term "apartheid wall" itself. I see no reason for keeping these sentences in the article. Pecher Talk 10:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "Racially discriminatory" is not an argument that it is an "apartheid wall".  And please recall User:Bless sins (assuming this is Bless sins), if you don't login, I won't be responding again. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The format changes are fine.  As for the numbers, perhaps none should remain, if none of the sources refer to the term "Apartheid wall". Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant material

message: "Apartheid wall" is a term, not a name. Those who oppose the term are not necessarily those who defend the barrier.  Also, when opponents of the barrier make an argument, it is an argument, not merely a "remark" about the "facts".  And finally, referring to it as a wall automatically takes one side in the debate.  Please respect long-term consensus on the page, and please try to use neutral terminology. Jayjg (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reading the new article on "Wall of Shame," it occurred to me that both that article and this one are, as Jayjg says above, about terms rather than names.  That being the case, I think the title of the article should be in quotes.  I recognize that this article has been here for awhile under its current title and that there have been debates over the title, so for now I will leave this article with its current title.  I have no such hesitancy about "Wall of Shame" which is a brand new article, and therefore I am changing the title of that one.  As for this article, in the immortal words of the current governor of California, "I'll be back."  If anyone would like to discuss this idea in the meantime, I am sure the discussion would be entertaining.  6SJ7 23:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that idea ran into a barrier, or a wall, if you will.  I tried to rename Wall of Shame to "Wall of Shame" but I got a message back that I can't rename the article either because I am not logged in, I am blocked or my account is too new.  Neither of the first two are true and I can find no explanation of how old an account needs to be in order for me to be able to rename an article.  I was directed to WP:RN where I could "request" the moving/renaming, but the instructions there made my head start to spin, so I gave up.  I asked over there for someone else (someone who knows the secret handshake) to consider making the change.  6SJ7 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried the move (of Wall of Shame to "Wall of Shame") again and it worked.  Now, can anyone give me a good reason (note the word "good") why the same should not be done with this article?  6SJ7 15:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent POV changes 

message: This article has become excatly what Wikipedia should not be: A BB for discussing accusations about israel.
Similarly the article Israeli apartheid describe something that does not exist.
This article shoul have only one line: "The apartheid wall is a term used by the same critics to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier being built to seperate Israel from the West Bank".
The Israeli apartheid article existence is an insolt to almost every non antisemitic person. The fact that wikipedia allow such article (as if this "apartheid" exists) is an endorsment by Wikipedia of a very extrme antisemitic view. Zeq 12:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:not]] 

message: I dispute this on the grounds it is not NPOV. An NPOV description would tell the truth that this is a term used because it is more "marketable" to the westrn world:
"Apartheid wall is a political epithet sometimes used to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier. Some opponents of the barrier refer to it this way because they argue that its extension into the West Bank isolates Palestinian communities and consolidates the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements. The barrier, it is argued, is part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," which effectively constitutes a feature of Israeli apartheid. [1] a term used as an analogy for South African apartheid."
Zeq 18:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed content 

message: I'm having a hard time figuring out why this article exists. Any information in this article belongs in the Israeli West Bank Barrier article. If that page has become too long, then a separate article discussing how people refer to the barrier is appropriate. The very existence of this article is not just POV, but also inflamatory. I would have the same response to a page entitled "Israeli Anti-School-Bus-Bomber Fence". A lot of effort went into coming up with the term "Israeli West Bank Barrier" in order to be as NPOV and non-inflamatory as possible. Why throw all that away with the existence of this article? 
Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The one-sentence article proposals are all merely definition entries for "apartheid wall". This page should be a redirect to a complete article about the subject, not a partially complete, inflamatory, POV article sitting on its own. Chuck 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does this article exist?