Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 9

message: To demonize Israel and then "NPOV" it by saying "Pro-Israel groups consider objectionable the use of this term to describe the State of Israel or its policies." - I am sorry this is meaninless this is  NOT  NPOV.
NPOV is to present both POV not just one POV and then say the other side don't like it.
In this case NPOV would mean to include part of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeq/apartheid_propeganda 
Zeq 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this what you call NPOV 

message: Ho ho, and now the fun begins, I think you may have mistaken people running out of insults for some kind of detente --Coroebus 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of right now, it's not too bad an article.  This could work out.  How about leaving the first paragraph alone for a while, and working on the "Criticism" section?  Some of the arguments there could be strengthened, and some of them really aren't contributing much to that position.  --John Nagle 17:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is unprotected 

message: The division between analogy and critism section creates a situation of non NPOV. Instead the sections need to be combined and each accusations that has a valid answer should be in the same sentence. Zeq 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I've said, I'm happy with 'Allegations...', the lead is perfectly neutral (hedged with 'controversial'), and perhaps a bit anti the term at the end, the analogy section is actually quite short, and the usage section is not that long, then you get to the criticisms.  I'd like to make the analogy and usage sections shorter so you'd get down to criticisms more quickly, but I'm also keen on slimming down the criticisms section too. --Coroebus 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: *The Israeli West Bank barrier is referred to by detractors as the Apartheid Wall for its impact on the Palestinian population in the West Bank.
::But isn't that a bit circular, isn't the name Apartheid Wall and extension of the apartheid accusation? --Coroebus 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analogy 

message: * It has been widely used by Palestinian rights advocates and also by some on the Israeli Jewish left.  
::yet we then go on to say
* Several left wing Members of the Knesset (MKs) have also drawn an analogy between Israeli policies and apartheid
::and
* The term has also been used by some Palestinian-rights activists and anti-Zionists
::apart from anti-Zionists (who I think it is pretty debatable we need to explicitly identify here) we are not adding anything new in the last bit.
* and some neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic individuals or groups such as David Duke and Jew Watch,.
::are these groups really that notable as users of the term?  I'm not convinced that people associate the use of the phrase 'Israeli apartheid' with these people particularly, if they're notable (I've heard of them at least) we mightn't want such a prominent bit, maybe more 'and has been used by the neo-Nazi David Duke and the anti-Semitic group Jew Watch' (if I've go that the right way around?). --Coroebus 17:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes with the territiory. If some feel uncomfortable in their company, they know what to do. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: This looked like a good academic ref pro the apartheid analogy http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/media/ha03tklhxmcy1qrgtav0/contributions/5/5/d/0/55d0gnpg39g6enxf.pdf
not sure if we need another one, but found it while looking for anti arguments, what was the link for discussion of acceptable refs again? --Coroebus 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref 

message: The analogy section is grossly non NPOV. Clear violation of wikipedia most basic policy. Zeq 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh) in what specific way is it not NPOV Zeq?--Coroebus 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an example. An editor tried to NPOV a line and you removed it further down: . You created a POV fork inside the article itself and called it "critism" section. Zeq 20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply moved it into the existing criticism section.  There is no such thing as a POV fork within an article, we explicitly divide up pro/anti arguments in most articles.  If you really think we shoulod have the analogy and criticisms sections merged mock me up what you think it should look like and we'll see if it is a mess or not.  I don't think most other editors share your view on this one --Coroebus 20:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: At the moment the criticisms section is most of the article, I note that people have been busy adding in more criticisms and slimming down the analogy section.  Currently it just looks silly.  If we reduce the criticisms section down to just the most salient objections (to be about the same size as the analogy section is currently) it could be merged in underneath the analogy section (i.e. here's why people make the analogy, here's why people think they shouldn't, here's who uses it,...), which would presumably make Zeq happier. --Coroebus 14:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see we've taken the opposite tack of making it all even longer, a strategic mistake if you want to eventually merge into Apartheid outside of South Africa I'd have thought. --Coroebus 11:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV (again) 

message: While the first article does noy insult anyone (if it exist or not) it highlights  right at the intro  that such life  may not  exist. The 2nd artickle is even a better one: 
* It describe the term as a term that is derogative, who use it and why.
 so, to all those who oppose  (based on comparsion to homosexual agenda) since your objection to the "allegation" name was in good faith you should now continue to look at these articles as an example and describe the term Israeli apartheid for waht it is: A term that is used as propeganda aahansit Israel and that most people think does not exist in reality (after all, despite the occupation and the descrimination there are no apartheid laws in israel in the same way that they were in South Africa - and this, my fellow editors, makes all the difference. Zeq 15:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Extraterrestrial life]] and [[homosexual agenda]]

