Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

References

Tasc, you seem to be removing references. [1] Are they not working? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You've done it again. Each quote has to be referenced, whether there is a later quote with the same reference or not. That is standard practise. Could you put back the first Matas reference, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't removed them. As clearly was written in my summary i rm broken ref. do you need any help to understand what i've done? Regarding matas ref. they are in one paragraph! and it's not normal to quote every word. It's not a standard practise. To reference whole paragraph full of quotation is standard practice. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 13:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, could you please stop changing things as I'm editing? I don't know when you're making edits in between mine, so when I see certain things have changed, I'm assuming that I haven't done them properly and I'm going back to fix them. It's wasting both our time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus lead section

After reading all comments to the proposed lead section, it seems to me that the first sentence of the proposed lead is acceptable for most people. However, the second line is clearly not. As such, would the following lead be acceptable to everybody:

Israeli apartheid (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel to describe the country's policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the term see it as a political epithet and argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and that it is used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel.

From a NPOV, I think this lead is acceptable, but I could be wrong in that. Please comment if you agree or diagree, so that we can move forward. (Whether I myself agree with this lead will remain upin the air as that is not relevant at all)-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed above I think there are many inaccuracies in this intro. Zeq 04:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• It isn't great, but better than the current one, but since most of the people opposed to this article seem to regard an integration into Apartheid outside of South Africa as a fait accompli I doubt they'll vote because they already 'own' that version. --Coroebus 20:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed this per wide support which includes all editor minus one. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that intro paragraph, but I'd suggest that, when any indication of support is requested, we should wait at least 24 hours for opinions to come in. It's the middle of the night in North America in the middle of a weekend, after all. Not everyone is monitoring this 24/7. (Feature request: we need the ability to have an RSS feed of your Wikipedia watchlist sent to your mobile.) --John Nagle 05:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, the consensus in question dealt with the first paragraph, not the entire intro section. Therefore the edit that Homey made today, deleting a second paragraph, is not supported by that consensus. 6SJ7 06:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7, you are wrong. See the diff. References to neo-nazis et al were removed in favour of the consensus version. Homey 06:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That link proves I am correct. That deals with the first paragraph, not the second. 6SJ7 06:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It deals with the entire lead. (ie the first part of the article before the initial section heading).

Here is what it was before the consensus change:

The phrase ''Israeli apartheid (or the terming of Israel an apartheid state) is a pejorative political epithet used by some Palestinian-rights activists[2], South Africans, some neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic individuals groups such as David Duke and Jew Watch, and some anti-Zionists to criticize Israel's policies by drawing an analogy between the policies of the Israeli government towards both Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel to those of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations. Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and is used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel.

Here is what it was afterwards:

Israeli apartheid (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel to describe the country's policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and is used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel.

Please note that all references to David Duke and/or neo-nazis were removed from the lead (not just the first paragraph but from the entire intro section). That is my point. Here are [the diffs and you can see that there is no second paragraph in the intro section in the consensus version.

You claimed earlier "As I stated above, the consensus in question dealt with the first paragraph, not the entire intro section." Clearly you are wrong as there was a reference to neo-nazis in the earlier "intro section" but not in the consensus intro. Homey 06:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral renaming of articles

Why has 6SJ7 renamed this article unilaterally without first seeking consensus on the talk page?Homey 04:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I can not find consensus for this move and have moved it back. Disambiguation by using parentheses should only be used when there are more terms, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific_topic -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Was there a consensus to create it in the first place? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I think you are misinterpreting the policy. That policy applies to disambiguation, which Wikipedia defines as (approximately) a means to avoid confusion between two article topics. It has nothing to do with the insertion of a parenthetical to distinguish between something that is an article topic and something that is not. This article is about the term, Israeli apartheid, which exists, as opposed to Israeli apartheid, which does not exist and therefore has no article about it. This is not "disambiguation," so the rules about disambiguation do not apply. 6SJ7 06:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, we're allowed to put (term) after it. It's done often to make clear what kind of word is being used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, please provide examples of where this has done for reasons other than disambiguaton.Homey 06:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll: Move page to Israeli apartheid (term)

Oppose

• -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Homey 05:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• We already have another vote on renaming in progress; let that one finish before proposing another rename. --John Nagle 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - this gives this epithet legitimacy as if it is an encyclopedic term. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I suggest that people look at the other articles listed under Category:Pejorative political terms - adding the parenthetical description "term" would be totally inconsistent. -- ChrisO 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is just getting silly --Coroebus 09:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

• Support. I'd prefer Israeli apartheid (epithet), but I'll accept "term" as a compromise. There are no academic studies of this term, no scholarly books devoted to it, no evidence at all that it is taken seriously by serious people. It's used as an insult. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is incorrect. See, for instance:

Glaser, D. J. (2003). "Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison." Ethnic and Racial Studies 26(3): 403-421

Shahak, I. (1988). "Israeli Apartheid and the Intifada." Race & Class 30(1): 1-12.

