Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 5

message: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/05/israel_the_unfair_target_of_selective_outrage/
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149460817799&call_pageid=970599119419
as for proof of my argument about the intentions of those who recently pushed the use of the phrase "israeli apartheid" it is all over the globe:  http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=boycott+Israel+OR+israeli+apartheid+++-%22apartheid+wall%22&btnG=Search  and more.  Zeq 07:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearly the press start to understand and change direction 

message: , it might've been nice to discuss the page move given the tension here, no? --Coroebus 11:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the page move by Humus sapiens (admin).  While the phrase is used by some as an epithet quite a few use it as a serious comparison -- Uri Davis and Desmond Tutu are two such prominent individuals whether you agree with them or not.  Thus from my perspective, the move seems to be motivated by POV.  --Ben Houston 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is based on sources which are strong POV. The discussion to delete this article created a 50-50 battaleground, so the name move is just one more issues that the existence of this article is causing. The best name should be:
* The use of the term Israeli "apartheid" in the propeganda war against israel
This is a very accurate NPOV name. It does not take sides. Zeq 20:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While it is true that some are in a war against Israel, Desmond Tutu and Uri Davis do not seem to be so basely motivated.  Rather they appear to believe they are saying.  Maybe we should have two articles or two sections in this article -- one dealing with assumed good faith use of the term and another article/section about those who are using it from an anti-Semitic stance?  --Ben Houston 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being supportive of the human rights of Palestinians is not the same thing as being against Israel -- you are so caught up in an ethnocentric view of the world that exclused any ability to see how one's actions may be percieved or interpreted from another point of view.  To think in those terms is forcing one to choose which national struggle is more legitimate.  I personally think that both people deserve the right to self-determination and the right to not be abused, terrorized or discriminated against by the other.  (Also, I don't know what you are talking about when you say I brought up anti-Semitism.  The article lists in the current lead a number of clearly anti-Semitic groups that use the label as a means of delegitimizing Israel.  I am trying to make a distinction between these uses and those of others.)  --Ben Houston 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely if offensive pejorative designation is made, it is proper and neutral to call it an epithet. Whether "there are some who have used the charge sincerely" or not is absolutely irrelevant. Again you show extreme POV and Orwellian logic. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Move 

message: As "political epithet" is a POV term which assumes bad faith by those who use the phrase "Israeli apartheid" I support moving the article back to Israeli apartheid (phrase) and having the following intro:
:Israeli apartheid (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics to describe the country's policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the phrase see it as a political epithet and do not consider Israel's practices to be comparable to the actions of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations, and regard the phrase as misleading polemic.
Homey 22:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your intro - very much.Bless sins 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That would indeed be better, once we agree what those changes should be. I don't think zeq was a hiindrance in making it NPOV. He just felt misunderstood and was unable to communicate himself in a more NPOV fashion. Perhaps he should be an acitve part in the discussion of this article, he can definetly share with us important POVs.Bless sins 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your intro is getting better, but we have to be more specific about why it is people object to the term. Saying that people object to it because it's "misleading" is, well, misleading. IronDuke 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: I am not willing to unprotect this page yet because it is not only Zeq who was the problem because in that case, I would have blocked him alone. This article went to two recent edit/move/revert wars and subsequent full-protections, that was enough. I am perfectly willing to make consensus edits, but I am NOT going to be involved into the content dispute.  I am willing to act as a informal mediator as I indicated above as I think this page needs one, with the current tensions. If the latter is desired, please indicate it below so that I can get an idea if all major players do agree, because if not, it won't work. Because of all the tensions, I will start somewhat formal until I get a better feeling about what everybody means. (And as a minor note, I am female). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not looked into detail in who did when what wrong, and I am not going to either. The page was locked the page because of an edit war between to many editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation and unprotection

message: * --Ben Houston 04:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: *I did not edit war. I made 3 edits (and  no reverts what so ever ) while Homey have reverted twice (after the protection was removed, more before that) and made noumouros edits. It was un-fair to ban me and Tony already admited that he was doing so only because I was under probation (i.e. "bannable" while others were not. Zeq 05:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not looked into detail in who did when what wrong, and I am not going to either. The page was locked the page because of an edit war between to many editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coment