message: "The government of Israel has termed its policy of disengagement Hafrada which literally means "separation". " - not true it was nmed hintankut which means......disengagement Zeq 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I have no familiarity with this issue and really can't judge either side - you'll have to fight it out without me --Coroebus 20:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the whole problem. someone writes something that is pure wrong and then people have "to fiight" ver it .... ridiculous. Zeq 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone here understand basic hebrew  

message: The article is looking better. There's real progress.  Thanks, everyone.
I'm going to the beach.  Play nice  Thanks.  --John Nagle 21:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm back.  In hopes of getting some convergence on the first paragraph, I moved the "Critics" line to the criticism section.  I also tried moving the "usage" line to the "usage" section, but then noticed that it duplicated the last entry there, so I kept only one copy, the one already at the end of the "usage" section.  I'm trying to pare the first paragraph down to a bare definition that's as neutral as possible, with the arguments in the "Usage" and "Criticism" sections.  Comments?  --John Nagle 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you did is a violation of WP:NPOV, read WP:Lead Zeq 05:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's been some real progress here 

message: I just came back from Jenin.
There are no such thing in jenin and I am sure Ramalla does not have these has well (
unless someone wants to argue that than the wall between A-ram and Kfar Akeb or between Suafat camp and sufat vilage are "Fenced refugee camps" - in which case i would just refer him/her to a map that shows it is not so.)
so who came up with this nonsense ?  
botom line:  keep this in mind : WP:RS  and also arbcom rullings about "using only relaible scholarly sources" for such articles as this one. Can we keep the nonsense out. ?  Zeq 16:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fenced refugee camps at Jenin and Ramallah" ? 

message: There are no such thing and even betselem (in an not so accurate report) never went so far as arguing that.
what there is a re several roads in which:
#only cars with Israeli license plates (both Israeli jews arab israelis and /or Arabs from east jerusalem can travel - in fact it is only based on license plate not on who the driver is)
#as well as palestinia comerical trafic and public transport
So........... is this "apartheid" ? if palestinian private trafic is forbeden from some west bank roads ?
It is surly not convinient but it is not an apartheid. Israeli Arabs and Even palestiniasn from E. Jerusalem can travle on any road. Zeq 16:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No we wouldn't, and more to the point, we didn't.  Until the 1950s/60s, in parts of the U.S., black people in the U.S. were "banned" from a lot of things:  All-white schools, the front of a public bus, "white" drinking fountains, some restaurants, sometimes from voting, and many other things.  Sometimes this was imposed by law, sometimes by just the way a state or local government did things, and sometimes by non-governmental "common agreement."  In at least one state, there was a law against marriage between blacks and whites that was not struck down by the Supreme Court until the early 1970s.  But guess what, none of this was ever called "apartheid."  It was called segregation, discrimination, "Jim Crow" (with reference to the actual laws), probably a few other things.  It had its own names, we didn't need to import a name from another language on another continent, and nobody needs to import that name to Israel, either.  6SJ7 03:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jewish-only roads " ? 

message: The article sais: " The road closings came in the wake of drive-by shootings " and indeed the roads are open again.
I strongly suggest you read the Btselem report. not every news paper report is accurate but if you choose to use it include  all relevant  facts. (the bottom line is that  there are no "israeli only" roads in the west bank (there are however plans or better be describe as "wishfull thinking" on the part of some settler supporters to have such roads. 
In fact, Israel west bank disenegagment plan will prevent the need for such roads since remote settlments will be evcuated but this article should focus on the present not on speculations to either side. Zeq 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read your own sources 

message: Out of curiosity, I've done a bit of research using newspaper archives to try to find out when the comparison was first made. I've found no references prior to 1967, but following then the comparison has been made with increasing frequency. It seems to have been a major argument in the debate that led up to UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 and was being promoted by the USSR as early as 1971. The comparison is used very frequently now; Lexis-Nexis found no less than 747 newspaper articles including the words "Israel" and "apartheid" from the last three months alone. -- ChrisO 20:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not surprizing given the use of the term "apartheid wall" by very vocal groups. The issue is more complex than just counting two words. Zeq 20:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense.  Early on, the term seems to have been mostly pejorative, but once the "separation" plan became official Israeli policy and fence/barrier/wall building went into high gear, the term has become more mainstream.  --John Nagle 20:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're absolutely right. The interesting thing is that the use of the comparison appears to have peaked in the mid-1970s and again from the late 1990s to now. Presumably this reflects campaigning by the very vocal groups you mention. -- ChrisO 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick lesson in Hebrew:
*sepration comes from the same root in Hebrew that is to divide (as in to distance from one another), to break-up a fight (as in between a couple in divorce proceddings) .
*It is not used it the disengament plan , there the word "hitantkut" was used which is to disengage, to dis associate from, to severe ties with.
The use of the word "hafrda" was in the context of the fence/wall - to create a sepration between the two sides as in creating a border. It was frequntly used by PM Barak (prior to Sharon) who always attached to it the words: "They are over there and we are over here" (in other words: "Two states for two people".) Zeq 20:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracing origins 