Zreik, R. (2004). "Palestine, apartheid, and the rights discourse." Journal of Palestine Studies 34(1): 68-80.

The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid edited by Roane Carey, published by Verso (October 2001) ISBN: 1859843778

See alsoTalk:Israeli apartheid/RS. Homey 07:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support as a compromise, per SlimVirgin. I have previously opposed a weak qualifier such as "term" but it would be better than the current title. 6SJ7 20:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we take Sunday off?

Could we try to not make major changes to the article this Sunday? Some of us need time off. And a cooling off period wouldn't hurt. Thanks. --John Nagle 05:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish we hadn't inflammatory propaganda posed as encyclopedic articles. Then we could cool off and do something productive and enjoyable every day. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Good intro

This is now an interesting intro, with all the different views, different uses, and particularly with Desmond Tutu, Nobel Prize winner, supporting the analogy, juxtaposed with Dr. Jean-Christophe Rufin, former VP of Médecins Sans Frontières, wanting it to be criminalized. It gives a very accurate portrait of the divisions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Kuratkowski's Ghost has just vandalised it by deliberately changing Tutu's quotation from (emphasis added):

"Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. (South African Cabinet Minister) Ronnie Kasrils and (South African Member of Parliament) Max Ozinsky, two Jewish heroes of the antiapartheid struggle, recently published a letter titled "Not in My Name." Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. Mark Mathabane and Nelson Mandela have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience."

to

""Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. (South African Cabinet Minister) Ronnie Kasrils and (South African Member of Parliament) Max Ozinsky, two ANC members of Jewish ancestry, recently published a letter titled "Not in My Name." Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. Mark Mathabane and Nelson Mandela have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience."

His edit note reads "Ozinsky and Kasrils do not consider themselves to be Jewish nor did they do anything particularly heroic)"[3]

Kuratowski's Ghost may not agree with Tutu's description of Ozinsky and Kasrils but that doesn't give him the right to alter Tutu's words to something Kuratoski's Ghost can agree with. Deliberately falsifying a quotation is vandalism.

I would revert it as such but I suspect someone would accuse me of breaking the 3RR by doing so. I don't think deliberately altering a quotation should be tolerated, however.

As an aside, I think Desmond Tutu is better placed than KG to determine who is a "hero of the anti-apartheid struggle". Homey 13:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, I hadn't noticed that was a direct quotation. --Coroebus 13:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

article from 69 - diff attached

I guess if no better material is found on this subject article from 1969 will do. After all nothing have changed in the area since 1969 [4]. ... Not . ! 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is tooooooo longgggggggg

and repetative: "The phrase Israeli apartheid, the description of Israel as an apartheid state, or otherwise drawing comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa" - this is not howw an article should start, the lead should be a mini article and not a repeat over repeat. Zeq 15:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is we are not talkinag about just a phrase but a concept. It doesn't matter whether the analogy is formulated as "Israeli apartheid" "Apartheid Israel", "apartheid state" or a "South African situation". Homey 16:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, is this you[5]? Are you 193.216.58.194?Homey 16:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the poor grammar is something of a tell tale sign. Homey 16:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoemy, I am not so stupid to do something like that. poor gramer or not - it was not me. Don't make false accusations . Beside it does not make any sense for any one to ask for something on talk and 5 minutes later to make the exact edit himself - this would be kind of self increminating and stupid - don't you think ? Zeq 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I would love to hear a garmatical analysis from you on my writing. In case you did not notice I mis characters, I am dislaktic and I don't see how you connect that edit to "my gramer" but I would be amused to get your analsis of how you arrived to that conculsion. I have noticed long ago that you have special gift to know the exact one and only truth on most subjects, so educate me please. Zeq 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for the usercheck result and see. Homey 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't object the chcek, (I have nothing to hide) go ahead and check. I am just saying that thinking I am sooooo stupid is an insult. If you would know me you would know this is not my MO. I am an honest person. Zeq 18:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for the checkuser result and seeHomey 18:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"do not practice Judaism"

what does this has to do with anything ?

I don't pratice judasim also. so what. Zeq 18:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Merges, renaming, etc.

We had five (5) "mergeto" boxes at the top of the article, which was just silly and had reached the point where WP:POINT was starting to be an issue. I reverted some of the recent additions in that area.

Although there are various people who've proposed various merges and renames, it's clear than there's no consensus. Unless we go through a formal Wikipedia process that leads to a merge or rename, it's not likely to happen. I suggest avoiding unilateral action in that area. It's too disruptive, and it gets reverted anyway. Give it a rest. Thanks. --John Nagle 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This article only has 5 merge suggestions, and they are all good faith ones. On the other hand Apartheid outside of South Africa not only has 5 merge suggestions at the top, but another 18 merge suggestion scattered throughout the body of the article. If anything those merge suggestions are WP:POINT. Please take these merge suggestions seriously. Alternatively, if you really think that too many merge templates are disruptive, then remove the excess from both articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: are you being funny? It is a reliatory point battle and you are one of the main parties involved. The whole article Apartheid outside of South Africa was created to merge this article into it -- talk about the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point or in your case false equivalence. --Ben Houston 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Apartheid outside of South Africa article existed many months before this article was ever created; it was created in July 2005, whereas this one was created in May, 2006. Eventually a consensus was reached at Apartheid outside of South Africa that all allegations of Apartheid were essentially non-encyclopedic, and the relevant information was either merged into various articles, or removed. However, Homey has disruptively decided to spread the allegation of Apartheid against Israel all over Wikipedia, in as many articles as he can find, ignoring the previous consensus, and even creating multiple stubs to support that effort. Since we are now asserting that allegations of Apartheid are an encyclopedic topic, we certainly need to have an article which contains them. And if there was ever an example of WP:POINT, it would be adding 23 merge templates to a relatively small article on the topic of Apartheid allegations, but insisting that a stub like this, and three other small stubs, all on the same topic, can never be merged to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Eventually a consensus was reached at Apartheid outside of South Africa that all allegations of Apartheid were essentially non-encyclopedic, and the relevant information was either merged into various articles, or removed. "

So why did *you* go against the consensus on *that* article and unilaterally recreate it?Homey 20:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That article already had an "Israeli Apartheid" section, and it was agreed that the epithet was non-encyclopedic. You went against consensus on that article by unilaterally creating this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So you recreated Apartheid outside of South Africa as retaliation in order to make a point. I'm sorry, I understand there's a POV reason to disappear all references linking Israel and apartheid from wikipedia and I understand you accomplished that several months ago by moving material from apartheid to Apartheid outside of South Africa and then dispersing that material. I just don't see how that action by you is professional. Like it or not the apartheid analogy is part of the discourse both within Israel (with even Ehud Olmert using it) and between Israel and its critics. You can't make that disappear Jayjg no matter how much you want to. Not with thousands of hits for "israeli apartheid" in google, not with numerous references in scholarly publications, not with references in the Economist. Sorry, but you have to put your POV aside. Homey 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to put nonsensical and false words in my mouth, or make strawman arguments on my behalf. If allegations of apartheid are encyclopedic, then Wikipedia needs to deal with them in an encyclopedic and professional way, which means neutrally, properly sourced, and in context - i.e. the Apartheid outside of South Africa article. I've been saying the same thing for weeks, so it's rather tiresome to see you continually try to twist that into something else. Your use of dishonest argumentation makes collaborative work quite difficult. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why have you been trying to merge this article into that one despite the fact that it is a) too long and b) independently notable enough to merit its own article? Is it because that article is an orphaned one that no one will ever see? And isn't your intent to ulimately have Apartheid outside of South Africa removed once you have Israeli apartheid merged into it?Homey 21:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you not read my comments at all? Allegations of Apartheid are common; in fact, the sheer numbers and breadth of "apartheid" allegations makes the phenomenon itself notable, and it benefits the reader to see them in context, so they can be compared and contrasted. Rather than trying to "disappear" claims of Israeli apartheid, I have actually been trying to include them in a far more interesting, informative, and useful article. Your opinions that the Israeli apartheid stub is "too long" to merge and "independently notable enough to merit its own article", is just that, an opinion; however, the fact remains that the entire Apartheid outside of South Africa article, including the material about Israel, still does not exceed 32K, so it's hardly too lengthy. Finally, regarding your continued pejorative speculations, they are violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF; as mentioned above, these kinds of tactics make collaborative work quite difficult. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you support moving both Apartheid outside of South Africa and Apartheid (disambiguation) to Apartheid as Kim suggests?Homey 22:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they should all be moved to Allegations of Apartheid, along with Israeli Apartheid, Sexual apartheid, Gender apartheid, and Global apartheid. This proliferation of tiny little political POV articles is helpful to no-one. Frankly, History of South Africa in the apartheid era is a terrible name for the article. While I understand that there was a consensus to name it that, and I respect that, I think the main article should be about the real Apartheid, that of South Africa, with a small section describing use of the term outside of the actual Apartheid, and linking to the Allegations of Apartheid article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Israeli apartheid merits its own article as it is second only to "South African apartheid" hit wise and is a far, far more widespread concept in the literature than other uses of appartheid. I also think, given that it's now part of the mainstream Israeli discourse (in the sense of a spectre rather than as an allegation about the present), an independent article is needed. Homey 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your opinion on that is clear, and has been from the start. And I have made it clear that the article is a stub (along with several others), and needs to be included in a larger discussion, ideally that of the entire phenomenon of apartheid allegations. Other reasonable possibilities involve including it in articles discussing the Israeli-Arab conflict, among other things, as this is just one component of the ongoing propaganda war. Rather than deleting material from and inserting two dozen merge templates into article in an attempt to forestall any merger, why not just accept that there are different points of view, and work in a collegial way towards consensus here? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they should all be moved to Allegations of Apartheid, along with Israeli Apartheid, Sexual apartheid, Gender apartheid, and Global apartheid.

If that's what you think then there should only be one tag on this article "mergeto:Allegations of Apartheid"Homey 22:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view that's the best choice; however, the other possibilities are reasonable as well. As I said above, this is just part of the ongoing Israeli-Arab conflict, specifically the propaganda war. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add any templates to Apartheid outside of South Africa. I corrected two that were pointing to red links. In any case, there was no consensus for your merger proposal when you made it a few weeks ago so there is nothing to forestall.Homey 22:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been a good discussion yet on the merger proposal, both articles still needed to be cleaned up, and in any event the issue was broader than the two articles. Both articles still need work, particularly the Apartheid outside of South Africa article, but it's a start. Now we can draw in a wider set of eyes, discuss the entire issue (not just these two articles), and build a consensus one way or the other. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll on Israeli Apartheid merger proposals

Do you agree that all the merger proposals listed in Israeli apartheid should be rejected and the tags removed?

• Yes. Homey 20:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• No, unless they are removed from both articles. Alternatively, the one merger proposal of the two articles could be examined. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• No because this article should be merged into another article for the reasons I have given several times. My current preference for the title of that article would be something like "Use of "Apartheid" as a political epithet." The current article, "Apartheid outside South Africa" could serve that purpose, once this article is merged into it and the article is moved to the new title. I wonder, however, why I need to keep voting on what is essentially the same question; I have already lost count. 6SJ7 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. Various merge/rename/delete proposals have been made and argued; there's even a vote in progress elsewhere on a rename. No consensus is emerging. I think we're stuck with the articles we've got, unless someone goes through the formal Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure. Besides, merging won't stop the disputes; they'll just move with the merge. --John Nagle 21:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• No, as there is no consensus that the articles should not be merged. It is inappropriate to remove the tags until a consensus is reached. Pecher ^Talk 21:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say, use this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• No, as per Jayjg. -- Heptor _talk 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

{{ApartheidMerges|date=December 2006}}

Poll on Apartheid outside of South Africa merger proposals

Do you agree that all the merger proposals listed in Apartheid outside of South Africa should be rejected and the tags removed?

• No, unless they are removed from both articles. Alternatively, the one merger proposal of the two articles could be examined. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this discussion be on Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa?Homey 21:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the two issues are intimately related. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• No per my comment above. I am sure most the multiple merge tags on that page can be removed, but it should be taken on a case by case basis. As for where this poll should be taken, I agree with Jay. A large part of the problem with those whole issue has been that the discussions have been fragmented into too many different places. 6SJ7 21:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment {{mergefrom A}} in article B is a back pointer for a {{mergeto B}} in article A. Mergefrom tags should be brought into line with mergeto tags. Also, if you create a "mergeto" tag, you're supposed to add an entry to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, and that hasn't been happening. --John Nagle 21:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• No: this is basically the same question as above, so the answer is the same too. Pecher ^Talk 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• No Apartheid outside of South Africa should be merged with Apartheid (disambiguation)Homey 21:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)