message: 1) Move page back to name before move. I will do that, as I get the impression that most editors did not agree with that move. However, if there substantial resistance against that, I will move it back, so this is a conditional move back for the moment. So, let me know whether you agree or not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. I would most certainly change my keep vote to delete on the next AFD if that occurred.  The unmodified name suggests a factual description, which is to say the least a matter of dispute. I suspect you will lose the entire article in a couple months if you do that. Derex 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A procedural question:  I voted "disagree" on the move from "epithet", do I also need to vote on the move to no qualifier, or to "phrase."?  Also, the comments between the numbered votes seem to have messed up the numbering in two places (only one of which was done by me), I don't know how to fix that.   6SJ7 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, sorry, that was me, feel free to move my comments to fix the numbering, I would do it myself but I'm not sure how --Coroebus 18:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coroebus, we seem to disagree quite a bit, but on this we are together:  Neither of us knows how.  :)  6SJ7 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that make the disagree = stay as epithet more clear?, have also fixed comments. --Coroebus 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: WP does not operate on the simple majority rule and such move would be especially wrong in the light of recent rename of Islamofascism into Islamofascism (epithet). ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... which was carried by User:Humus sapiens on 22:56 8 June 2006, without any prior consultation.  This may not be the best possible comparison.  CJCurrie 03:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: * Agree --Ben Houston 04:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "Israeli apartheid (phrase)" 

message: # Agree - Why do we need a parenthetical commentary?  Is there such a thing as "Israeli apartheid (fruit)" or "Israeli apartheid (dog)"? Al 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. I would most certainly change my keep vote to delete on the next AFD if that occurred.  The unmodified name suggests a factual description, which is to say the least a matter of dispute. I suspect you will lose the entire article in a couple months if you do that. Derex 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "Israeli apartheid"

message: # Agree - thought this might be a compromise, it then allows it to be a subpage of Apartheid outside of South Africa (not sure about that title though if we want gender etc. but I see they've been integrated anyway), we could then get rid of the disambig page, have a link to Apartheid outside of South Africa in the History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era page (which is the redirect from apartheid). Then maybe unilateral WP:POINT renames of e.g. Islamofascism to Islamofascism (epithet) could be left up to a vote without the overtones of this debate --Coroebus 06:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid"

message: # The content of this article should be integrated into Apartheid (epithet). ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Apartheid (epithet)]]

message: # Disagree - the article title is a pejorative political epithet. To call it a "phrase" is to give it legitimacy (which would be wrong per NPOV). Would we "neutralize" Fascism (epithet)? Similarly, a proper title for an encylopedic article should be Apartheid (epithet). ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A procedural question:  I voted "disagree" on the move from "epithet", do I also need to vote on the move to no qualifier, or to "phrase."?  Also, the comments between the numbered votes seem to have messed up the numbering in two places (only one of which was done by me), I don't know how to fix that.   6SJ7 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, sorry, that was me, feel free to move my comments to fix the numbering, I would do it myself but I'm not sure how --Coroebus 18:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coroebus, we seem to disagree quite a bit, but on this we are together:  Neither of us knows how.  :)  6SJ7 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that make the disagree = stay as epithet more clear?, have also fixed comments. --Coroebus 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: WP does not operate on the simple majority rule and such move would be especially wrong in the light of recent rename of Islamofascism into Islamofascism (epithet). ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... which was carried by User:Humus sapiens on 22:56 8 June 2006, without any prior consultation.  This may not be the best possible comparison.  CJCurrie 03:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree with move from "Israeli apartheid (epithet)"

message: *Agree --Ben Houston 04:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: :::commentDoing this would be NPV from the get-go. Therm itself is VERY one sided, if start by "explianing" it you accpet the propeganda of those who use it. Zeq 12:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand, that those who support the political decisions of the Knesset, are very sensitive in this regard. OTOH explaining the meaning of a pejorative term does not necessarily mean, that you support its usage. Raphael1 13:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you accuse me of supporting the decision of the Israeli goverment I will see it as a violation of WP:NPA. Wikipedia is not the place to give any fringe group the floor to "explain itself" Zeq 16:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you feel personally attacked, if someone would claim, that you are supporting the decisions of the Israeli goverment, you are probably a strong opponent of Israeli politics as well. Though certainly not everybody who opposes Israelis policies approves the term "Israeli apartheid", it is certainly not a fringe group. Raphael1 16:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to describe me as Non conformist who disagree both with israeli goverment actions and with ctitism that is aimed at denying Israel right to exist I'll take this as a compliment. Zeq 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments