Talk:Israeli apartheid

This article was nominated for deletion on 29/5/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

POV tag

Would it be possible to make this more POV? I don't think so. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, you posted your pov notice while I was writing a "criticism" section. Homey 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Needed

To avoid POV you may wish to focus more centrally on the history of the idea of Israeli apartheid and make sure that you distinguish Zionism and Israel because I think that the term is more often meant to be Zionist Israeli Apartheid rather than Israeli Apartheid. It is, however, a legit term but I think it needs to be presented is a different fashion. --Strothra 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Preposterous

Even with the "criticism" section, this article is completely preposterous. So now every time someone calls something a name, there has to be an article about it? Between this, "Wall of Shame," "Apartheid Wall" and other "articles," Wikipedia is quickly becoming an Encyclopedia of Name-Calling. If I knew how to request the deletion of an article (yes, I know I should), I would do it with this one. It's ridiculous. 6SJ7 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

um. The concept of Israeli apartheid is not new. I've heard it since the early nineties. It is, however, controversial but the article does not claim to take a stance on it. The article seems to be improving and making itself to be more about the controversy surrounding the term. I still believe that it needs to do more research into the history of the term itself though because it would also be quite interesting. --Strothra 04:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7, you would have a point if there were only a handful of instances where the term has been used. However, if you google "Israeli apartheid" you will get approximately 240,000 hits[1]. I would agree that "every time someone calls something a name" there needn't be an article about it but when 240,000 people use a phrase it's notable. Homey 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there you have it. But please keep up your work in doing research into this article and improving it. The article should not stand on Google alone. Make the article one that stands on solid research. --Strothra 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7, you must be more specific. What, exactly, in the article is inaccurate? What, exactly, is NPOV? Please give specific examples. Homey 04:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And what, specifically, in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is being violated?Homey 04:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reinserting the unencyclopedic tag, just because the name has a couple hundred thousand hits does not automatically mean there should be an article about it. It clearly represents a strong pov, just because it doesn't take an explicit stance on the subject doesn't mean it isn't doing it implicitly.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an article can take an implicit stance, however, I feel that an article which is taking a controversial but established term, such as this one, and presents both sides of the controversy is not violating POV. The point is, this article will have to present both sides clearly and equally and establish the history of the term in a well-cited well-researched manner that includes verifiable and reliable sources. --Strothra 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The qualification "established" should apply to academic community, rather than hateblog. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject. The term itself represents a pov, if it should be mentioned on wikipedia at all it should be on another article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Moshe, can you give me a specific citation of what in Wikipeida:What Wikipedia is not is being violated? If you can't do this then the tag can't stay on. Homey 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 2)"By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject." That's absolutely preposterous. The term is widely used and merits definition and exposition. Just because you don't like a phrase doesn't mean you can ban it from wikipedia if it is in broad use. This looks like an attempt to censor a concept for POV reasons. The term is in wide use, your comments on NPOV should be directed at the article, not its title. Homey 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anything has been established and if articles were required, in practice, to generally meet that requirement on Wikipedia then most articles here would be speedily deleted and I feel that the community is growing impatient with my AfD's. I don't think that this article even approaches hateblog right now. All this is why I requested a peer review so that the article will get the attention it needs. --Strothra 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of the title it's taking a stance?? I could see that if the title was Israel practices apartheid but it's not. It's presenting the term, which is a term which exists and is established. --Strothra 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now been edit-conflicted out of commenting four times, so some of this may seem out of place. My original explanations for my tags didn't make it to the page when I thought it did, and now the explanation is already moot and the tags have been changed back and forth several times. Humus and Moshe have expressed what I would have said, and I feel the tags are ok as they are now -- but only as a preliminary to eliminating or merging this article out of existence, or at least re-titling it. After all, Wikipedia is the place where you can't have an article called "Palestinian terrorism" (something that undoubtedly exists and has existed for many years) without it being turned into "Palestinian political violence," and I and others have had to fight just to keep the word "terrorism" somewhere in the first paragraph -- and yet there can be an article "Israeli apartheid"? Ridiculous. 6SJ7 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You should be warned that it's going to be really really really difficult to WP:AGF with your edits when you've admitted to wishing to edit this article in order to destroy it. --Strothra 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And where exactly did I do that? Please notice that I have not touched one word of the text of the article, and I do not intend to. So how is that I have admitted wishing to edit it in order to destroy it? I am not editing it. There are procedures on Wikipedia for deleting, merging and re-naming articles, and if I do not get around to following one of those procedures, I hope someone else does. This article cannot become a proper encyclopedia article, and that is why I have put back the unencyclopedic tag. By the way, that tag is justified by Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 6SJ7 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

When you wrote " I feel the tags are ok as they are now -- but only as a preliminary to eliminating or merging this article out of existence, or at least re-titling it." You stated your intention to edit the article in order to prepare it for deletion. This would be deconstructive. Although tags may not be deconstructive, there seems to be much discussion of this when I add tags to articles and people wish to lambast me for them, but such line of thinking could lead to very un wiki like behavior. --Strothra 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also an article called Evil empire. Homey 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope the "Evil Empire" is in quotes. If not, it should be. I would say that a phrase that was a centerpiece of a major speech (probably more than one) by a president of the United States becomes encyclopedic all by itself. 6SJ7 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What about a phrase used by a Nobel Prize Winner like Desmond Tutu?Homey 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Or another deranged politician and Nobel Prize Winner Arafat? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So you think fighting against apartheid in South Africa is deranged? Homey 06:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a talent for hypebole and loaded questions. People with good international reputations take crazy positions all of the time. Tutu's support alone does not make it a neutral and mainstream term.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So Tutu is only "deranged" when it comes to Israel? Is that your NPOV assessment? Is he only deranged because he comes to a political conclusion you disagree with?

I never said the term was neutral or mainstream. My concern is that the article is NPOV. The term is used in political discourse on the Middle East, that is not contestable. That you are trying to ban an article on a term you dislike is POV. The NPOV position is to recognise that the term is used with increasing frequency and attempt to write an article explaining the term in an NPOV way. Are you willing or able to do this? Trying to ban a term you don't like is not NPOV. Homey 06:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a "term". As I said elsewhere (you seem to crosspost a lot), maybe we should disambiguate ritual murder and say that it "is a term used by some critics" to describe Jewish customs? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If there were an article called Jewish ritual murder than that article would need to be disambiguated. As it is the ritual murder article is largely about the Jewish blood libel so diambiguation is not necessary.Homey 06:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point, and you are 31 year behind. The accusation of apartheid (along with other similar crap) was a part of 1975 "Zionism is racism" Cold War effort. Even the UN revoked it, so stop your propaganda. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the 2001 World conference against racism adopted resolution labelling Israel as such. Also nearly 30,000 to 50,000 people turned up to protest Israel's alleged apartheid.[2]. This term is a 21st century one.Bless sins 10:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not condoning the phrase, I simply recognize that it's in use and merits a wikipedia article. Please set your POV aside. Homey 07:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We obviously have articles about notable fringe organizations, Your basically arguing that the term "Israeli Apartheid" is notable enough in of itself, however the term is not some organization, it is a pov term that other fringe organizations use. For example, it would be fine if we wanted to write articles about those same groups themselves, just not about every single claim or charge they make. Would we write an article about some of the horrible things that the KKK believe in?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should call it a night with this article. It's getting heated and needs new voices and opinions. I feel that we're headed to polarized arguments here. --Strothra 05:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be moved to Israel and aparthied, like Zionism and Racism adn Islam and anti-Semitism.Bless sins 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That would suggest an article about the relationship between Israel and South Africa's apartheid regime.

As for the new title of "Israeli apartheid (phrase)" that would make sense if we were trying to disambiguate from other "Israeli apartheids" as we aren't its a meaningless change. Homey 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is less valid than Iranian genocidal intentions

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Iranian+genocidal+intentions&spell=1

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=Iranian+OR+iran+%22genocidal+intentions%22&btnG=Search

People should really review WP:not Zeq 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What? How do Iranian genocidal intentions factor into this discussion? What are you talking about? What part of WP:NOT are you claiming that this article does not meet? Please provide constructive comments so that the article may be updated accordingly. --Strothra 14:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day! Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedic. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No. 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. For a wiki-like site that will publish your original thoughts, see Everything2.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Vanity, and Wikipedia:Notability. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. [edit] Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Wikipedia may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. 1 Wikipedia articles are not:

Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines. Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources (including mathematical tables, astronomical tables, or source code) should go into Wikisource. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. [edit] Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site

Zeq 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not copy the entirety of a WP policy into the talk page. Please see WP:POINT. Also see WP:DICK. You were asked to point out the specific areas of the WP:NOT policy which you feel this article does not comply with. Please see WP:CIVIL as your actions may be construed as hostile. --Strothra 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not one iota of original research in the article. Homey 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Two comments below have been copied from user talk pages:

2. 13:09, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Usage - neither is informationclearinghouse.info)
3. 13:08, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Analogy - globalexchange.org is not a reliable source)

They may or may not be reliable sources for facts about Israel. They are, however, reliable sources for what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are arguing. Homey 13:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, unsigned articles or articles by a random writer from random websites cannot possibly be reliable sources on any matter. Pecher ^Talk 13:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

InformationClearingHouse.info, as I understand it, does not publish original material, but rather republished material from other sites. Also, as I understand it, InformationClearingHoust.info, is one big copyright violation. Thus if you find material on ICH.info, I would recommend trying to find the original source and use that. (I've never heard of GlobalExchange.org) --Ben Houston 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Economist and BBC articles are unsigned as well as a rule. Please don't make up non-existent wikipedia rules. GlobalExchange is a reliable source for what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are saying.Homey 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The website does not give any indication that these proponents are somehow notable so that their opinions are worthy of being included into Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

GlobalExchange is a reliable source only as far as one article: Global Exchange. See WP:RS Zeq 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather tortured argument. The phrase renders over 200,000 hits so it meets our standards of notability. Global Exchange is a widely recognized pro-Palestinian site so their publications are recognizable as representative of pro-Palestinian views. Moreover, their pages are amply footnoted. If the Jewish Virtual Library, which also has unsigned articles, is a credible representative of the pro-Zionist view then Global Exchange is a credible representative of the opposite. I don't see you objecting to the use of JVL as a source in this article. Why would that be?Homey 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is nice but does not meet WP:RS. Zeq 18:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How doesn't it? Zeq, by your argument Jewish Virtual Library doesn't meet WPRS either. Shall we now remove all factoids from wikipedia that are credited to JVL?Homey 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. material from JVL was in the past removed in some cases. Zeq 18:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And Zeq, one more revert and I'm going to prepare to take you to the ArbComm for POV vandalism. Given you editing history I'd strongly caution you to cease or desist lest you face a longterm ban. Homey 18:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So far you are the only one violating policy here. read WP:RS . Zeq 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed content

I dispute this paragrpah (it is not NPOV):

Israeli apartheid is a controversial phrase used by some anti-Zionists and Palestinian rights activists to draw an analogy between the policies of the Israeli government towards Palestinians to those of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations. The analogy has been used as early as 1987 by Uri Davis, an Israeli-born academic and Jewish member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in his book Israel: An Apartheid State (ISBN 0862323177) which provided a detailed comparison of Israel and South Africa. The highly controversial World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa adopted resolutions describing Israel as an "apartheid state"[3]. Nobel Peace Prize winner and South African anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu wrote in some articles that the situation in Israel reminded him about Apartheid[4].

and this was is based on a source which does not meet WP:RS:

Analogy

- Proponents of this term argue that while Israel grants some rights to Arabs living in Israel within its pre-1967 borders, it routinely discriminates against Arabs living in the Occupied Territories. Proponenets present a number of reasons for this.[5] - *Palestinians (as opposed to Israeli Arabs) do not have voting rights as do citizens of Israel, but they are under Israeli occupation and subject to the laws and policies of the Israeli government and its military. (Ibid) - *Israel has constructed settlements in the West Bank, where Israeli settlers enjoy high standards of living with respect to the local Palestinian population. These colonies also expend large amounts of resources (especially water), at the expense of the local inhabitants, who are forced to make ends meet. (Ibid) - *Israel has created roads and checkpoints that isolate Palestinian communities and have effectively formed an Israeli version of the South African Bantustans. (Ibid) - *Israeli road plans in the West Banks have been condemned as "apartheid" as some roads would be reserved for Palestinians while others would be reserved for Israelis[6]. - Proponents of this term often claim discrimination against Israeli Arabs. [7] - *Jews can easily enter Israel, under the Law of Return, yet Palestinians who fled or were driven out, may not have the Right of return.(Ibid) - *Arab municipalities receive less than one fifth the funding that is given to their Jewish counterparts. (Ibid) - *The Government of Israel often refuses to grant permits to build or repair homes, and fails to provide electricity, water, health services, education, roads, or any other infrastructure. One of the consequences is that 70% of Negev Desert Bedouin (Arab) infants are not fully immunized and one third are hospitalized within their first year of life. (Ibid)

Please keep in mind what wikipedia is not and don't turn this article into a political attenpt to delegitimize Israel. The place to argue about the rights and wrongs (there are mnay) of Israel policies is not in this encyclopedia. Zeq 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There a few claims which seem factually incorrect, yet to change them would undermine the reasoning behind making them to begin with:

• With exception to the "Law of Return," Arab citizens of Israel don't have some rights, but equal rights (legally, at the minimum).
• Palestinians have voting rights in the Palestinian Authority controlled areas
• Both settler and Palestinian standards of living fluctuate, and don't necessarily correlate to political status (There are poor settlers and rich Palestinians - rich settlers aren't rich because they make Palestinians poor). While some resources (like land) are expended by the settlements, I believe that the vast majority of water is piped in from Israel's own grid.
• I'm not overly familiar with the Bantustan concept, but the isolation is not dejure, and isn't part of a strategy of labour capitalisation (in the past, at least, when checkpoints and travel-restrictions were minimal or nonexistent).
• To the best of my knowledge, the Israeli built road system (bypass roads) are the main arteries for Palestinian travel, while their use is sometimes restricted to mass-transit, and curtailed altogether at times. The Guardian article refers to a proposed plan.

Again, I don't take issue with the claims per-se, but rather I'm unclear as to what the best method of remaining faithful to facts without compromising the pro-"apartheid" POV may be. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• The roads issue is covered here by B'Tselem [8] and I quote:

"This system enables Israel to designate use of some of the roads in the West Bank for the primary or exclusive use of Israelis, mainly settlers living in the West Bank. [...] Prolonged checks and searches carried out by soldiers at the staffed checkpoints and the accompanying degradation and long lines deter Palestinians from using even some roads that are open to them. Consequently, there is light Palestinian travel on some of the main West Bank roads, and these roads are essentially used only by settlers."

Roads which dead-end at a settlement there is very little Palestinian-license plate travel. Other roads are sometime limited to cars with Israeli license plate plus any cargo or public transport (no private cars). In any case it is not racial at all as Palestinians who travle in Israeli license cars (such as Palestinian residents pf e. jerusalem or Palestinians with israeli ID (there are over 1.5 million of them) can get an israeli license plate and travel on every road. No aparthide. Zeq 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• With regards to water, here is a page from B'Tselem [9]. A quote:

"Israel's water policy in the Occupied Territories benefited Israel in two primary ways: (1) Preservation of the unequal division of the shared groundwater in the West Bank's Western Aquifer and Northern Aquifer. This division was created prior to the occupation, a result of the gap between economic and technological development in Israel as opposed to the West Bank. However, the gap would have likely diminished had Israel not prevented it. (2) Utilization of new water sources, to which Israel had no access prior to 1967, such as the Eastern Aquifer (in the West Bank) and the Gaza Aquifer, primarily to benefit Israeli settlements established in those areas."

--Ben Houston 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, the first point's description of unequal division is a general benefit to Israel as a whole, and isn't specific to settlements (and states that the division preceded the Israeli occupation). As for the second point, to the best of my [limited] knowledge, there are no major Israeli drilling sites in the West Bank, but rather dozens of pumping stations that transport water from the Israeli grid up into the hills. B'Tselem didn't provide numbers relating to Israel's utilisation of "new water sources" - joined with the preceding, this leads me to believe that the utilisation is domestic in nature and negligible in overall quantity. I found the following about the Gaza area settlement:

The reason [that there is water in Gush Katif]? He pulls over to show me.(...) Fat white pipes protrude from the sandy soil bound for the concrete storage tanks on the hill above us. This water comes from Israel's National Water Company, pumped from aquifers beneath Israel and the West Bank and diverted from the Jordan River about 100 miles away. The rest of the settlers' water comes from underground, pumped from a sweet pocket of the Gaza aquifer. Together with the water in these pipes, it means no one's thirsty in Gush Katif.[10]

While this report documents utilisation of "new water sources," it seems to regard it as being of secondary importance. Anyhow, if you come up with something else (particularly numbers documenting the "new" utilisation - that would change much) let me know. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In light of the course this page has taken, I've made edits largely based on my comments above, specifically:

• Equal rights
• Arabs with Israeli citizenship living/working in the West Bank have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen.
• The level of water use by settlements is not recorded on the B'Tselem source. See above. Additionally, aside from the use of other resources (land the settlements are built on, closed military areas), the relationship between settler and Palestinian socio-economic status is irrelevant, and not based on fact.
• A plan which was discussed two years ago, and which hasn't been implemented, is irrelevant.

Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted user:Bless sins's reversion of my edits. The reasoning I expressed above wasn't challenged or addressed. I acknowledge that Bless sins stated reasoning was that we aren't here to judge the claims, but I thought we were crossing the line between presenting a POV and presenting non-factual information. Let me know if you believe me to be in error. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Phrase vs. a fact

This article is about a phrase not a fact. IZAK 18:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about propeganda useage of a phrase. Zeq 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it's still a phrase. IZAK 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this move is not properly done. Please discuss it further. Cheers -- Szvest 18:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be Israeli "apartheid" (use of the phrase) Zeq 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1) we do not put words in quotation marks when rendering article titles. 2) see above about adding (phrase), that would be needed if we were disambiguating from other forms of Israeli apartheid, as we aren't it's a ridiculous add-on. Homey 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I wasn't confusing anything - I was referring to Zeq's suggested title of Israeli "apartheid" (use of phrase). Homey 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to stop editing this article for a while

It is impossible to conduct a fair discussion here since Homey has blocked me while placing this edit:

User_talk:Zeq#I_wasabout_to_put_this_on_the_talkpage_of_Israeli_apartheid_.28phrase.29_but_got_blocked

[11]

The facts here are very clear:

Homey starts a POV article, put in disputed content from a non WP:RS source. He edit war 5 times with anyone who disgree with him.

When he suggest that if "his" source is not WP:RS also other sources should be disqulafied as well I agree with him that both sources could be disputed under WP:RS he just continue his edit war.

Other users point out that the "facts" he quotesd are simply wrong [12] but he prefer to block (misuse of admin power) instead of discussing the issue. Zeq 19:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked you for three minutes for vandalizing the article after being warned not to. I unblocked you after three minutes because I thought it would make more sense either for someone else to block you or to take you to ArbComm. Homey 19:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Homey: Regardless of the fact that you may have had good reasons, it is VERY bad form for an admin to block anyone when they are having a dispute with, when they (the admin) is involved in writing the article (besides I have never heard of a "3 minute block" -- is that meant to frighten and intimidate?) The correct thing would be to call on a one or two NEUTRAL admins, not involved with this article, and ask them for their input. If they feel that someone is overstepping the rules then they should give a warning to the person they feel is wrong and then if he disregards that warning take the needed action, by all means, as long as they can justify themselves. But you should not have acted as both advocate and editor of the article as well as the executioner admin and final arbiter. Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done! And in this case it clearly was not. IZAK 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I blocked Zeq for 24 hours, then I thought better of it after three minutes and unblocked him since I didn't think I should be the one doing the block. There are a number of editors attacking this and a related article for POV reasons in what seems to be an effort to destroy it. I find this very frustrating. I would urge people to try to make the article NPOV by adding to it, not by removing things they don't like. Homey 19:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should move this to an WP:RFC on the issue of WP:RS and the fact that Homey totaly ignored this edit:

[13] as well as this section of the talk page:

Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase)#Disputed_content

Zeq 19:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should examine your vandalism in doing things like adding "propaganda" before "phrase" and "false" before "analogy". How can such changes possibly be considered NPOV? And why shouldn't those changes made repeatedly result in your being banned?Homey 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to understand: So you disgree with my edits and decides to take advantage of the fact that I was once before ArbCom and decided to ban me ?

Hopefully, I misunderstood what you just wrote and if so I appologize. Zeq 19:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Homey: Ok, I am sure the intent was good, but it's a (over-) heated subject! I don't know how long you have been editing and writing these type of articles, but by now you should be well aware that they arouse DEEP and heated responses and therefor one needs to be highly sensitive to people who disagree with this POV who may even view it as flamebait. So you needn't over-react, especially as an admin, by using threats like "take you to ArbComm", when as you know, there are lots of more mature steps before that, like a variety of mediation measures. Also, avoid "shooting the messenger" because you don't like the message. IZAK 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To Zeq: This phrase exists and is very "popular" today (in my view it's unfortunate, but what can you do, we cannot control the universe). The phrase is coming up more and more in the media, academia, and in political debates, so it is a valid Wikipedia article, no question about it. It can present all the views in the body of the article. There is nothing to fear. I think it is too early to ask that the article go to "Request for Comment". If you and Homey can calm down and debate it rationally then it can be resolved here. Let us ask other more seasoned editors to give their views here first. Stay calm, everyone. IZAK 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. This is the first issue to consider: [14] and also WP:RS Zeq 19:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"I want to understand: So you disgree with my edits and decides to take advantage of the fact that I was once before ArbCom and decided to ban me ?"

Actually, I did not know you were before the Arbcom before. Given your edits and behaviour here it doesn't surprise me. Evidently you learned nothing from your experience. Homey 20:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You're telling me that Homeontherange, the person who started this article in the first place and has edit-warred over it, is an administrator? I find that unsettling. 6SJ7 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (Edited my own comment. 6SJ7 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Do we have a sockppupet ?

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)

I'm in Toronto. My IP address starts with a 69.Homey 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't see what is wrong with citing the global exchange article as a source. Homey 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there is nothing wrong with citing globalexchange except for a nuisance called WP:RS. Pecher ^Talk 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To Zeq: So basically the article is ok as long as it doesn't actually quote any sources that claim Israel is an "apartheid state" or cite any of their arguments. Can you see why that attitude is POV?Homey 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. see proposal at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29/sandbox Zeq 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A completely one-sided and POV proposal. Zeq, to be NPOV the article has to discuss both sides objectively, including the side you don't like. Can you try to rewrite your proposal so it actually includes what your opponents are saying. Also, a number of left-wing Zionists (such as some in Yahad/Meretz) have also used the apartheid comparison, particularly in reference to the West Bank so your claim that this term is used only by those who want to destroy Israel is obviously wrong. Homey 20:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

wendy campbell

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)

Campbell is *not* a source for the article, she is listed as an external link. I'm fine if you want to remove the link. Homey 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Apartheid wall into article

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)

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)

Merge would be a good idea. --Ben Houston 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Merging would be a good idea.Bless sins 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The consensus at the Apartheid Wall AFD was to merge with Israeli West Bank barrier and that has been done. We should add some reference to the barrier in this article, however. Homey 16:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Israeli apartheid into Israeli-occupied territories

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)

• Agreed! Why hasn't someone written an article about Arab apartheid, such as how Saudi Arabia forbids non-Moslems from entering its borders or living there, or how Christians are persecuted and killed in the Sudan, or how Syrian (and Iraq under Saddam) treat/ed the Kurds, or how Sunnis hate Sh'ites (Iran-Iraq wars). It's a long list, but it's Israel that gets "singled out". IZAK 21:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge too. Pecher ^Talk 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agrre with both. Zeq 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I find this comment hypocritical. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This article is about a sentence (or a phrase) that exists. There is no reason to merge this anywhere. This must be treated npov. That's all. Alithien 22:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC) No reason to write the article "arab apartheid" simply because it is not used. BUT it must be absolutely removed from the article any argument that would state this sentence is justified or unjustified "objectively"; only different minds should be given. Alithien 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Palestinian Voting Rights

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)

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)

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)

What does WP:NPOV mean ?

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)

Disputed text

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)

This is what the proponents argue.Like it or not. Bless sins 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"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)

(phrase)

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)

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)

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)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The use of parantheses is only mentioned in reference to disambiguation. Also:

"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)

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)

Sorry guys but i moved it back to its original name. Discussion about moving titles should be prior to the action itself. Discuss it first and decide what to do with the name. Cheers -- Szvest 17:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

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)

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) ^{Wiki me up™}

Disruptive editing + violations of WP:Point , WP:3RR, WP:SP and admin abuse

Everything I have seen so far in this article (from it's creation) demonstrate that Homey is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. In fact, I would say that this is a very strong disruption. He has even violated 3RR (5 times) and edited under a sockpppuet (to block me while he was blocked) using his admin power (blocking a user with whom he had a dsipute) to intimidate me from editing this article. He also engaged in a campaiagn to ban me from this article so that he can continue using it as a propeganda vehicle. I would suggest to anyone who care to stop editing this article and refert this issue first to Wikipedia ArbCom or to Jimbo Wales. If not this disgracefull article will surly be of interst to others as well.

For more on this issue see: User_talk:Sean_Black#May_I_suggest

Zeq 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Zeq but a sock puppet wouldn't have been able to block you unless the sock pupper were also an admin. I blocked you as User:Homeontherange, not as a sock puppet as is clear from your block log. Speculation is not fact so please don't make up accusations based on false assumptions. As for my "campaign" to ban you from this article, you are on probation because of an ArbComm decision, you violated that probation by tendentious editing - an Arbitrator, Tony Sideway, placed a notice of your probation violation on the ArbComm request section of the Admin notice board and an admin, Steve banned you from this article as a result. That is, an arbitrator and another admin agreed upon examining your edits that they were a violation of your probation.Homey 05:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you blocked me while being blocked from editing [15] and then edited using this sockppuet: [16]. The above shows you are also trying now to hide the truth. As for your campaign I know by far more than you think. Zeq 05:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PS, you have misrepresent what Tony did, all he did was to move your request to the right place where your request should have been and he told you about where such request be moved to: [17], [18] Zeq 05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do an IP check as 205.188.116.67 is not and has never been my IP. I am in Canada and have no access to US AOL IPs (and don't use AOL as my ISP in any case) I suspect from the fact that that IP was also editing New York State related articles, an IP trace will find that that IP is no where near my location. Sorry. Again, when you make assumptions you only make an ass of yourself. Homey 05:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you blocked me while you were blocked from editing. (do you deny that ?) You blocked a user withwhom you had a dispute. (do you deny that ?) Your whole behaviour in this issue is completly inappropriate. (Do you deny that ?)

It is quite possible to use a dial-up and place a message of ban on my user page from NY although you are editing from canada. In fact, the only person in the whole world have the desire to "celebrate his win" and place the "this user is banned for ever notice" on my user page is you (and we have the testimony of Fred Bauder that you have banned me after misundestanding his e-mail to you). Please do not add lies to a whole list of mis use of admin power. Zeq 05:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would I bother doing that? Why would I call long distance to put a tag on your page rather than use a local ISP? In any case, a check of the IPs I've logged in from will show that I have *never* used an AOL IP. By your theory, I would have subscribed to AOL in the US rather than Canada, dial long distance just I could tag your page (and make some edits to New York state related articles). Sorry but that's begging credulity.

Zeq, you are on probation (do you admit that?), the ArbComm ruling against you allows any admin to take action against you if you violate your probation (do you admit that?). Nevertheless, I emailed *all* the Arbitrators in your case before doing anything and only acted once I got a response from Fred Bauder. I then reversed the ban after a few minutes because I thought if I banned you you'd argue conflict of interest so it would be better if I presented the evidence of your edits and allowed others to act. I did so and they did so. End of story. And still you can't just say "sorry" for breaking your probation and making tendentious edits. Zeq, are you able to admit your edits violated your probation? If you aren't then I fear it won't be long til you get in trouble again.Homey 05:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You took unilatheral action against an editor you were invloved in dispute. That is on record.

Now you also admit a wide scale e-mail campaign against me.

This shows intent to do what you did next. Zeq 05:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it showed intent not to act unilaterally and intent to ensure that I had the support of the ArbComm before taking any action against you. And what did *you* do to get *yourself* banned, Zeq? Anything? Anything at all? Did you do anything wrong? Are you able to admit that you violated your probation? Or do you only ever see yourself as a victim?Homey 06:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• More misreprestnation: We all know you acted unilaterlay and inappropertly :

Here is what others had to say about it:

Homey: Regardless of the fact that you may have had good reasons, it is VERY bad form for an admin to block anyone when they are having a dispute with, when they (the admin) is involved in writing the article (besides I have never heard of a "3 minute block" -- is that meant to frighten and intimidate?) The correct thing would be to call on a one or two NEUTRAL admins, not involved with this article, and ask them for their input. If they feel that someone is overstepping the rules then they should give a warning to the person they feel is wrong and then if he disregards that warning take the needed action, by all means, as long as they can justify themselves. But you should not have acted as both advocate and editor of the article as well as the executioner admin and final arbiter. Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done! And in this case it clearly was not. IZAK 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Homeontherange has just reverted the same article once again despite being warned not to. To attempt to get around this he stated he was removing vandalism, even though it was clear the edits wouldn't qualify as such by any criteria.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious Homey is attempting to drum up support so that he can get out of a block.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• After no admin wesnt along with you, you acted unilaterly and blocked me. (only later did you start the e-mail campaign).
• you attempt to confuse the timing of these issues is not honest. Zeq 06:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you have yet to deal with the edits that actually got you banned from this article. You have a lot to say about everything except the actual actions *by you* that got you banned. Take some responsibility for heaven's sake. I'm done talking to you about this. Homey 06:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• of course I am rsponsible(I was not using SockPupet) My edits were reasonable and this will come out eventually. Zeq 06:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

taking responsibility for your own actions means being able to see that a) you made a mistake by violating your probation b) your own actions led to your being banned c) expressing regret for your mistake. Instead you insist your edits were "reasonable" even after *other* admins (ie not me) have ruled them tendentious and meriting a ban. Evidently, you've learned nothing from your ArbComm experience and nothing from probation. Homey 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Tony did, all he did was to move your request to the right place where your request should have been and he told you about where such request be moved to"

Actually, if you read that board you'll see that only Arbitrators can report incidents there. Sorry. Homey 05:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing on this sock puppet accusation you were tagged by an AOL IP at the same time that I was logged in as Homeontherange from a non-AOL IP so, for your theory to work, I would have needed two computers and two different phone lines. As I said earlier, why would anyone have bothered?Homey 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to ask anyone to take responsibility, Zeq's actions have been far from exemplary, but they pale in comparison to yours. You continue to abuse your adminstrative tools by using them to gain an edge in a dispute, one in which you are undoubtedly the prime instigator of. When anybody even touches your tendentious edits you accuse them of violating at least one of several rules. You seem to forget that admins technically have no more status the other users, as it actually seems that you believe that disagreeing with you is grounds for a block. I have seen few editors behave as badly as you have these last two days, it makes it infintitely worse that you are an administrator.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made no tendentious edits. As for Zeq, he was on probation (why don't you go find out *why* he was on probation). He violated his probation despite warnings. Other admins have ruled that he was in violation and another admin has banned Zeq as a result. Accept it. Homey 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You have made 45 edits in 48 hours in this article. (although for 24 hours of which you were under block for 5 violation sof 3RR) . Your edits included noumerous other edits resulting in restoring this article to more or less the initial revision which you started. This is clear tendentious edits, disruptive and WP:Point violations. (also clear violation of WP:RS by using a biased source for most of this article.

On the other hand I have made 3-4 edits (10% of you) but that was enough for you to convince other admins (1 of the many you e-mailed) that this was "tendentious edits". This is a joke and clear abuse of your Admin tools. I am sure that out of the many Admins you have took this campiagn you were able to find one , who when he also would bother bother to check all facts will recind this ban. We already saw what you wrote to Fred which was a misreprestation of what went on here. Zeq 06:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've already stated, I'm not letting Zeq of the hook, I rarely agree with the way that he edits and this is no execption. However, your violations really took it to the next level. If by tendentious edits you mean disagreeing with User:Homeontherange, then I suppose you didn't make any, however if by tendentious you mean "Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections" then you more guilty of it than any administrator I have ever encountered, you have also been incredibly stubborn, condenscending, and arrogant. All of which puts you far from a position where you can credibly criticize others.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Free advice to Homey

When you are in a hole the first thing is to stop digging. Zeq 07:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Decision by ArbCom

My understanding is that the source (global Exchnage) used for most of this article does not meet WP:RS as well as this decision by ArbCom:

Verifiability and sources 2) Information used in articles, especially those whose content is contested, should be verified by reference to a reliable and scholarly source, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Support: Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Charles Matthews 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Jayjg (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:

Zeq 07:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Complete failure of NPOV - again

Imagine that an article on the Iranian president will look like this:

http://babakdenver.blogspot.com/2006/05/is-iran-president-ahmadinejad-crazy-or.html

One side

The Iranian presdient is a lunatic because ......

The other side

Other argue He is not lunatic becase.......

This is NPOV ?

Clearly not. because NPOV does not mean getting a stage to a wild accuastion and then using Wikipedia to discuss the rights and wrong of that minority view. 12:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

11:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Banning of Zeq

Under the remedy in Zeq's arbitration case he may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any article which he disrupts by tendentious (aggressive biased) editing. While I would not have banned Zeq myself from this article (he had not done a lot of edit warring and was using the talk page to discuss issues) there are sufficient grounds (in my opinion) to ban him. He should only be blocked if he violates the ban by attempting to edit the article. Fred Bauder 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he makes a good point that the article has propagandistic elements as it is very difficult to see how the opposing viewpoint could be expressed in terms other than denial. It is more or less equivalent to "[[Israeli fascism]]" Fred Bauder 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zeq&curid=2801223&diff=56124135&oldid=56118741

Niger is a good example how this article should

"Nigger, also spelled niger (obs.), nigor (obs. dial. Eng.), nigre, nigar (Caribbean), niggor (obs. dial.), neger (obs. U.S.), niggur, nigga, niggah, (obs.), is an extremely pejorative term used for racial abuse towards black people. During the period when slavery was practiced worldwide, and in particular by the United States and European countries, and for several decades after Europe and North America prohibited slavery, it was a standard, casual English term for black people. The word traditionally has been associated with an often casual contempt, a racist assumption of black inherent inferiority, even of bestiality, making it extremely pejorative."

suggestion for lead paragrpah

"a focused, targeted propaganda campaign for a political platform that according to Abraham Cooper, is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state". "

Left Zionists and Israeli apartheid

From the Jerusalem Post:

May. 15, 2006 1:41 | Updated May. 15, 2006 9:18

Left appalled by citizenship ruling

By SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKEL

Israel was branded an "apartheid state" by left-wing Knesset members on Sunday, who responded fiercely to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the existing Citizenship and Entry Law.[19]

Homey 17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The " " sais it all. RenyD 17:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it says that certain members of the Knesset used that term to describe Israel. People use quotation marks when they wish to repeat word-for-word what another individual has stated. --Strothra 18:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And further reading reveals that a number of those MKs belong to left wing Zionist parties (Meretz-Yahada is represented in the World Zionist Organization). Homey 18:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe puts in his edit note: "Your only proof for this is their membership in WZO, the labour party is is the world socialist organization)"

First of all, it's possible for a party to belong to more than one international organization. Both Labour and Meretz are members of *both* the WZO and the Socialist International. Secondly, as for my "only proof", a prerequisite of membership in the WZO is being a Zionist so yes, a party that belongs to the WZO and is represented in the World Zionist Congress (as Labour and Meretz/Yahad are)is a Zionist party even if that is in conflict with Moshe's POV. Homey 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of political parties who are members of Socialist international but can really no longer be called socialist, it is the same thing for WZO.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And so you are the arbiter of whether or not a party is Zionist filtered through your particular view of what Zionism is? What complete nonsense. You are showing a profound ignorance of Zionist history and the role the leftists you now claim are not Zionists had in the establishement of the State of Israel. Meretz is by its own policies and declaration a Zionist party and the fact that they belong to the WZO/WZC means they are recognised as such by the predominant Zionist authority in the world. Homey 18:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your molding whatever I said into a strawman version without addressing a single real argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss what I said about WZO membership? Please read up on Labour Zionism as well. Better yet, get yourself elected to the World Zionist Congress and move a motion expelling Yachad. Once you've succeeded come back here and tell us Yachad is not considered Zionist. Homey 19:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Its always comes out rather ludicrous when someone acting as arrogant as yourself is using such over-simplifications and generalizations. I possess quite a bit of knowledge about the founding of Israel and the left-wing routes of Zionism. However the meaning of Zionism has changed considerably in the past half-century, as has the politics of meretz and indeed all Israeli political parties. Just like not every political party in socialist international is really socialist anymore, not every party in the WZO can be automatically described as Zionist.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are not the authority on what is and what is not considered Zionist. We have to go by authoritative criteria such as WZO/WZC recognition etc, not your personal ideological interpretation. Homey 19:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said I was the authority. You can't just use criteria like that, by the same criteria you would come to the conclsuon that the Labor party is still socialist which it clearly isn't.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What is my source for saying Meretz/Yachad is Zionist? The WZO/WZC. What is your source for saying Meretz/Yachad is not Zionist? Yourself. Can you provide any actual source that says Yachad is not Zionist? (not original research from which you derive your conclusion) Homey 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is your research that says that all member of WZO are automatically zionist, you are basicially just assuming. You obviously misunderstand these types of organizations.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Where is your research"

The WZO constitution that outlines criteria for membership. Conversely, you have yet to provide one source for your claim. Homey 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Shulamit Aloni, who uses the phrase, was a member of the Hagana and fought to liberate Jerusalem in 1948. Sorry Moshe but that makes her more of a Zionist than most. Homey 00:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Are there any reliable sources using this phrase? So far I'm mostly seeing propaganda sites which don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Can this be cleaned up please? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Nation, the BBC, the Guardian, the Jerusalem Post, the British Medical JournalHomey 20:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, let's remove anything that isn't reliable, then. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So are you conceding that the phrase is used by reliable sources then? When can we expect you to change your vote on the AFD?Homey 20:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

First I'm going to try to clean up the garbage that has already infested this POV-magnet attack page; then we'll see what's left to work with. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question and suggestion Jay. Most of this article is based on one source: globalexchange.com - not a WP:RS (see Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase)#Decision_by_ArbCom) . Zeq 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This source is cited for many of the claims, but is at times extremely misleading (wrong?). Also, not every offense committed against Palestinians is tantamount to apartheid - where can the line be drawn? Tewfik^Talk 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is by a professor of middle east history outlining his views on Israeli apartheid. The section in the article is on what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" say therefore the source is reliable on two counts a) made by an academic expert in the area b) made by a proponent of the phrase. Homey 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is the non-academic personal web site of a partisan with an axe to grind. It does not meet WP:RS Isarig 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is not by the host of the website but by a professor of middle east history. Homey 02:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Then find a WP:RS that publishes that article. As a reminder: "Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. " Isarig 03:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a similar article by Davidson published in the journal Logos [20]. There's also this article by Davidson in Logos where he refers to Israel as "a wretched apartheid state"[21]. Many of the same points Davidson makes in the article carried on Baker's website are made in this article by Davidson and Baker published in the Australian journal Borderlands[22]. Homey 03:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.monabaker.com/ is a blog it happend to have in the past to include links leading to neo-Nazi material. Indeed a WP:RS source. Zeq 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

1) You evidently don't know what a blog is.

You can idenify a blog when you see one: [23]

2) The article on the site is not by Mona Baker but by Lawrence Davidson, a professor of history specialising in the Middle East 3) You have yet to produce any evidence of your "neo-Nazi" allegation. Please don't engage in libels and smears. Homey 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a self published web site (which like a blog is not WP:RS. As for the connection to Neo nazis see below. Zeq 04:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I hope everyone is in good spirits. I realise there are a number of discussions going on...

I'd like to question the usage of this source, as well as the ensuing quotation of questionable facts in the passage:

Israel has constructed "Jewish-only" [6] settlements in the West Bank, which preclude "some of the most fertile land and richest water resources in the West Bank" from the "indigenous population" [7]. (Ibid)

First of all, the source deals with the effects of the "apartheid wall," so at the least should be cited there. Beyond that, I'm unclear how to separate between the claims and reality. While the passage places in quotations some problematic statements like those addressed at Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase)#Analogy, at what point does it cease to present a POV and act as a disseminator of nonfactual information? I'm committed to maintaining an NPOV, but I'm not sure if this type of passage contributes to that end. Cheers all, and happy editing. Tewfik^Talk 06:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bantustans and apartheid

Jay, how can you possibly argue that linking Bantustans with apartheid is "original research"? See [24]and [25]. Any sources on Bantustans will speak of them being a feature of apartheid and vice versa. The reference to Bantustans and the West Bank should be restored as clearly referring to Bantustans is a reference to apartheid. Or is it your argument that Bantustan is not an Afrikaans word but a Hebrew or Arabic one? If so I'd love to see your sources. Homey 19:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about a phrase, it's not a soapbox for an argument. Please find sources promoting that phrase, not anything remotely related. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So it is your position that someone alleging that Israel is setting up "Bantustans" is not arguing that there is an "Israeli apartheid". Keep splitting those hairs. Homey 20:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's about the phrase Israeli apartheid, not about various arguments people use to vilify Israel. Please ensure the article is kept on subject, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The same person who alleged that Israel is setting up "Bantustans" also alleged it is setting up "cantons" - in the same sentence, and in trhe same context. Shall we rename this article Israeli Switzerland? Or should we go edit the Switzerland article to reflect that the Swiss federal system is actually a variant of Apartheid? Isarig 01:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Other uses ignored

The article seems to focus on the fact that non-notables like student demonstrators use the term, but fails to note its prevalent use among neo-Nazis and anti-Semites such as David Duke and Jew Watch. I've rectified that. Let's make sure we give the reader the complete picture of the phrase's use. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Usage by student groups is far better known than usage by Duke or Jew Watch. I would suspect many more people have heard of "Israeli Apartheid Week" on campus than have heard of Duke's comments and, frankly, since Duke et al were pro-apartheid in the 1970s and 1980s they would not coin the term or promote its use - rather this sounds like appropriation of an existing phrase. Also, Duke also uses terms like "Zionist", does that mean we should cite him prominently in the Zionism article? This looks to me like Jay trying to poison the well by suggestiong guilt by association. (ie David Duke used the phrase once, therefore it means it's a neo-nazi phrase)Homey 22:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

David Duke is much more prominent then "Israeli Apartheid Week", besides even if it wasn't it is still cearly notable enought for a mention.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Prominent usage. Just because David Duke uses a word doesn't mean he's a prominent user of the term ie of the citations extant for "Israeli apartheid" how many can be attributed to Duke and neo-nazis versus attribution to non-nazis? I find it odd that Jay puts David Duke in the opening but not Desmond Tutu who is widely attributed with popularising the phrase. Homey 22:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, David Duke has used the term *twice* and his usage of the term has never been reported by major media (unlike, say, Tutu or Aloni's usage or that of student groups at Oxford or University of Toronto). I think Jay's trying to poison the well by putting marginal usage by neo-nazis in the opening. Homey 23:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, it doesn't matter how many times DD repeated it - once is enough. Both DD and JW are in the mainstream of what they and you carefully call "critics of Israel" or "critics of Zionism" and insist that they work only to educate the public. We cannot ignore the major antisemitic component in this namecalling and one-dimensional POV that you keep pushing onto WP. I can professionally translate some articles published by the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management (often featuring DD), it is much less selective in their "criticism" than English-language press. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They are hardly in the "mainstream" of anything, let alone the Palestinian rights movement or even the anti-Zionist movement. Their use of the term is mentioned under "Usage" but to put it in the lead of the article is misrepresentative and poisons the well. Homey 00:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The neo Nazi connection to "israeli apartheid"

Homey base most of this article on quotes from Mona baker site as well as info that apear on a web site by Wendy campbell - both are associates of Sue Blackwell. Here is some of what was published about this trio:

The Neo Nazi Ties of those UK Academic Boycotting Israeli Universities cannot be ignored

(Ref.: to Jerusalem article: The academic ban - Nazi connection - plus links below article)

Sue Blackwell, the University of Birmingham lecturer who is the intense driving force behind the motion by the British AUT - Association of University Teachers - calling for boycotts of Israeli universities.

Her web site features a photo of Blackwell wearing a PLO flag and with the slogan "To the Academic Intifada."

Julie Burchill, a columnist for the Times of London, has just dismissed the AUT boycotters as genteel anti-Semites. "They're too respectable to daub swastikas on a synagogue - but it sure feels good to band together and bully them Israeli academics!"

Now it seems that Sistuh Sue Blackwell has her own personal web page, full of anti-Israel propaganda.

The Jerusalem Post (article below) has revealed that Blackwell's personal page links directly to the page of a notorious neonazi and Holocaust Denier. [see links as well below] Wendy Campbell, who owns the MarWen Media web site, is a regular on those Indymedia ultra-moonbat web sites, and has long promoted Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of supposed ....unrivaled Jewish power.. Campbell, who has ties to deported Canadian Nazi Ernst Zundel, lives in La Quinta, California, and also maintains a web site entitled ....Exposing Israeli Apartheid....It is also linked by Blackwell.

Blackwell's web site, is reported to be under a House of Commons Committee investigation for a previous link to a web site blaming Jews for the 9/11 attacks.

Blackwell also links to quite a lot of other pro-terror and anti-Jewish web sites, including that of Alexander Cockburn, that of Holocaust Denier Norman Finkelstein, and that of British anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon who recently issued a call to progressives to burn down synagogues.

As one Internet reader stated: It really doesn't matter if Sue Blackwell links to a Web site owned by an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi activist... because Sue Blackwell herself is a Neo-Nazi antisemitic activist as is every single person who signed that boycott letter.......

Should anyone be surprised that this nonsense finds such great support in the Ivory Tower ? Hitler's early support came from the universities as well. The same with many Communist dictatorships. European Academia has always been the incubator of tyranny.

The Blackwell's of this world repeatedly call their opponents Nazis, and now they are linking to Nazi websites and complain that people are noticing !!

Blackwell should change her web page's slogan to read "To the Academic Dachau!"

In fact Blackwell and her ilk should NOT be teaching, or should one say possibly indoctrinating, vulnerable students. Is this the best that Birmingham has to offer ? Is this the best UK Academia has to offer ?

May. 1, 2005 23:10 | Updated May. 1, 2005 23:29 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1114913918708 The academic ban - Nazi connection By YAAKOV LAPPIN JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT

LONDON

The Web site of Sue Blackwell, the Birmingham lecturer who presented motions calling for boycotts of Israeli universities, contains a recommended link to a Web site owned by an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi activist.

Wendy Campbell, who owns the MarWen Media Web site, has promoted Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories discussing "unrivaled Jewish power," and maintains an additional Web site entitled "Exposing Israeli Apartheid," which is also linked by Blackwell.

MarWen Media, which is linked directly from Blackwell's Web site, advocates the views of Kevin Macdonald, an anti-Semitic pro-Nazi author, who has claimed Jews are responsible for a "breeding program" to conquer other "races."

Under the heading "Sue Blackwell's links on Israel and Palestine," Blackwell provides a link to the MarWen site, along with the following description: "MarWen Media offers the latest in groundbreaking documentaries, breaking through barriers and taboos that mainstream media ? and even most alternative media do not venture." Blackwell writes that "the documentaries, mostly about Israel, Zionism, and Palestine, are by Wendy Campbell; see her other site, Exposing Israeli Apartheid."

Combining anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial and vilification of Israel, Campbell writes: "It is no accident that Israeli 'security' is now the centerpiece of US foreign policy. How are the highly placed "friends of Israel" able to bamboozle so much of the world?"

She peddles Holocaust denial, saying, "It's a staggering fact that in numerous 'free, Western democracies' (such as Germany, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, and others) it's a crime to question the official Jewish death toll figures or the gas chamber story in the events now called The Holocaust. Penalties include fines and actual imprisonment! Holocaust heretic Ernst Zundel was deported from the US to Canada where he spent two years in solitary confinement. Now he sits in a German prison. Who's next?"

MarWen Media offers a videotaped interview with Kevin MacDonald, accompanied by the following description: "Prof. Kevin MacDonald is the author of three groundbreaking books on Judaism, the most recent being The Culture of Critique. In it, MacDonald concludes that Jewish intellectual movements including Freudian psychology, Marxism (including other radical, Leftist politics), the Frankfurt School of Social Research, the New York intellectuals and others, including right-wing NeoConservatism, have all been designed to advance specifically Jewish interests ? often at the expense of non-Jewish interests. MacDonald's incisive analyses offer an alternative view of western history and has the potential to change the course of major events still unfolding."

MacDonald is a pseudo-intellectual white supremacist,who claims that Jews have been practicing a "breeding" program "masked" as a Jewish religious code, in a sinister bid to subjugate the world, and holds that Jews are responsible for an impending "race war" in the US.

Blackwell, who was described by columnist David Aaronovitch as a "former Christian fundamentalist," has said on her Web page that "I do not include links to sites which promote either racism or terrorism. This has always been my policy and applies to all my 200+ Web pages, not just this one."

Her Web site is reported to be under a House of Commons Committee investigation for a previous link to a Web site blaming Jews for the 9/11 attacks.

Ronnie Fraser, chairman of the Academic Friends of Israel group, told The Jerusalem Post that he was "shocked but not surprised."

"Sue Blackwell denies being an anti-Semite, but her denial of being anti-Semitic cannot be taken seriously in light of the links she has put on her personal Web site," said Fraser.

"With this revelation, I call upon the executive of the AUT to take a stand and bring the boycott motions to an end," he added.

Susan Blackwell website: It says: Welcome to Sue Blackwell's new Home Page! http://www.sue.be/ Welcome to Sue Blackwell's new site. I have been forced to acquire my own domain because the University of Birmingham, my employer, has censored my web pages on its computers.

Sue Blackwell's links on Palestine and Israel http://www.sue.be/pal/

Sue Blackwell's Palestine Blog Sue Blackwell, Palestinian Links, University of Birmingham, UK. ... I just provide a link to their homepage. If I wanted to I could remove that link - it ... http://www.sue.be/pal/bruce.html

Sue Blackwell's links on Palestine and Israel http://www.sue.be/pal/

Ms Sue Blackwell http://www.english.bham.ac.uk/who/blackwell.htm

Who is Wendy Campell - Susan Blackwell links to her site: Report Back from Syria By Wendy Campbell ... By Wendy Campbell. section. June 12, 2004. DISCOVERING SYRIA FOR MYSELF http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/June/12%20o/Report%20Back%20from%20Syria%20By%20Wendy%20Campbell.htm

http://www.marwenmedia.com/About.html

Her other website is www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com

• end of quoted material

Zeq 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Homey base most of this article on quotes from Mona baker site as well as info that apear on a web site by Wendy campbell - both are associates of Sue Blackwell."

What does any of that have to do with Mona Baker or Lawrence Davidson or justify you calling his article or her website "neo-nazi" material on my and Fred Bauder's talk page? Also, I based *none* of the article on Maxwell's site. I initially included a link to a site on her documentary on "Israeli apartheid" under "external links" but have since removed it. (I'd never heard of Maxwell or claims that she's sympathetic to Holocuast deniers, saw no evidence of her being a neo-nazi upon glancing her website but, wisely or not, took Zeq's claims about her at face value and removed the link. Given his subsequent dubious accusations about people being neo-nazis I may have ered at taking his comments about Maxwell at face value without investigating myself).

Seriously Zeq, can you please stop making things up?Homey 04:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, the only one using for wikipedia articles material which comes from sources that do not fit WP:RS is you. Zeq 04:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you answer my question? Where is your evidence that Lawrence Davidson or Mona Baker are neo-nazis.

Davidson is a professor of history specializing in the mid east for heaven's sake. How can you claim he isn't a reliable source?Homey 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, since the section in question is on what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are arguing, and as he is a leader of the movement calling for sanctions and divestment and a leading proponent of the term "Israeli apartheid" how can you possibly say that an article by him titled "Apartheid Israel" is not a reliable source of what proponents of the "Israeli apartheid" phrase are arguing?Homey 04:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, I answerd your question, the material is posted here(just above, have you read it ?) . You seem to mis the point that this whole article is based on sources which are not WP:RS. What Prof' Davidson publish in his personal cpacity is not a WP:RS - what you need to find is an acdemic publication, which went through the 'peer review' process and then you can use it as source. Surly Prof davidson have submited his work to publications which do comply with WP:RS but none have published it (you know why) . So now Wikipedia became the place to publish this BS ? Zeq 05:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've not been following this discussion in any detail, I only got here via the delete debate, but I don't see the need for academic publications as sources for the existence or not of a political slogan. --Coroebus 10:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So maybe we should move this to a section in political slogans ? Zeq 11:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Awkwardly, it seems to fit better into political epithets, but the article is not unlike Islamofascism, so justifies a short explanation of the term and its use. It seems there is a political battle going on here (and in other places), that is unrelated to compiling an encyclopedia, and I can't say I want to get involved in it --Coroebus 11:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Homey, I answerd your question, the material is posted here(just above, have you read it ?)"

Yes, and it has nothing to do with Davidson or Baker. Homey 11:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does Homey, and you should know it : Sue balckwall, Mona baker, davidson and Wendy campball all think that the way to get rid of Israel is by a boycott like the one that brought down the Souuth Afarica apartheid hence the boycott hence the effort to connect the two words: "aprtheid" and "israel". Now, Wikipedia is a willing partner in this idea which comes from people with neo-Nazis ties. Zeq 13:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So Baker and Davidson favour a boycott therefore they must be neo-nazis? So anyone who favours sanctions or divestment of Israel is a neo-Nazi? Fascinating to see how your brain works. Can you not see why your reasoning is fallacious? Just because Maxwell is sketchy and advocates a boycott does not mean that everyone who advocates a boycott is a neo-Nazi or has "neo-Nazi ties". Do you have any actual evidence that Baker and Davidson are neo-Nazis? Are they associated with the British National Party or US neo-Nazi groups? Do they praise Hitler anywhere? If not your allegation is pure libel and must be withdrawn.Homey 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, I suggest you don't put my words in mouth. The ideas for the boycott (some of them you quoted when you started this disruption of wkipedia) come from sources that do not meet WP:RS some of them from sites with Neo-Nazi ties. Zeq 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

1) If that's what you're arguing I don't think you understand what WP:RS actually means.

2) What evidence do you have that Baker or Davison have "neo-Nazi ties"? You've yet to provide one piece of evidence - all you've done is lay out innuendo.

3) I believe you may be in violaion of Wikipedia:Libel. Homey 14:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, don't get me to repeat it all. The info about the connection between "israeli apartheid" and Neo Nazis connecetions are posted above. Read what i said exactly and don't put words in my mouth other wise uou maybe violating Wikipedia:Libel. Zeq 15:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I am not att all afaraid of aany libel issue you now try to level against me (another false accusation) Why ?

• because I am quoting from a news paper article. If the people behind the "israeli apartheid" campaign would think it is libelous to identify the connectionof the campaign to Neo-Nazis they could sue the news paper. They did not so guess what : It seems these connection sare indeed true. Zeq 15:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper article does not mention Baker or Davidson who are the two individuals you are smearing. Please focus - your article is about Blackwell and Campbell, your comments are about Davidson and Baker, specifically alleging that the Davidson article is from a neo-nazi source or a site with neo-nazi links (ie Baker's site). The sole scrap of "evidence" you produce has nothing to do with the individuals you are smearing. You are in violation of Wikipedia:Libel IMHO. I suggest you retract your statement. In fact, I suggest you delete everything you've written alleging a link between Davidson and Baker and neo-nazis Homey 16:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, quote me EXACTLY what i wrote about Davidson. I never used the name until now. In fact it is you who mentined his name with this subject. If you deny the connection between Baker and Sue balckwall - good luck, I don't think this connection is a secret or libel. I just wonder if you are threating to take this out of wikipedia ot threating any legal action ? I suggest you first read EXACTLY what I wrote. (see above) Zeq 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not once threatened anyone with legal action (and I could not as I am not one of the people you've smeared). I have said that, IMHO, you are in violation of Wikipedia:Libel ie our policy on libel. Please don't invent things. You've done enough of that already. Homey 16:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you fail to quote where you think I have smeared Davidson. You know why ? because I never mentioned his name until you accused me of smearing him. How can I smear a person that I did not mention ? As for Baker I say clearly : "If you deny the connection between Baker and Sue balckwall - good luck, I don't think this connection is a secret or libel. " Zeq 16:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Quote me exactly"

After I posted links to the Davidson article you posted the following to my talk page: "using neo Nazi material to make his WP:Point is a violation of policy."[26]

IE you were referring to Davidson's article as "neo Nazi material"

You then posted the following to User talk:Fred Bauder: "Now, after using the biased globalexchange Homey moved to get material from sites with Neo Nazi flavor : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&curid=5329520&diff=56381670&oldid=56380146 . I am sure Jimbo must be very proud in what his encyclopedia has become. He worked so hard to remove the neo-Nazis from here but they come via the backdoor."[27]

Thus, you accused Baker's site of having a "Neo Nazi flavor".

For the last time will you retract these allegations? Homey 16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Which staement do you want me to retarct the one about "Jimbo being proud that neo Nazi arriving via the back door" ? (of course you understand that this is sarcasm and I am sure that Jimbo is not proud of this situation) . I will say it very clearly again: The info I posted above show the connection between Neo-Nazis and the campaaign to boycott israel which relay on compering israel to the South Africa partheid. This is a quote from a news source. Don't argue with me argue with them. If you want to deny the connection between Sue Blackwall and Mona Baker - be my guest. Zeq 16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A) you have provided no evidence of a "connection" between Blackwell and Baker.

The connection is so clear that I am in no need to prove it to you.

B) I want you to retact your claim that posting the Davidson article is "using Neo Nazi material" and your claim that Baker's website has a "Neo Nazi flavour". These statements smear Davidson and Baker respectively. Homey

Homey. Now you are saying things I did not say. I was very clear that i never used the name you are using above. I will say it very clearly again: The info I posted above show the connection between Neo-Nazis and the campaaign to boycott israel which relay on compering israel to the South Africa partheid. This is a quote from a news source. Don't argue with me argue with them. Zeq 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"The connection is so clear that I am in no need to prove it to you. "

Nonsense, if the connection were clear you'd proudly show me the proof. You have none so you should withdraw your claim. Homey 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"I was very clear that i never used the name you are using above."

You made a clear inference. So Zeq, when you accused me of using material from a site that has "a Neo Nazi flavour" whose site were you referring to? When you claimed I was "using Neo Nazi material" whose is the author of that material? Homey 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Calm Down

Can I suggest you two (Homey and Zeq) take half an hour, or an hour, to calm down a bit. Then come back and set out your arguments rationally, unemotionally, and concisely. Don't accuse each other of libel. There is no need for this to degenerate into a war, which I fear it will if you continue the way you are going. --Coroebus 16:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ya right, why don't we live this disgracfull article in wikipedia and we all calm down. You want calm: Apply WP:RS to this article, very little will be left standing. Zeq 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be glad to see that happen guys. The article is one the most unstable ones in Wikipedia. -- Szvest 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Well at the moment it is up for deletion and you've both voted (I think), so there's no more you can do about that. If it survives deletion then I'll personally go through and check out each reference. Until then, my advice remains, don't make a needless war out of this, currently it is out of your hands --Coroebus 16:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to wait for the vore results to apply WP:RS. In fact after applying this clear policy there will be some much left of this article that most likely we can all support it staying. The question is:

Do WP:NPOV and WP:RS still meam anything around here ? Zeq 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the vote for deletion is supposed to be about whether the article should exist at all, not about the quality of the article. Plus I have work to do. --Coroebus 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, quick look at references, and some are certainly A OK, particularlyl things like Desmond Tutu in the Guardian, but links under the analogy section to newspaper articles saying that bulldozing homes is a war crime are irrelevant and should go (along with the associated claim), some of the other links being used as sources will need closer looking into as to whether they are reliable or not - I can't tell at a cursory glance. There is certainly work to do but I don't think the principle is flawed --Coroebus 16:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To: Coroebus, yes, thank you. I think you are in the right direction. Zeq 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

John Dugard 2006 United Nation report

This reference was added in March 2006 in Apartheid wall (old edit) and deleted by User JayZ on March 27 (old edit) under the excuse of : "(none of these are arguments that proponents of the term "apartheid wall" make; please focus on the subject of the article. The article you're looking for is Israeli West Bank barrier)" — no doubt that if it was considered unappropriate on "apartheid wall" page by this user he would, however, have considered it perfectly legitimate on Israeli West Bank barrier. Consequently to the nomination for deletion of all Apartheid (disambiguation) articles, I've added it here and on Afd to prove the point that the United Nations have used the term. Same User JayZ reverted it on June 1, 19h53, June 1, 20h04 before finally accepting it. User Moshe Constantine then deleted it again on June 2, 07h48. Of course none of them provided explanation for this deletion, although the statement is sourced and is perfectly relevant — probably the reason for which it was deleted. Satyagit 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement was removed for two reasons: (1) The source cited was actually not the Dugard report, but an AI article which does not refer to "Apartheid". (2) the sentence Dugard used did not say Apartheid either, it called the Palestinian territories "cantons or Bantustans". If it is legitimate to infer that he thinks Israel is an Aprtheid state based on the word "Bantustan", then surely it is just as legitimate to infer he thinks Israel is like Switzerland, or that the Swiss Federal system of cantons is also Apartheid? All this has been explained here on Talk before. Isarig 17:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously an opinion not shared by everyone. Bantustans have a very clear link to apartheid, do you want me to draw a picture for you? Satyagit 19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the source, the report is there. The original source inserted in the first time had a direct link to the report, which has gone dead. But the report is still there, it hasn't "disappeared" in thin air. The true reason for its repeated deletion is of course that it is a UN report, but that's simple vandalism let me tell you, not an attempt at NPOV. So Israel is like Switzerland in your eyes? Of course, the country of chocolate, banks and mountains! Why didn't I think of it before??? Satyagit 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Linda McQuaig article

From today's Toronto Star:

Union drawing attention to Israeli injustice

CJCurrie 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS and mis quotes.

Much of the content in this article is based on sources which do not conform to WP:RS. They are propaganda sources who mislead the facts , making irrelevant claims and false categorizations based on misleading compressions.

The lead paragraph claims that Israel former minister is among those who call Israel an "apartheid state" but read carefully she only said Israel is getting close to it. There is a big difference between being an apartheid state and not being an apartheid state. If she wanted to say Israel is such a state she could have said it. I also have serious doubts if she used it in the context that this article points too. This is the real problem with such loaded words used as polemic analogy: different people use them for different rhetoric arguments.

Writing an encyclopedia article on such a term should have been done with great care, careful adherence to policy (especially WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There is no place in such articles to quotes from people and organizations which are known to engage in a propaganda war (either against Israel or for Israel). As such this article needs to become much shorter and describe:

Who uses the term Why they use it What are they trying to get by using it Where it is used

i.e. the article should be about the phrase and avoid becoming a soapbox or an internet discussion board.

PS, the person who instigated all that has also got the article "protected" after he got it to the shape he watnted it. This is a serious disrupption for wikipedia in order to make his WP:Point. Enough. !!!! Zeq 03:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, read the opening sentence carefully. It does *not* assert that Aloni claims Israel is now an "apartheid state" it simply asserts that she uses the phrase "apartheid state". Moreover, her actual quotation is included so there can be no misinterpretation of what she means which is that Israel may become an apartheid state if it isn't already. Homey 13:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

what is there to understand:

"used by some Palestinian-rights activists[1], some anti-Zionists, as well as some prominent left wing Zionist politicans"

Let me ask you this :

Do you claim that she has used this pharse ? yes or no ?

14:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aloni has used the phrase "apartheid state" in relation to Israel. She said that Israel was on its way to becoming one, if it wasn't already. Zeq, I have yet to see one editor who agrees with your hairsplitting. Homey 14:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Aloni has not used the term "israeli aprheide"
• Aloni has not claimed that Israel is now such a state

What is there not to understand ? What you did is inject your own propeganda into an article. Zeq 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, Aloni used the term "apartheid state" arguing that Israel was in danger of becoming one if it isn't one already (her words). There's no shilly-shallying around it because her quotation is actually in the paragraph. I don't see any editors supporting you on this so I see no reason to explain this to you again in the future. The quotation is sourced so as you are on probation for removing sourced material and as you've already been banned from this article once I strongly advise you to not tamper with the inclusion of Aloni's "apartheid state" quotation. Homey 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you find any other reference for that statement? The source is somewhat partial and I can't find any other web hits for the phrase. --Coroebus 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If I can weigh in the quotation is from Yedeot Ahranot on Jan. 1 2002. You can find it [28] it was also repeated in an editorial of the Jerusalem Post, November 22, 2002 [29][30]CryingLion 16:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

here's a better source for the same quotation. The Jerusalem Post, November 2002.CryingLion 16:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, I see the original quote was a misquote of "if we are not an apartheid state, we are getting much, much closer to it." --Coroebus 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bottomline, the facts are:

• Aloni has not used the term "israeli apartheide"
• Aloni has not claimed that Israel is now such a state

Zeq 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we cannot say that she referred to Israel as an apartheid state unless she did unamibiguously.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

She used the term "apartheid state" in the Israeli context. That is the whole point.But, if you want something clear there is Zehava Gal-On's comment "The Supreme Court could have taken a braver decision and not relegated us to the level of an apartheid state"Homey 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Just because Aloni used the word "apartheid state" when talking about Israel it means that she thinks Israel is an apatheid nation? So I guess that Joseph Mcarthy thought that the US was a communist country because he said "communist" when talking about the United States.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit disingenuous isn't it...she said that Israel is getting close to being an apartheid state, that is like McCarthy saying he thought that the US was getting close to being a communist country - which would be ridiculous but certainly notable. I guess the problem is that the article is about the idea that Israel might be an apartheid state, but the article is called 'Israeli apartheid (phrase)', I'm not too sure how to square that circle --Coroebus 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit disingenuous isn't it...she said that Israel is getting close to being an apartheid state, that is like McCarthy saying he thought that the US was getting close to being a communist country - which would be ridiculous but certainly notable. I guess the problem is that the article is about the idea that Israel might be an apartheid state, but the article is called 'Israeli apartheid (phrase)', I'm not too sure how to square that circle --Coroebus 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aloni did not say anything that unambiguously indicated that it was her position that Israel was an apartheid state. Her inclusion gave the impression that she believed it, which is a jump we are not permitted to make.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I agree, but it isn't really parallel to McCarthy and communism though, since she was indicating she thought that Israel was getting dangerously close. --Coroebus 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected the article, as the reason for blocking was edit war during AfD, and the closure of that takes away one part of that motivation. If the edit war starts again, I will also reblock the article if needed. Edit warring is just not the way to resolve conflicts of any kind.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If the gentlemen and ladies at this page think that edit warring is the way to resolve disputes, I am perfectly willing to block the page again until a full resolution of the text has been reached by consensus forming. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should protect the page and try to facilitate a consensus?Homey 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I will consider facilitating/mediating if and only if all 'kind of regular' editors would agree with that, and if we can set a few basic rules of how to deal with things, such as discussions are limited to the content, not the fellow editors. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fertile land

The article include this:

"*Israel has constructed "Jewish-only" [31] settlements in the West Bank, which preclude "some of the most fertile land and richest water resources in the West Bank" from the "indigenous population" [32]. (Ibid)"

The source for this are political activists:

Lucy Mair is currently based in Jerusalem and works as the Palestine Program Representative for Boston-based Grassroots International. Mair has worked on human rights and development projects in New York and Palestine for the past five years.

Robyn Long works with the Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network (PENGON) and Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign; in Jerusalem. In 2002-2003, Long undertook research and volunteer work on Palestinian land rights in the West Bank as a Compton Fellow)"

This statement has no real basis in facts (the settlements are usually build on hill tops which are mostly barren). The Israeli settlers are for the most part not working in agriculture.

The source is poor and did not go through editing review of a news paper or per review of academic source. (see /Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase)#Decision_by_ArbCom

The source is clearly biased.

Even if the statement was true this has nothing to do with the concept of "apartheid".

I therefore removing this line from the article. Zeq 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another dishonest edit by homey

I have explained in talk why a specific setnce should be removed but homey just trying to "sneak it in":

[33]

By not mentioning it in the edit summary.

Homey, You behaviour in this article is getiing to be VERY disruptive. Clearly you are pushing Aloni although the facts how she did not use the ord you calim "used by .. such as(her)" Zeq 17:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Poisoning the well

How can anyone justify referncing David Duke in the first paragraph, who has only used the phrase twice and has never been quoted using it in major media, while not mentioning users of the phrase like Desmond Tutu, Aloni or various Israeli MKs? This is an attempt to poison the well. Homey 17:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the inteded use that counts. Duke wanted to delegitimize Israel. As someone once told me "politics makes starge bedfellows"

PS the desire by the people who use this political ephiphet phrase to get a ban on Israel (like the one that brough down South Africa) is missing from this article. Zeq 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not including David Duke because he is a reputable or reliable source. We are including his opinion because he is a notable personality. That said, I would not have a large problem with moving him to the body.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He's *already* in the body of the article. Why are you including him in the lead and excluding Desmond Tutu and Gal-On? Why are you including reference to neo-nazis and excluding reference to Israeli politicians and analysts?Homey 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The statements by the Israeli politicians were mostly ambiguous (I suspect purposely), except the ones by the Arab Mks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Gal-On is Jewish, not Arab and as much as you'd like to dismiss it or explain it away he used the phrase "apartheid state" and used it in the present tense, not as something that might be. Homey 18:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And why did you exclude Tutu, Moshe?Homey 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said the Gal was arab, it is assuming bad faith to suggest I am tryign to dissmiss on the basis of ethnicity. I was referring to the actual arab mks in the arab parties.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is he was quite clear and he's Jewish.Homey 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be constued multiple ways. Also I never thought and never said he's not Jewish, although that really doesn't mean all that much, especially in Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is he used the phrase "apartheid state" in relation to Israel - he equated Israel to an apartheid state, saying Israel is at the same level as an apartheid state. It's quite clear. There is no way you can deny this is an example of a left wing Israeli Jewish politician using the phrase "apartheid state" in reference to Israel hence his being cited in the opening. Homey 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that exactly. I am saying that he didn't directly call Israel an apartheid state. You are implying that he is, which would constitute original research.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The quotation is right there in front of your eyes. The meaning is explicit. He is using the phrase "apartheid state" in reference to Israel. Homey 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another misquote by homey

Homey claimed Galon used the phrase "israel apartheid" [34] while infact she said "the level of an apartheide state". There is a different and I again ask that remove the false you put into this article accuracy is important here. Zeq 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I claimed he used the phrase "apartheid state" in relation to Israel and, as you show above, he did just that. Homey 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

She talked about "the level of an apartheide state". is this artcle about the phrase: "The level of..." .

In sensitive articles like this one you need to be 100% accurate. Zeq 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is he using the phrase "apartheid state" in relation to Israel? Yes. Is he equating Israel to an "apartheid state"? Yes. The phrase is "100% accurate". Homey 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Notice

Was it not perhaps a little late to propose a merge immediately after the article has just gone through AFD? --Coroebus 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask Jayjg yourself at User talk:Jayjg. Homey 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would it be? AfD is about deletion, merging is about merging, and the article suggested is one that has not been mentioned before. Let's hope it sticks around, too; so far Homey has deleted it once and renamed it once. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it might've been an idea to mention its existence at the AFD, but then I've only just discovered it so maybe you have too? --Coroebus 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, his first edit to that article was on August 22, 2005[35]. It is curious that he didn't propose merging to it during the AFD though. Perhaps he didn't think there'd be any support?Homey 19:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a more likely reason would have been that you deleted it on May 29, and it was quite difficult to find again. Basically it was another abuse of admin powers; in this case, trying to win an edit war by disappearing an article. However, the main reason was I don't like to muddy the waters with AfDs; if you give people too many incompatible options, then it's impossible to figure out any sort of consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentation. The article had actually been blanked and redirected last February to segregation. I deleted the redirect in May because [nothing linked to it - in other words it had been used as a repository for the deterius of the apartheid dispute and then dispersed and turned into an redirect (an orphaned one at that). You've only recreated it for purposes of political expediency. Homey 21:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if the afd was relevant, it still wouldn't matter because the result was no consensus, so it didn't even pass it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid outside of South Africa was merged with racial segregation last February (and no, not by me). It was orphaned (no links to it) and I deleted it a few weeks ago. Jay has recreated it for no other reason than to try to get rid of Israeli apartheid. Homey 21:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is rude and incivil to accuse someone of such motivation, and not to mention an obvious assumption of bad faith.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, his argument is complete nonsense. In fact, re-directs should not be linked to, and any you find should be changed into direct links - this is much easier on Wikipedia's servers. His reason for deleting it has no place in policy or good practice. What's more, he had no problem with the re-direct existing when it directed to Apartheid (disambiguation), but when he got into an edit-war over that he deleted the article, effectively hiding it so it would no longer show up on Watch lists. Even more telling, he didn't try to delete Apartheid Outside South Africa (also not linked to), just Apartheid outside of South Africa; this made it extremely difficult to even find the article again, which was a problem because the latter was the one that had all the history. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I'm curious, you and a few others systematically removed all references to Isreal in Apartheid out of South Africa over a period of time. Looks to me like you were trying to "disappear" any reference to apartheid in Israel. The history of the article says that the article was dismembered over time and then, ultimately, redirected to racial segregation. Why the sudden desire to recreate it? You dont, by any chance, want to do the same thing yet again and gradually eliminate all references to apartheid in Israel, do you?Homey 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"It is rude and incivil to accuse someone of such motivation, and not to mention an obvious assumption of bad faith.-" And what did Jay do with his selective recollection of what happened to the article? Recalling that I deleted it but not saying that it was no longer an article when I did so but an orphaned redirect? Not mentioning that the article had been merged months before?

"this made it extremely difficult to even find the article again,"

Find *what* article Jay, the article had been merged months before? Why are you now, unilaterally, reversing the merge? Homey 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes your right we are members of a vast conspiracy to take over wikipedia. Since obviously a pov neoligism like Israeli Apartheid is completely encyclopedic enough for wikipedia, clearly the only reason that someone would remove it is because of nefarious plotting.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Moshe, bad faith is letting the AFD go by and then recreating an article that had previously been merged for the sole purpose of trying to "disappear" Israeli apartheid and now pretending he didn't know where to find the article and only suddenly remembered the day after the AFD. Jay's performance over the last year, first with the original apartheid article, then with Apartheid outside of South Africa and now with this article have been nothing but a POV motivated attempt to censor and hide any references connecting Israel and apartheid - and now he's trying to do it again by trying to merge this with an article that he only just now recreated following its dismemberment in February. Homey 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Yes your right we are members of a vast conspiracy to take over wikipedia"

Don't pull that nonsense with me. Not a "vast conspiracy" just an editor or two trying to push their POV and eliminate all references connecting Israel and apartheid. Homey 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that I have been trying to remove it because it is a pov neoligism, your reasoning is unclear, as you could apply the same term to many other countries and subjects just as easily, but then again you actually did to that so that you could create that disambiguation page. Also don't tell me you just meant one or two editors, you have been vaguely accusing an entire group of editors for conspiring against you for the last week.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Jay was proposing for Apartheid outside of South Africa last February[36]:

== List of political epithets#Apartheid ==

I've suggested that this article be merged (in highly pruned form) back into List of political epithets#Apartheid, as that is all the term really means in this context. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Kind of makes one wonder why he suddenly, now, the day after the Israeli apartheid AFD, recreates the article and calls for it to be merged with this one?Homey 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And Moshe here's you removing the last mention of Israel from Apartheid outside of South Africa last February. Tell me, if you didn't think Israel belonged in the article on February 8th why could you possibly think it belongs now? Homey 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, just because Moshe and Jay got away with this trick once doesn't mean you can do it again. Israeli apartheid passed the AFD so it has a right to remain. It is sourced, there are over 300,000 hits on the phrase, it has been used in popular media and academic texts. The only justification for making it "disappear" is your POV desire to abolish or minimize as many negative references to Israel as possible, particularly any linkage of Israel and the concept of apartheid. Homey 22:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If may possibly deserve a section in an article, but it most assuredly should not have its own article. Besides you are really really pushing it if you had to find an edit I made 5 months ago to have something to argue about.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, just because Moshe and Jay got away with this trick once doesn't mean you can do it again. Israeli apartheid passed the AFD so it has a right to remain. It is sourced, there are over 300,000 hits on the phrase, it has been used in popular media and academic texts. The only justification for making it "disappear" is your POV desire to abolish or minimize as many negative references to Israel as possible, particularly any linkage of Israel and the concept of apartheid. Moshe your sudden support for an article you helped dismember a scant three months ago is rather remarkable. As is your sudden desire to include a country you explictly removed from that same article.Homey 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, is it too much to ask not comment on our motivations? Is it entirely necessary to accuse us of "getting away with tricks"?. Anyways the number of Google hits is an extremly poor way to establish notability, since even when the search is in quotes most of the hits will either be irrelevant or repeats.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Once again, is it too much to ask not comment on our motivations?"

Not when there's no explanation for why you now support doing the exact opposite of what you did a few months ago. Not when, you removed any mention of Israel from the article you now want to merge with Israeli apartheid. I think it's reasonable to ask for an explanation, particularly if you want anyone else to believe you are sincere and that this article should be merged. Sorry if I doubt your motivations but given the fact that you "disappeared" all references to Israel from Apartheid outside of South Africa only four months ago I have trouble believing your excuses thus far. Homey 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This has all been explained to you, Homey. Wikipedia really shouldn't have articles on POV pejorative political terms, and so the article was cleaned up, then re-directed. However, since you've forced them on Wikipedia now, then they should at least be presented in a WP:NPOV way and context. How many times must this be explained to you? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You should have argued that in the AFD (and indeed you did) and you failed to create a consensus. You should leave it at that rather than try to circumvent a failed AFD by reviving an article you yourself helped to wipe out just a few months ago.

Homey, you not asking for an explanation, you are accusing me of acting with alterior motives, that does not show good faith. For god's sake I edited this article once 5 months ago and haven't touched it until today, and now you are accusing me of "suddenly" changing my mind? Do you even remotely understand the concept of time?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would be against having Israel mentioned in an article five months ago and now support it being merged with an article on Israel. Such a flip-flop requires an explanation. "I don't remember" is unconvincing. Homey 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said I don't remember, it is completely irrelevant if I do or don't, it requires no explanation at all, your continuing persistance on this matter is becoming increasingly irritating. Perhaps you should take a breather.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there is a merge tag, let's get on with the merge discussion. The tags direct to the Apartheid outside of South Africa page, so that is where I started a discussion of my proposal: Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa#Global renaming/merger proposal 6SJ7 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you propsing a move ?

This edit [37] is very starnge maybe we should move the whole article to apartheide state(phrase to accomodate this strange edit ? Zeq 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What? No, I'm just saying if it's already bold, we don't need scare quotes. —Khoikhoi 18:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq's pov edit

Zeq, where is your evidence that Gal-On used the term apartheid state in an effort to convince world public opinion to "dismantling" what they term as an "apartheid state" and replacing it with a Binational solution? I see no evidence of Gal-On supporting binationalism. Your following sentence is extremely POV The term is used to de-legitimize Israel's right to exist with a hope to force's Israel demise in the same way that the apartheid regimen in South Africa was brought down after international boycott. Homey 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Remove the Gal-on quote as it is really not part of this article. She talked about "Level" and you choose to include it. If you think she she used "israeli aparthide" or specifically called Israel "aparthide state" find us a source that sais so. So far you have not shown us such a source. Zeq 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of this quote in the WP:Lead section

While the source is verifiable and conform to WP:RS this : [38] is just a fishing expodiation to find the word "aparheide state" and finding it in a news report which bring politions initial sound bites about a specific law in Israel.

Such a quote should not be used in the WP:Lead section where the main issues about the phrase are handled. This quote should be moved to a specific sentnce about the marrige law. Zeq 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The quotation shows that the term "apartheid state" is being used by Jewish politicians in reference to Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. Homey 19:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected (edit war)

I have protected the page again as it seems that the edit war just continues since the unlocking this morning. However, edit warring is not the solution to a content dispute. To admins who are asked to unblock, I suggest that the block is only lifted when there is a consensus text. Please remember, the blocking of current version is not an endorsement of the current text by me. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. First off, thanks, Kim for protecting this page. Clearly, it was out of hand. To the rest of us, let me just say a few things about where I'm coming from in my take on the intro in particular, and then everyone can weigh in on it. The first thing that strikes me is how similar this discussion is to Islamofascism. Like Israeli apartheid, the word is new-ish, controversial (although not nearly so much as Israeli Apartheid) and offensive to some. Unlike this intro, however, a number of us labored to make the intro as neutral and NPOV as possible. The article should not be trying to lead the reader to think that Islamofascism is "accurate" or "true," merely that it's a word people made up to describe a particular phenomenon (or phenomena) and that others object to. Pretty simple. So what does the intro there not have? Quotes. Why doesn't it have them? Because it's an intro. Everyone from Tutu to Duke can have their say later in the article. WP:LEAD means that the intro is just a summary of the text, not a place for edit-warring and POV-pushing over what the text will eventually delineate. So, to that end, I'd say no to Tutu, no to Duke, no to Dershowitz, no to whomever having space in the intro. Quotes (which are, by the way, a lame substitute for analysis) can and should come later. Also, I notice a lot of people attacking the criticism sentence of the intro. That's a really bad idea, and an invitation to edit war. On the Islamofascism page, I objected to criticism of the term appearing in the intro. It was pointed out to me that eliminating the controversy from the intro violates WP:LEAD. Myself, I can think of good arguments for leaving crit out of leads, but whatever we do, it has to be consistent. All the intro has to do is two things. 1) Say what the people who use the phrase "Israeli apartheid" mean by it and 2) Why people object to it. We don't have to lard it up with POV. IronDuke 05:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say but not with the end. What people mean by it is clear: They want to compare israel to south Africa. (this is already clear from the name and thus should not be over emphesised). The term itself is much POV that the intro must balance it imeeditly to create an NPOV (name +lead together should be NPOV) this means that the intentions of those who use it (i.e. to drive for a boycott on Israel, much like the boycoot that brought down SA) should be explained as well as where do they want to get by using this term (to a binational solution - which in the eyes of many Israel means a palestinian majority and loss of the jewish people only homeland. Zeq 05:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking the suggestion by Iron Duke above to heart, and adding a desire to avoid poisoning the well by associating the term with anti-Semites and nazis in the lead (or conversely to sanctify it by associating it with Nobel and Israel Prize winners) what about a neutral, non-judgemental intro that says:

The phrase Israeli apartheid (or the terming of Israel an apartheid state) is a political epithet used by some critics of the country's policies towards the Palestinian population. It is controversial because it draws an analogy between Israel's practices and those of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations.

and leave the article itself to develop the controversy, the merits and demerits of the phrase etc. Homey 05:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As for Zeq, his suggestions make the article read more like an argumentative essay ie one with a particular thesis (in this case against the phrase Israeli apartheid). Suitable for a polemic but not for an encyclopedia article. Homey 05:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

never theless, accuracy and NPOV should be in the Lead:

The phrase Israeli apartheid (or the terming of Israel an apartheid state) is a political epithet used by minority fringe group of critics to Israel's right to exist in an effort to define the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solely on the basis of Race while ignoring the broader spectrum of issues which influence this conflict. The term is used by groups such as Extreme left, Neo-Nazis and pro-Palestinian activists who work to create a boycott (like the one that brought down SA) on Israel with an intention to bring Israel to annex the Palestinian territories and create a binational solution in which Palestinians become a majority inside Israel. Opponents of the term usually favor the more traditional two state solution which would include an independent Palestinian state side by side to Israel. Zeq 05:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's your idea of an NPOV intro I'm curious to see an intro where you are promoting your POV. One of your most glaring factual errors is your falsely counterposing the binational solution with use of the term against the two state solution. In fact, many who support the two-state solution also use the term "Israeli apartheid" while many who oppose the two state solution and favour Greater Israel oppose it. Homey 06:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I hope nobody takes it amiss if I say I'm glad we're all talking civilly here and making good points. Zeq, your analysis is intriguing but not really WP policy. In the first place, article names can't really be POV in a WP policy sense, only our edits can. So while you might be mathematically correct, that a POV title needs a countervailing POV intro, I don't think that's going to give us the best article and it’s not WP policy. I will say I don't think this is a very good article to have here, I think it's just an invitation for people to bash each other over the head (rhetorically) and only further polarizes WP. But it passed the AfD, so that doesn't matter what I think (unless or until it is deleted, in which case this argument doesn't matter). Okay Zeq, I just saw your new proposal. Well, maybe the most constructive thing I can say is, that's just not going to pass muster. It's waaaaay too argumentative and heavily POV. Let's all be clear: the intro is not going to say or imply "The Israelis are racist pigs" nor is it going to say or imply "Anyone who uses this phrase is an antisemite and an idiot." Homey, I think your effort is a start, but the crit sentence just ends up being a tautology. That is, it basically says "Critics don't like the term because the term means what it means." We need to be more specific about why people object to the term, and we can also be clear about what people who use the term mean as well: that (according to them) Israel is practicing a system that is in fundamental respects like that of South Africa under apartheid. And then the frenzied free for all of dueling quotes can begin below (as always). IronDuke 06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Repsonse to Homey:

1. My proposal is NPOV since it does not go into the issue of "good and bad". You may support the binational solution, I may support instead in palestinian independence - but we should only focus on describing the issue without saying if one view is better on top of the other.
2. As for your NPOV: The use of the word "apartheid" is by itself polemical and strogly POV . The use of this word is designed to create negative emotional response so we need to mention this intent right at the start in order to NPOV the impression this word creats. Zeq 06:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PS since the dream of Greater Israel was abolished even by Sharon and most of the Likud I don't see how it enetr into the discussion. Zeq 06:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone should tell the settlers that their dream has been abolished. There are still some in Israel who cling to it. And your claim that all those who use the term Israeli apartheid want to annex the West Bank and/or bring down Israel is utterly ridiculous. There are Zionists who use the term because they are concerned about where Israel is going, see it leading to distruction and want it to mend its ways. Homey 06:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Everyone, yse everyone who uses this have the goal of One state solution in which all the poeple between the river and sea have voting rights to the same parilemnt. (this is the fact)
• Some may think it is a good idea, others think it will lead to great violance like in the Balkan where many different nationalities were all part of "Greater Yoguslavia". So it will be POV to argue that the solution id good or bad but it is NPOV to describe accuratly how the term is used, by whom, and for what purpose. Zeq 06:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Iron Duke: If article title can not be POV than the word "apartheid" must be put in context right at the article title. Instead of hinting that Israel is an 'apartheid state" (as could be understood from the term "israeli Apartheid" (which exist in wikipedia although it redirects to "Israeli apartheid (epithet)0" we should use a more accurate and NPOV title such as "Use of the epithet "Israeli apartheid" by some critics of Israel" Zeq 06:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Judging from the behaviour of the participants I doubt this debate is going to go anywhere, but in case there is some hope of compromise, I think we should build on Homey's introduction, but add in a better summary of criticism, e.g.

The phrase Israeli apartheid (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial political epithet used by some critics of the country's policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the phrase 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.

--Coroebus 09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If we do ever sort out the intro, can I suggest that we then go through with a structure roughly similar to the current one, but ensure that we only reference the main reasons given for the usage (and reference them) in 5 or 6 concise points, without any original research (e.g. 'Israel is bad, see here'), followed by usage where we can counterpose Tutu and Duke to interesting effect, and finally an objections section, which is only sourced from people actually talking about (and rejecting) the phrase, and that is only as long as the argument for its use. My impression is that there are actually enough direct uses of the phrase (either for or against) to obviate any need for original synthesis or research. This article is only about the usage of a phrase, we mustn't let it turn into a POV fork, or a debate about the wider Israeli-Palestinian question --Coroebus 09:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If they did not think it is paratheid why use the word "aptheid". Certainly all they want is to evoke an emotional response.

The issue if "it is going somewhere" is ony depended on the ability to describe accuratly:

• Who uses the term
• What are their reason for using it

Zeq 09:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Zeq, I don't understand what you're saying. Obviously those that use the phrase do think it is apartheid, or analogous to apartheid. We are addressing who uses the term, and their stated reasons for using it. We cannot speculate as to their motivation as that would be WP:OR, unless we have external sources that either reveal that motivation (from the horse's mouth so to speak) or we have someone that has speculated about those motivations in an acceptable source, that we can then quote/reference. --Coroebus 12:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You think it is "obvious" that "those that use the phrase do think it is apartheid, or analogous to apartheid" and I say that this is your POV. Those who use it havea goal in mind. They clearly describe this goal (i.e. their goal is not a conspiracy theory of any kind) . Those who use the phrase want a boycott on Israel and want a unified one-state solution. This is clear from sources I have brought and if needed I will bring more sources. it is easy cause most of them say so openly. Zeq 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the press start to understand and change direction

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)

• so did anyone bothered clicking this last link above ? Zeq 20:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), it might've been nice to discuss the page move given the tension here, no? --Coroebus 11:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

ya right, Uri davis became a member of the PLO in the 70s....Surly the PLO was not against israel. As for Tutu, read his use of the term and ask yourself is he suportive of Israel ? Zeq 20:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I did not say antisemitic (you did) but that is of course something to consider. as for WP:AGF it is about wikipedia not about the real worldZeq 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I agree, referring to this as an epithet is a POV as there are some who have used the charge sincerely. Homey 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Proposal

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)

I like your intro - very much.Bless sins 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we unprotect the article and try for a more NPOV version? This might be easier now that Zeq has been banned. The protected version is especially egregious. Homey 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, if Kim van der Linde is acting as an informal mediator, could he make some of the changes that there is consensus upon and keep the article protected?Homey 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Mediation and unprotection

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)

Agree

• --Ben Houston 04:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (although I am not a major player in the dispute)

• We're probably going to need a mediator -- I see too much POV on both sides, editors are probably not going to agree without outside pressure. IronDuke 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• From the comments so far, you seem to be fair. Your efforts can hardly make things worse. My one problem is that the article Apartheid (political epithet) has been "speedily deleted," and as I have posted elsewhere, my ultimate solution would be to have that (or something like it) end up being the title of the remaining article, into which this Iraeli apartheid (epithet) article, Apartheid outside South Africa, Apartheid (disambiguation) and perhaps others, would all be merged. I suppose a work-around would be to have everything merged into Apartheid outside South Africa and then rename that to the name that was deleted, but that's one extra step, which I am sure will be hotly contested. 6SJ7 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Coment

• 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)

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)

Change requests at WP:RFPP

Page move

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)

Move to "Israeli apartheid (phrase)"

• Agree --Ben Houston 04:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really mind, 'epithet', 'phrase', it's all the same to me. I was just annoyed that no one consulted before moving it --Coroebus 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree -- see [Apartheid in international law]. The view that any reference to apartheid outside of the South African concept is an epithet is obviously not shared by the UN or intenational law and is therefore contestable and a POV. Homey12:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree "phrase" is sufficient to indicate that the article does not concern a commonly accepted neutral fact. I think it was quite unethical to move this page so shortly after the AFD in which many people predicated their votes upon an article which corresponded to the then-title.Derex 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree an acceptable compromise between Israeli apartheid and the POV Israeli apartheid (epithet)Homey 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree By preferred choice would be Israeli apartheid, but there's little chance of a consensus on that. This is an acceptable compromise.

Move to "Israeli apartheid"

1. 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)

   The problem is, in the view of many there is no such thing as "Israeli apartheid," that is why a qualifier is needed in the title. 6SJ7 18:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   See my argument below for why that's irrelevant. Snoutwood (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Agree - moved vote here. --Ben Houston 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree - this would be my ideal location, as per Islamofascism and New anti-Semitism, but I am well aware that this is very unlikely to gain consensus, so I'd like to point out I'm not that bothered. --Coroebus 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Strongly Agree - For the same reasons I gave for Islamofascism. Since I can't say it any better than I did there, I'm just going to quote myself. "Bits in parentheses after article titles (such as, in this case, "term") are disambiguations. As there isn't anything to disambiguate between, adding "(term)" is unnecessary. I see two main arguments to oppose: that it's a term and should be labeled as such, and that without the label "term," the article would sound like it is something undeniably real. The first isn't correct: we don't label the George W. Bush article (president) or (man), nor the Democracy article (politics). The second is also wrong: we have Holocaust revisionism, for example, with no modifier." I'll add that the lack of the (epithet) dab does not in any way, shape, or form imply that we agree that Israeli apartheid exists, or otherwise. The dab has absolutely nothing to do with neutrality, and everything to do with disambiguation. That's all there is to it. Snoutwood (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Agree As noted above, there's little need for a qualifier when the actual term does not require disambiguation. "Israel apartheid (phrase)" might be a fair compromise, but there's little need for any paranthetical addition. CJCurrie 03:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

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)

Move to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid"

1. 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)

Move to Apartheid (epithet)

1. The content of this article should be integrated into Apartheid (epithet). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with move from "Israeli apartheid (epithet)"

1. 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)

   Can I draw (again) the parallel with Islamofascism and New anti-Semitism, neither of which have qualifiers of "phrase", or "epithet" or "allegation", the latter despite specific inclusion of the AUT boycott, Livingstone, and Galloway, none of whom would be pleased at being called anti-Semitic (hmm, seems like many of the current set of editors are also involved in those articles, well). --Coroebus 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   NAS is an imperfect article. If reputable sources mention the persons/actions as relevant to a cetain phenomenon, I don't have a problem citing them. Back to our topic: "Israeli apartheid" is not a phenomenon, it is an pejorative political epithet. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   Fascism (epithet) has the dab, not for neutrality, but because there are other articles with the same title. Were there no other articles, it would indeed hold its rightful seat at Fascism. Thus, your argument is incorrect. Parenthetical disambiguations have nothing to do with neutrality or "legitimacy," and everything to do with disabiguating in such a way that it is easy to find the article you're lookng for. In this case, no such disambiguation is needed. Snoutwood (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   As a further aside, "epithet" is far from being the neutral term you seem to think it is. It either means a term used to characterize a person or thing, which would be meaningless as a dab, and is not the usage I think you mean it as, or (from the same source) "an abusive or contemptuous word or phrase," which is hardly NPOV. Snoutwood (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   Surely "Israeli apartheid..." is not a fact but rather is an accusation, indeed "an abusive or contemptuous word or phrase". If you are truly looking for NPOV, do not title articles like so in the first place. Your second argument is, "it is easy to find". I do not know how do you reconcile these two contradictory positions: they seem to cancel each other. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Disagree - per Humus. What is this article realy about ? It is not about Israel (already an article by that name), it is not about Israeli Arabs (already an article). It is not about the palestinian territories all these articles already exist. This article is about use of the phrase Israeli "apartheid" - this should be the name. Zeq 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   Not what you said here about moving 'Islamofascism (term)' to 'Islamofascism': "Support...Using this logic the term Nakba should be called nakba(term) Zeq 10:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)" --Coroebus 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Disagree per Humus. Ironically, I was the person who argued for (phrase) before the idea of (epithet) came up. But I prefer "epithet" on the grounds that a strong qualifier is necessary in order to balance the very objectionable word "apartheid." I would not object to a slightly"softer" qualifier if someone can produce one... "pejorative phrase"? I don't know. But absent an acceptable compromise I would stay with "epithet." 6SJ7 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Disagree per Humus- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree Consider homosexual agenda, which is a pejorative phrase, yet it doesn't have "(phrase)" appended to it. Al 07:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  You do realise you're voting for the phrase to stay as (epithet) and not be moved back to (phrase) don't you? --Coroebus 10:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  No, but I do now. I want to vote for the article to simply be entitled "Israeli apartheid", without the parenthetical commentary. Al 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  What kind of example is this. The words homosexual agenda by themself does not imply anything (excpet that homosexuals have an agenda and indeed we do and this is not pejorative). On the other hand "Israeli Apartheid" imply that Israel pratice Apartheid (which it does not). Is the difference clear ? Zeq 07:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, It is clear to me, there was no consensus for the move to be conducted at this time. So, I have moved it back for the time being to let this poll conclude first. If people feel there are other options (as indicated), please indicate them and feel free to add your name under all options you are ok with. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)

Does that make the disagree = stay as epithet more clear?, have also fixed comments. --Coroebus 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

About twice as many "voters" are against epithet as are for it. I think this calls for the compromise name choice rather than sticking with this one. Homey 02:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

... 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)

Change first sentences

Request was to change first sentence to:

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.

Agreeing with the current change does not need to inply that you agree with this as the final wording, but maybe consider it as a better starting point. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No. we need perhaps to do the other option: DElete this article and start a new one . The fact that someone created this and was here "first" should not give the benefit of us getting stucj with a mild compromise just we can not agree on the final outcome. This article need to start from blank. Zeq 06:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not the editors. If you want it deleted, the AfD should have taken care of that, it did not. So, this is where we are. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree

• Agree --Ben Houston 04:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree --Coroebus 06:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree Bless sins 12:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree I'd say, that the first sentence should explain the meaning of the phrase rather than who has used it before. Raphael1 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree Not perfect, but a clear improvement over the current version. CJCurrie 03:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

• disagree It is so diluted while wikipedia moto is "be bold". The title "aprtheide" and the fact that the wording describe "israel policies toward palestinians" are already strongly POV. The only attempt to NPOV it is that "others say it is no so" which is pretty lame. Much stronger words to describe who uses it and why are needede here) Zeq 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Disagree Ordinarily, we want to eliminate POV from articles. When we can't (as in this case, where pro and con are nothing but POV), we need to be sure that both sides are represented fairly. If we don't enumerate why people object to the term (and it only takes about four words to do that) then the article becomes unbalanced. IronDuke 15:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion as how to best say why people oppose the term? I'm sure you can see that Zeq's proposed wording is a mite unsatisfactory. --Coroebus 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think Zeq's heart is in the right place, but I have already suggested to him why I think his version of the intro isn't going to fly. I think the sentence that's already there in the current version is perfectly good: "Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and is used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel." Now, full disclosure, I believe I wrote that sentence, so please pardon me while I pat myself on the back. But seriously, I don't see anything wrong with letting the critics have their very brief say at the beginning. As I said above "misleading polemic" is so mild a characterization of the crit that it is itself misleading. IronDuke 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind 'historically innacurate' through to 'anti-semitic' (I think they're just an expansion of 'misleading polemic'), but do we have a source for claims that the use of the term itself has been used to justify terrorist attacks on Israel? It just seems a little hyperbolic to me (which is of course no guarantee that it hasn't been said). --Coroebus 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with....Coroebus, no need for antisemitic, causing terror etc..

Look we need to create symetry here (NPOV)

We can not do it by one one hand explaing "why Israel is apartheid" and on the other saying "what damage is caused to israel when it is described as apartheid"

We also can not create symetry by doing what this article does already saying "those who favor say it is because X, Y, Z, and those who oppose say it is because A, B, C.

This is because Wikipedia is not a soapbox and for other rasons.

So it brings me back to : We should say who use it (this is the key issue, any other intro just would give creadbility to a group that does not desrve it) and what they want to get by it (to infulance policy) . Next we should do the same about those who object the use, who they are and mention their POV that the analogy is in the wrong place since it is ignoring key issues. (details for both POV inside the article without turrning it to pissing contest or slur match) Zeq 16:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, that symetry should be achieved by listing motivation (why), aim (what they want to get by it) and identities (who) of those who oppose the term and those who approve it. Raphael1 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with rapahel, this is the best way to explain without "buying in" or endorsing each of the diffrent sides POV . Zeq 09:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I see this source has been used in the article for that claim, but it doesn't seem to be his main argument, I wonder about raising up that single point to the intro, unless there is anymore evidence that there is a widespread opinion that the phrase/comparison is a justification for terrorism? How about a compromise that is a bit more neutral talking about attempting to delegitimise Israel or something like that? --Coroebus 15:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Any progress here or is this a deal breaker (or are people too busy trying to get the article moved)? --Coroebus 09:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree but mainly as to the second sentence, per Iron Duke. I think the current second sentence is better. I could live with the proposed first sentence but with the words "of Israel" added after "critics." As I posted elsewhere (and I think I was agreeing with Iron Duke in saying this), the "laundry list" of references to who uses the epithet is not needed in the lead and should be dealt with in the body of the article (as I believe it already is.) That goes for both leftist Iraeli MK's on one hand, and neo-Nazis on the other. 6SJ7 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree per 6SJ7.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Usefulness of mediation

I think recent attempts at mediating every small iota about this article is pathetic and futile. Everything will end up as "No consensus". It is time to recognize that Normal wikipedia mechanisms do not work about this issue. Zeq 06:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Plees keep a positive attitude. Thanks

Well, if it stays a deadlock, the page will stay locked. The page has survived the AfD, so it will remain. The best hope is to get a purely descriptive page, highlighting who uses it, and why, and why it is such a controversial term. And everything fully sourced with verifiable and reliable external sources. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear demonstartion of misusing wkipedia policy. Clearly no policy had ever intdend to "freeze" forever an article that has very little consenus about it. Zeq 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the policies are there to avoid edit warring.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is simple: How can we avoid edit war and get an article that meets both WP:RS and WP:NPOV ?

Zeq 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed the question. As I indicated, I am willing to mediate here, but I first want to see whether people accept me as a mediator. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As for myself I will of course accept you as mediator. I may not agree with you but I 100% trust your Good Faith and that whats count.

To make our life about NPOV easier we should start by WP:RS. Anything that is not according to WP:RS (and arbcom rullings about sourced used for such articles) should be removed. Afater we finish with WP:RS we will have so little that it should not be an issue to NPOV. Zeq 16:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that Zeq has been banned from editing this page for a reason. Homey 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He has the right to contrinute to the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What so that means that anything he says is automatically wrong? That is essentially a red herring. He is allowed to contribute to the talk page. Anyways, if you were on probation you would have been blocked from this article long ago.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is Zeq on probation, Moshe? Because he has shown a pattern of tendenatious editing and has been banned from various articles on the MidEast, including this one (for probation violation), as a result. Given the reasons why he has been banned it should not be a surprise that Zeq is a consistent obstacle to consensus and his suggestions are systematically POV and counterproductive. Homey 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The same good be said about you just as easily.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would ask if you guys can get past baiting each other -- it is distracting and you are all just raising each others blood pressure. --Ben Houston 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, I want to say something very general: Don't waste energy on my behalf, I am not worth it. Zeq 17:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope it didn't violate any rule for me to change the heading of this section to something I think is less likely to confuse people wishing to participate in the mediation process. (See edit summary) 6SJ7 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with it, the disucssion started about the first one, but evolved quite rapidly into the second, so it is now more accurate. My question to you would be, would you agree on mediation?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, see my edit of: 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC). I also included a comment that deals with the parameters of what it is that you are mediating; I think a global approach is necessary since there have been so many articles created, moved, merged, etc. The discussion has become very fragmented and at least one article that could have been useful in the process has been "speedily deleted." Su-laine.yeo made a great comment about the fragmentation issue on one of the pages, but in keeping with the confusion that this has caused, I do not remember which page it was. 6SJ7 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw that, which is effectivly saying, yes, but in a wider context. That will be a much larger effort, and would require a central discussion place. I can see your arguments, but it might not be feasable at the moment. What I can see as a logical road towarsds that is to get the seperate articles stable and based on consensus. My guess is that it then becomes more clear that they have so much over lap, that adding the different articles as sections to the larger article is the logical thing to do next, which by that time can be done with much less problems. At this moment, it would just result in a discussion about several subtopics with the main line discussion going trough it as well. I just do not see that working at the moment if it is sheer impossible to have a content discusion about a single subtopic at the time. Just my 2 cents. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually somewhat in agreement with 6SJ7 regarding a global solution (Talk:Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa#Global_renaming.2Fmerger_proposal) but I don't think many people will go for it, and I have some reservations about whether people will just use it is an excuse to AFD or merge away the article in the end. --Coroebus 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I understand what you are saying about the effort required to effect a global solution to this problem. I also understand that you have volunteered to be a mediator in one article, and basically what I am saying is that it is going to be very difficult to effect a compromise on one part of the issue at a time. But you already knew that. It is sort of like you volunteered to do someone a favor and now they just have eight or nine more favors they'd like you to do while you're in the mood. It's just an application of the rule "No good deed goes unpunished." As one example of the difficulty in doing this piecemeal, obviously the content of the first paragraph of an article is of concern to many people, but there is likely to be less arguing and more compromising if people know that the first paragraph is going to end up being the first paragraph of a section and not of an entire article. Same thing applies even more so to a title, if it's just a section title in a larger article you are not going to get the kind of battling that has occurred over the title of this article. And that leads right into the fact that the merge(s) is/are probably going to be the most contentious issue. There is at least one editor/admin who seems absolutely adamant that there has to be an article with a title suggesting a link between Israel and apartheid, and who has resisted every effort to arrive at a different result, and who... well, I see your eyebrows starting to raise at that point (and we've never even met), so I will stop there. If that individual has agreed to participate in the mediation, I missed it, though he did vote in one of the polls. I hope that we can all resolve this situation, with your much-appreciated assistance. 6SJ7 03:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know yet if I am willing to wade in the wider context discussion. But maybe that is the only way. What I do think is that if there can be a solid consensus about thea lead, that lead can also be used for a merged section, the other way round might be more difficult. And for the title, I think the way to go is to think about how people find an article, which is either through a wikilink (which can be piped to anything anyway (e.g. where is my house), through an external link (less likely), though an external search engine (content based, or specific to a term anyway) or people search through wikipedia. In the latter case, they are most likely to get here through Israeli apartheid, as that is what people seach for. Just some of my ramblings. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I found several comments by Su-laine.yeo to be very enlighting , so if there is a smart person that also has detachment from the issue I suggest we follow his/hers advice. Zeq 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

John Dugard UN report deleted again!

"In January 2006, a by John Dugard of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, stated that "the three major settlement blocs - Gush Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel - will effectively divide Palestinian territory into cantons or Bantustans." [39]" has been deleted again by User:Jayjg (who has persistly deleted it since its inclusion, claiming "bantustans" have nothing to do with apartheid). An administrator should probably introduce it again, as it is an important piece on the debate. Satyagit 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No administrator is going to introduce it again as long as the page is protected without consensus to do so, reached here at the talk page. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is deleted; this article is about the epithet "Israeli apartheid", and the report doesn't deal with that epithet. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dirty Jew"  ?

WE should look at "Israeli paratheid" the same way we look at "Dirty Jew".

Would it be concivable to anyone here to write this:

"Dirty Jew" is a controversial politacl epithet phrase term that compare the jews to animals who do not wash. In analogy it has been used to describe Dirty tricks by the jewish people (especially those who deal with money) over the years. Even one left wing Zionist politian once said that "We are not dirty, but if this heat wave and short of water will continue we will smell really bad"

analogy

Thos who claim that the Jews are dirty point out that they have no washed all of last week

Critism

Jewish organization claim that most jews do wash at least twice a week, they also point out that some animal (such as cats) are actually very clean and that some sub-speeches of Elephent are known to wash regularly, thus comparing jews to animal who do not wash is wrong on both sides of the analogy.

I hope this makes it clear why Wikipedia should not be a home to every ridiculus politicaly motivated claim leveled against israel. We can only focus on:

• Who uses the phrase
• to waht goal and under what context
• what do they want to get from it.

In a similiar way we should dscribe the organizations who dismiss the use of the term.

it is not very disfferent to accuse a whole contry in being apartheid country than to lable a whole group of people as "dirty". Once the direction in wkipedia has taken to have an article on the subject the article can not have a section that explain "Why israel is an apartheid state" for the simple reason that such a claim belongs on neo-Nazi hate sites and no mater what the next section will try to "NPOV" the term of the discussion (which is what the propeganda people, the 'spin doctors' want to achive has already been done.

To sum up: I do not accpet the way this article is formated. If wikipedia is to have an article on this it must start from scratch.

Zeq 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I view the above argument based on the racist term "Dirty Jew" as non-representative of the current situation -- it really feels to me as if it is a straw man. Desmond Tutu made the comparison between Israel's occupation policies and apartheid as a means of promoting the same type of solutions, main various manifestations of global pressure, that where used to push the South Africa apartheid siutation towards a resolution. He is not equating Israal as a whole with Apartheid nor is he advocating a binational solution as the end result. --Ben Houston 10:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect Desmund Tutu has not been in Israel/palestine and also he is not an academic authority on the issue.

I am all for "some type of solution" (beyond the scope of what we do here) But I will not let wikipedia become a tool in distributing Political propeganda.

This is an encyclopedia. If someone wants an NPOV description on what takes place in the occupied Palestinian territories he/she can find it and get the info. If someone is looking in a neutarl encyclopdia</b. about sraeli apartheid the info that should be provided is:

• Who uses it
• in which context
• what do they want to achive by using it
• Who is aginst the use of it

Dealing with the "reasons" why some equate Israel with SA is only giving room (in a so-called neutral encyclopdia) to an anati israel propeganda. It is the same as trying to describe in an NPOV manner the question: are the jews dirty or not dirty?

If there is anything which is a straw man here it is the creation of this article in violation of WP:not and the disrupption that was caused to wkipedia (violation of WP:Point). The fact that WP:RS is also violated in order to achive all that is just adding insult to injury.

Let us start by examining the sources used for this article:

Can global exchange be used as a source for wikipedia article on Israel/palestine ?

Zeq 12:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar Articles

Islamofascism, New anti-Semitism, Eurabia, Dhimmitude, particularly liked this link [40] from the Eurabia article. I'd always (rather sensibly) kept out of the Arab-Israeli articles because they looked like they'd be fractious, but having looked around it seems like Wikipedia is just the site for all out war between heavily ideological factions. I'm quite disgusted by it, and very disappointed. This article has zero chance of any sensible resolution. Sod it. --Coroebus 12:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar titles would be Fascism (epithet) and Islamofascism (epithet). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The fight over (epithet) or no epithet is ridiculus since the redirects exist anyhow (without it) and many people don't even know what epithet is. (so it is clearly going to be hard to find sources to justify using this extenstion. The issue is much bigger here:

• Should wikipedia be used as a tool to spread/repaet political propeganda ? Zeq 04:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tutu in Israel/Palestine

"With all due respect Desmund Tutu has not been in Israel/palestine"

Actually, he has been: "On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem."[41]

Note "one of my visits" suggesting he has visited several times, in fact.

"and also he is not an academic authority on the issue."

Perhaps not but he did win a Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. I don't think anyone can seriously doubt his authority on the issue of apartheid. Homey 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• maybe he is an expert on South Africa but he is not an expret on Israel/Palestine. The article is about a phrase that is used by propeganda groups. Are you saying that he is also a propeganda distributor ? Zeq 13:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you falsely claimed Tutu has never been to Israel/Palestine when clearly he has been there several times. If you want to have any credibility with people 1) stop making stuff up 2) admit you're wrong when you're caught making stuff up. Homey 14:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that means that you don't have any credibility left according to that criteria.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So Tutu was in palestine on a visit and was getting explnations from sabeel - this does not make him an expert on the situation and that is what counts. 9although I actually agree with every word he wrote in this article – but I am not an expert as well:-))

The problem is three fold:

1. You use Wikipedia as a tool to spread your political agenda (violation of WP:not) and in the process disrupt wikipedia (violation of WP:Point). A clear example for this is that many articles you edit end up being protected (largly because of your edits). On top of that you abuse your admin power and try to use your tools and gaming the system in order to get an edge in the discussion.
2. You use sources (such as (www.globalexchange.com) which clearly are not the kind of objective, scholarly sources that can be used in sensitive articles such as this one.
3. You take words out of context. In the article you just quoted Tutu does not call Israel and "apartheid state", nor did Shulamit Aloni (which you tried to glue this statement to her previously.

if we look at Tutu's own words we see that he continually use the phrase "The apartheid government" which point out that even in the eyeys of Tutu, the apartheid government that ruled South Africa is unique other wise he would call the Israeli government by the title apartheid (which he clearly reserve for use in this article only to South Africa).

It seems that it is the guardian editor (and not Tutu himself) who gave the article by Tutu the catchy headline "Israeli apartheid" – Tutu himself indeed compare the suffering of Palestinians in west bank checkpoints to the suffering of blacks in south Africa and I can understand his sympathy to their situation, however in the west bank there is military rule and no one deny the need for that area to be free of occupation. Being an occupier force in the Palestinian territories (which Israel is and hopefully stop being such an occupier) does not make it "an apartheid state"

Even Tutu did not argue that. (btw, He was quoted elsewhere as saying "Israel is like Hitler and Apartheid" but that is not from a reliable source. If indeed Tutu compared Israel to Hitler – this makes him an even less reliable source….) Zeq 15:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:RS, Homey; we accept only scholarly sources on Wikipedia on all issues except current events where media are just fine. Tutu is as much of an authortiy on apartheid as Nicolas Chauvin is an authority on the history of Napoleonic Wars. Pecher ^Talk 14:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not the editors

I would like to urge everybody here to keep their discussion limited to the content. The continued discussion about who does what and for what motivation and why it is wrong etc etc etc is not going to help to resolve the current standoff between the different fractions. Thank you all. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:06, 8 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)

Original research

What source do we have for "Israeli apartheid" being an epithet? Our policy against OR applies to article titles as well as the articles themselves. Homey 02:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should simply be "Israeli apartheid", much like special rights and homosexual agenda. No parenthetical nonsense. Al 03:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not even close: those are not pejoratives. But consider Fascism (epithet) and Islamofascism (epithet). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Humus, what is your source for apartheid being an epithet? If you can't provide one it's original research. Homey 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary. Wanna quote? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do and I can't find any definition of it as an epithet[42]:

Apartheid

Related phrases: apartheid wall petty apartheid gender apartheid anti-apartheid movement crime of apartheid

Definitions of apartheid on the Web:

   * "Separateness," (Afrikaans, Dutch); policy implemented by National Party government (1948-94) to maintain separate development of government-demarcated racial groups; also referred to as "separate development," an d later "multinational development"; abolished by Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1993.
     reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/south-africa/south-africa149.html

   * the official policy of racial discrimination that exists in South Africa
     www.imuna.org/c2c/app_a.html

   * racial and tribal segregation.
     www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/

   * racial, political, and economic segregation of non-European peoples.
     oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

   * an Afrikaans word which essentially means segregation. The long-term foundation of South African race relations until the 1990s. Whites and non-whites (eg. Africans, Indians, coloureds) were kept separate long before the National Party legislated very specific regulations at the middle of the 20th century defining a de jure version of apartheid. ...
     www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php

   * A political philosophy of keeping races apart in South Africa
     jamaat.net/name/name2.html

   * System originating in South Africa, designed to prevent blacks from invading their own country. Democratically applied by the New Order to the poor of the world, irrespective of’ colour.
     www.newint.org/issue226/order.htm

   * the policy of spatial separation on racial grounds employed in South Africa under National Party rule between the late 1940s and early 1990s.
     media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666/student/0131217666_glo.html

   * a social policy or racial segregation involving political and economic and legal discrimination against people who are not Whites; the former official policy in South Africa
     wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

   * Apartheid (International Phonetic Alphabet or in English and in Afrikaans) is the policy and the system of laws implemented and continued by "White" minority governments in South Africa from 1948 to 1990; and by extension any legally sanctioned system of racial segregation. The first recorded use of the word, which means "separateness" in Afrikaans and Dutch, was in 1917 during a speech by Jan Smuts, who became Prime Minister of South Africa in 1919.
     en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

Humus, which dictionary uses the word "epithet" in its definition of apartheid? Homey 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I already had this argument with Heptor: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apartheid_(disambiguation) --Coroebus 12:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter whether or not "Israeli apartheid" is an epithet. Parentheses are used in situations like these to disambiguate, not to clarify usage. That's what the first sentence of articles are for. The sole reason for Fascism (epithet) is to disambiguate from Fascism itself; since there are no other articles named "Israeli apartheid" on Wikipedia, that does not apply here at all. Islamofascism (epithet) has already been moved back to its correct title, Islamofascism, for exactly this reason. As soon as possible, this article should as well. It's both deeply biased (in that we have "(epithet)" disclaimer on this article, but no such disclaimer on hundreds of other articles, like Yellow Peril and homosexual agenda) and deeply impractical (no point unnecessarily complicating article titles; as long as Israeli apartheid redirects here anyway, it's just common sense to use the simpler title and make things easier on everyone). A double whammy. -Silence 18:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, first of all there is no policy which states that parenthesis in the title must be used to disambiguate. The reason that epithet is included is because without it, the title would just be an unneccessarily pov name, claryfying that the article is primarily about a political epithet, not about "Israeli Apartheid" in of itself is the only way that the article could be encyclopedic. While I believe it is still not notable enough and would support an afd, I think the parenthical statement is necessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"I disagree, first of all there is no policy which states that parenthesis in the title must be used to disambiguate." - There doesn't need to be an explicit policy forbidding something for that something to be contrary to policy: there's no explicit policy saying we can't use parentheses in article titles to numerically rate how much we like the article in question, or to indicate whether an article is about a fruit or not, or to tell a short story about a clown named Bobo, but common sense indicates that such use is unnecessary, cumbersome and inconsistent, among other things—just like putting "(epithet)" at the end of random articles to indicate that they are not about a literal thing-in-itself (i.e., a real Israel apartheid, in this case), but about a certain term or concept, is. Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which is an official naming policy, and you'll notice that nowhere is there a provision to allow parentheses for anything other than disambiguation: every time parenthese are mentioned in the page, it's specifically and solely for disambiguating purposes. Moreover, even if we used parentheses for purposes other than disambiguating or because the original title itself included them (which I'm not necessarily opposed to: I simply haven't seen such a purpose yet, which would necessitate parentheses), it's clear that using them for this specific purpose is inappropriate.

"The reason that epithet is included is because without it, the title would just be an unneccessarily pov name," - This is not correct, for the same reason that articles titled Yellow Peril and homosexual agenda are not POVed: merely having an article with a title of a certain name does not in any way imply that the thing described by the word actually exists. It is no more implied by an article named Israeli apartheid that there really is an Israeli apartheid than it's implied by an article named Santa Claus that there really is a Santa Claus: adding "Santa Claus (fable)", or similar, would be absolutely unnecessary, and could only conceivably arise out of disambiguational necessity, not out of a need to clarify that the article's topic is conceptual or terminological. Moreover, a title is extremely unlikely to be "POVed" as long as it is the most common title for a certain concept, and this article's title, Israeli apartheid, most certainly doesn't qualify.

"claryfying that the article is primarily about a political epithet, not about "Israeli Apartheid" in of itself is the only way that the article could be encyclopedic." - This has already been clarified by the first sentence in this article, which is sufficient. If you think even more clarification is needed, then add an italicized explanatory note at the top of the article, akin to the one at the top of Islamophobia. But that is the limit: changing the title itself is simply not acceptable for this purpose, under current naming conventions. The article's contents should be what make its scope and topicality clear; the title simply cannot contain all the necessary information, as a matter of practicality, and must only have the simplest title possibly to identify the article's subject matter at all (which is "Israeli apartheid", irrespective of whether that actually exists or not, just as the subject of Batman is "Batman", with no bias implied by the title as to whether or not Batman really exists; same for Poseidon, Extraterrestrial life, and countless thousands of other articles).

"While I believe it is still not notable enough and would support an afd," - Then AfD it. I don't care one way or the other whether this article exists. But AfD it as Israeli apartheid, so that title mismanagement doesn't confuse voters, and so that if it's kept, it's kept under the right title.

"I think the parenthical statement is necessary." - I am forced to disagree, respectfully. Not only is it not necessary, but it is not acceptable, both for practical and for POV reasons. I believe you should propose a new addition to Wikipedia:Naming policy if you feel that it is important to add (epithet) here, as doing so would be a revolutionary change to the way Wikipedia handles article-naming, and thus should be fully discussed before it is implemented. No article in the history of Wikipedia has ever been named in the same style or format as this article is right now, except in error. Such an enormous policy change, which would, for the sake of consistency and fairness, require changing the names of thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, of articles, should not be rushed into. -Silence 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes, Wikipedia does have a policy that words in parentheses after the main title are used only to disambiguate titles from other things with the same name; parenthetical phrases cannot be used to add a political comment to a unique title. That said, I'd still like to know if there's a specific reason that this needs to be a separate article from Israeli-Palestinian conflict — I'm fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of Wikipedia using the word "apartheid" in the title of any article that isn't specifically about South Africa. Bearcat 00:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the phrase "Israeli apartheid" gets over 400,000 hits on Google, so at least it's not original research, even if it doesn't quite have enough notability for its own article. Regardless, though, at least we agree that the current title is unacceptable, whether the article itself is acceptable or not. -Silence 01:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I loathe this article and hope it will be deleted or merged ASAP or, barring that, that it will at least reflect balance between both sides of the debate. Having said that, I also loathe parens in the title. I hated it at Islamofascism and I hate it here. IronDuke 01:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The AFD failed and there's no consensus to merge it with another article so let's concentrate on making this article NPOV (I fail to see how terms like "epithet" are NPOV and, as I said, I see no citations for the claim). Homey 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the history of this article; I believe you may misunderstand me. I am arguing against the inclusion of "(epithet)" in the title of this article, whatever else happens to it. IronDuke 01:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Iron Duke - I didn't mean to sound like I was lecturing you. I appreciate what you're saying - it is encouraging that you've put your POV aside in favour of NPOV and recognizing community consensus. Homey 01:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize, but appreciated nevertheless. A lot of us are editing articles on subjects related to this one: if we can't work together, we hurt WP and become a PITA for editors who have to referee. (And I'm not trying to lecture you, I just think it bears repeating for all of us.) IronDuke 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus. This article was intentionally titled to delegitimize and demonize Israel. I don't like the parentheses either, but to remove them is to embrace such offensive title as encyclopedic. Currently the content duplicates Apartheid outside of South Africa#Israel, so it would be safe to remove this article. Until this is done, "(epithet)" should stay in the title. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

" There was no consensus"

There was no consensus to add "epithet" to the article or to merge it with Apartheid outside South Africa either in the AFD or in related talk pages.

"This article was intentionally titled to delegitimize and demonize Israel."

That was not my intention. WP:AGF

"Currently the content duplicates Apartheid outside of South Africa#Israel, so it would be safe to remove this article"

If it does it's because it was "merged" without a consensus to do so, probably in order to justify your latter statement. In any case let's wait to see what a mediator says about your and Jay's attempt to circumvent consensus and circumvent this article's AFD through a unilateral merge. Since the material there copies the material here it makes more sense (and is usual practice) to remove the duplicated material from Apartheid outside of South Africa and replace it with a See Israeli apartheid note. Homey 01:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens: you above claim that the "article was intentionally titled to delegitimize and demonize Israel". I disagree with that characterization of Homey's intent in titling the article as such, I believe that the article title (and the article contents) is a reference the aspects of Israel's policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Additionally, the fact that it duplicates Apartheid outside of South Africa#Israel (at least for a few moments between revisions) is because you and Jayjg and Moshe are trying to arbitrarily merge the content as a fallback position in light of the failed AfD on this article -- which is not appropriate behavior but rather just slight of hand bullying. --Ben Houston 01:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Title change suggestion: Religious segregation in Israel-Palestine

How about we go with the title "Religious segregation in Israel-Palestine". It uses the more appropriate term "religious segregation" and it mentions both "Israel" and "Palestine". I recently created a Racial segregation in the United States -- I find it is more accurately termed than the alternative "Apartheid in the United States".

In such an article, I would imagine that one can describe the many ways in which the two cultures tend not to mix, whether by design (in some cases) and by self-organization (in many of the cases). I would even go so far as to say that the term "apartheid" shouldn't be prominently used throughout most of the article, although a section should probably still deal with the use of the term by some critics of Israel.

BTW I just today created an article called crime of apartheid - very interesting history and a good place to centralize that research. --Ben Houston 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents, not a good title. Based on what I have read here, it is not only religious. But maybe I am completly wrong on this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree, albeit with different reasons. The new title would inherantly imply that religious segregation is in fact occuring, when in reality it is higly disputed and controversial. It would be too inflammatory.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Title, merge and mediation

First, mediation only works if people are willing to seek consensus, and I have strongly the feeling that several editors do not want to find that, but remain at their little political islands. As such, I do not think expanding this mediation to other articles is going to work either.

Before I protected this article, I had heard of the term Israeli apartheid in passing, but never spend a second forming an opinion about it. To me, it is one of those many terms that are used within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Having said that, based on Wikipedia policies, I am of the opinion that the only right title for the article is Israeli apartheid. Words in parentheses are used for disambiguation, to distinguish between different meanings of words that are used in different ways. The current usage is to add a loading to it that is either emotional, political of whatever, and as such in violation with WP:NPOV as well as WP:NOR and WP:ISNOT, of the latter specifically Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I have not seen any authoritative source that explicitly stated that Israeli apartheid is only an epithet. I have actually not seen any reliable source saying that. Wikipedia only describes things, and the lead can and should make clear what the general usage of a term is, not the title.

As such, the outcome of the straw poll is relative unimportant, as we in the first place make an encyclopaedia, which conforms to policies and guidelines. As for the straw poll, 3 editors agree with the move to Israeli apartheid (found under the straw poll as well as under the ‘original research’ header), 3 want to move it to Israeli apartheid (phrase) of which two indicate that it might be an acceptable compromise and based on the remaining commentary, would prefer moving it to Israeli apartheid. Four editors want to keep it at the title as is. This makes eight people who do not want to keep it at this title and 4 people who want to keep it here. The choice between Israeli apartheid (phrase) versus Israeli apartheid is less clear, but more editors prefer Israeli apartheid over Israeli apartheid (phrase). In context with the existing policies to use a qualifier only when needed for disambiguation, the page should be moved away from its current name to Israeli apartheid.

The content of the current page reads more as an indiscriminate collection of quotes than an encyclopaedic article, and is not worthy for Wikipedia. Most of the quotes could be moved to wikiquotes. I think the final version should be seriously trimmed down.

As to the merge, I think that it is beyond this article, and I think the whole series of articles might be best dealt with a complete different organisation. Based on the same criteria as above, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as well as other policies and guidelines, I would come to the following pages:

• Apartheid: This is the term as used, and the page should describe the term, its history, its current usage and what it means in the various contexts it is used. Effectively: general introduction and all usages that do not warrant a separate page, and small intro’s to sections that do warrant a different page.
• History of South Africa in the apartheid era: Proper article and name for the past tense situation, and warrants own article because of the scope and importance.

Maybe supplemented with:

• Israeli apartheid: If and only if the amount of relevant information is sufficient to warrant a split of from the main article.

As here is no will to resolve the issue through consensus building and adherence to policies and guidelines by several editors, I do not see how I can contribute more to this at the moment. Furthermore, the fragmented discussion at various talk pages, with different groups of editors makes it sheer impossible to resolve the issue. This would be a clear-cut case for a content arbcom, which we do not have.

One last word, I am at times appalled by the sheer amount of political posturing that takes place. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)