message: I've removed the reference to David Duke and Jew Watch since no reliable sources are cited.
If someone can find an academic article or mainstream news site that associates David Duke and/or Jew Watch with the concept of "Israeli apartheid" we can put it back in. David Duke also refers to the USSR as the "Evil Empire" but I don't see our article on Evil Empire claiming that "Ronald Reagan used the term, as do neo-Nazis such as David Duke".
Duke and Jew Watch neither coined the term "Israeli apartheid" nor popularized it, nor are they responsible for a significant number of uses of term (maybe one or two). Mentioning them in an article might appear as an attempt to poison the well or imply guilt by association.
Again, if an RS such as a journal article, scholarly book or newspaper article associates Jew Watch or Duke with the term then we should cite them. If not, we can't due to WP:RS and WP:OR.Homey 03:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the references back.  The Jew Watch web site is cited, and it is a reliable source for what Jew Watch itself has to say... if anyone cares, and apparently someone does, because they have their own article on Wikipedia.  They aren't cited in the article for anything other than what they say, and who knows better than they do?  As for who coined or popularized the phrase, the article has already gone way beyond that.  As for guilt by association... well how about if we don't assume the readers of Wikipedia are stupid, and that we can just report the facts and let them make up their own minds.  6SJ7 03:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Homey took them right back out again.  Well, I choose not to get into a revert war.  However, it is clear that this article is heading right back where it was.  It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia that this article even exists.   6SJ7 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources were their own websites, where they published the term. That material is perfectly legitimate and important because these are the people who use the term. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Isn't it nice that we can have this consensus?   :)  6SJ7 04:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Poisoning the well and guilt by association?  Let me just ask you, Homey, do you see the irony in the fact that you are making those arguments?  6SJ7 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6SJ7, it is not for us to determine whether the apartheid analogy is valid. It exists and is notable so we report it. We should not do so in a prejudicial way thus we should not include gratuitius references to neo-nazis in an attempt to discredit the term. If Duke or Jew Watch originated or popularized the term or if their use of it was notable enough to have been noticed by scholarly or mainstream sources that would be one thing. But just because David Duke uses a word once is not sufficient for us to add his name to every wikipedia article on any word or phrase he's ever used. Homey 04:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Homey, we're using David Duke as a source on David Duke. [www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1201319&postcount=958] There is no more authoriative source than that. The reference to neo-Nazis isn't gratuitous. There is an expression "Israeli apartheid." Who uses it? is a perfectly reasonable question. And the fact is that the left and far-right both use it, and we should say who. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You can't quote an old consensus. It has no force. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not what the "consensus" was about.  The consensus, if it can be called that, dealt with just the first paragraph, not the entire intro section.  What Homey removed was a second paragraph in the intro section.  So the old consensus is still reflected in the first paragraph.  The rest of the intro has nothing to do with it.  6SJ7 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. See the diff and see what the mediator removed in favour of the consenseus version. All references to users of the term, including Duke, were removed. Homey 06:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But do you have any sources saying that Palestinian activists, and all the other people you list, use it? All we need is to see that they have used it, Homey. That is a perfectly legitimate use of sources. We're not analysing the use of it, which would be OR without a secondary source. We're just reporting the use, which is not OR. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I posted a link above to David Duke saying it on Stormfront, so you have him using the term without question, and if you put it into Google, there are lots of returns with his name. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Homey, here is Paul Grubach of the Institute for Historical Review, the Holocaust denial group, writing about Israeli apartheid for CODOH (Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust).  SlimVirgin (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need a source saying Duke has used it, and not one showing he has used it? You haven't explained yet. Please explain why, rather than just continuing to ask the same question. We are not interpreting anything. We are just quoting him. It is simple reporting. We do it all the time. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Homey, I am very, very familiar with the content policies and particularly the ones that deal with how to use sources. Articles are allowed to be based on primary and secondary sources, not only secondary ones. What we are not allowed to do with primary sources is start making our own original interpretations. Therefore, we could not say: "David Duke has used the term 'Israeli apartheid' and this is more evidence of how offensive a term this is."  To say that, we would need a secondary source. But we are allowed to report that he has used it and link to an example of him doing so. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS