Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:47, 29 July 2006

Template:User article ban

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

This article was nominated for deletion on July 15, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Israeli apartheid received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13

BBC Lucy Ash - not a realiable source

In an article quoted here she says: "In one neighbourhood the streets end abruptly with a wall of concrete and barbed wire - Baqa is sliced in half by Israel's new security fence. " - this is 100% wrong as the fence in baka runs exactly on the town boundry with the west bank. Nothing is "sliced". It seems that the Jurnalist just quoted what she was told by plaestinian sources. Zeq 17:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you are quite mistaken, as sources such as this also speak of the town being split in half, as well as the wall bordering the West Bank as you mention.

However, that really doesn't have a bearing on any of this, in my opinion; the BBC citation of this article was only for the purpose of providing a source for the "smelled of apartheid" quote of Tommy Lapid (footnotes #33 & #60). Whatever Ms. Ash reported in other parts of the article has no effect on the credibility of the citation itself. Unless you question whether Lapid expressed these sentiments? Tarc 20:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Useful references:

• Aerial photograph of wall at Baqa, showing street blocking.
• UN map of wall route (2003, not current) --John Nagle 22:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Having been there and saw and verifie dthe maps I can tell you that the town ends at the wall (which is on the border, exactly where the border fece was until 1967). On the other side there is a a pelstinian village called nazlat Isa and it may confuse people who don't know the difference between the reality and how it is told to them by propeganda sources. Zeq 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I question her ability to understand the whole "land issue" that is quoted from her in the article. she is simply wrong. Zeq 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the photos above, it seems that you are clearly wrong, but I now regret even addressing the wall issue, as it has brought nothing but a strawman argument from you in response. I will point out again; this BBC article was cited only for its quotation of Tommy Lipid; not the issue of the wall. I ask again; do you challenge the validity of the quotation? Tarc 23:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine

I am bemused as to why Moshe chose to act in such a rude manner by reverting without any explanation edits that I had spent some time on. "Israeli Apartheid" is not an allegation, it is a phrase and should be described as such. The current version is extremely poor english. My proposed version of the header is as follows:

"Israeli apartheid" is a controversial phrase that seeks to draw a comparison between the policies of Israel towards West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens, to the actions of the white minority to the non-white majority in apartheid-era South Africa. Opponents of the phrase's usage state that the comparison has no merit, and is being misused in an attempt to isolate and condemn Israel.

Arniep 19:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your wording is probably clearer, but there's been so much controversy that some of us have been trying to avoid changing the first line without extensive discussion first. I'd pick "phrase" over "allegation" myself, from a grammar perspective. Maybe "loaded phrase" instead of "allegation" would work. See Loaded language. How about ] instead of "controversial allegation"? Comments? --John Nagle 19:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that if we use the word "phrase" instead of "allegation" then the consequence will be adding an innappropriate amount of legitimacy to a phrase that has been taken out of its original context in order to underhandedly draw comparisons to the old white South African regime. I find it strange that Arniep suddenly acts so incredulous that I should dare revert him when previous talk page discussions have made it clear why I would revert such an edit.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, I do not see how ther term "phrase" confers any legitimacy whatsoever. I think you're assuming a meaning to the word that doesn't exist. "Phrase" simply means a series of words, no more, no less.

phrase Pronunciation (frz)

n.

1. A sequence of words intended to have meaning.

2.

a. A characteristic way or mode of expression.

b. A brief, apt, and cogent expression.

3. A word or group of words read or spoken as a unit and separated by pauses or other junctures.

4. Grammar Two or more words in sequence that form a syntactic unit that is less than a complete sentence.

5. Music A short passage or segment, often consisting of four measures or forming part of a larger unit.

6. A series of dance movements forming a unit in a choreographic pattern.

Moshe, can you please provide a citation for any definition of phrase that suggests describing a series of words as a "phrase" in any way conveys any legitimacy or authority or truth on those words.Homey 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, very nice. I do not think I ever implied that phrase means anything different than the definitions that you have provided, furthermore I do not believe that what I was actually stating was too difficult to comprehend. As a demonstration of good faith however, I will spell it out more carefully this time. Merely saying that it is a phrase is not a problem, however using the word "phrase" instead of the word "allegation" is a problem.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So what do you think of "loaded phrase"? --John Nagle 04:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be okay with that, but I doubt other editors here would.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"loaded phrase" is, well, a loaded phrase. Let's stick with neutral terms. Homey 06:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Neutral terms" like, for example, "apartheid"? What a joke. 6SJ7 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, you are reverting the contributions of others based on what you belive the underlying motives of the contributor to be? Isn't this a tacit admission of violating WP:FAITH ? Tarc 04:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read up on the policy yourself, the reversion had nothing to do with my beliefs about other editors underlying motivations.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To quote you; "Merely saying that it is a phrase is not a problem, however using the word "phrase" instead of the word "allegation" is a problem". You have no problem with the word itself, only in how you perceive others use it. That is the epitome of bad faith. Tarc 17:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I'm not sure you actually know what you are talking about, I am saying that we should not replace the word "allegation" with the word "phrase" in the article's introduction. So please, In the future before you decide to jump into a conflict and make more grandiose accusations maybe you should at least have a firm grasp of what people are arguing about, and yes part of this means you have to assume good faith.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"I do not think I ever implied that phrase means anything different than the definitions that you have provided,"

you did, you said earlier It is clear that if we use the word "phrase" instead of "allegation" then the consequence will be adding an innappropriate amount of legitimacy to a phrase "

Phrase is a neutral term. It does not confer any "legitimacy" to the words it describes as the definition of "phrase" makes clear.Homey 06:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to stop making strange interpretations of other editors arguments, I have made it clear what I meant and there is nothing in what I have written above which is at odds with what I have been trying to convey. I do not understand what you hope to accomplish by attempting to twist my words around to make it seem like I was saying something different, but you have done so in the past many times and I do not think it has ever helped anything.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So what, then, is your justification for removing what you admit is a neutral term like "phrase"? How does being neutral (which is what we're supposed to be doing) convey "an inappropriate amount of legitimacy? Would you prefer not being neutral?Homey 18:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You really know how to make me laugh, I guess you are trying to suggest that I am explicitly demanding that the article must not be neutral because I did not want to replace "allegation" with "phrase"? So where exactly did I state that the word "phrase" is automatically neutral regardless of the context? Just out of curiosity I really have to ask, are you high?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the existence of this article is a study in contradiction. The original justification was that it is a frequently found phrase, in which case the article should have been about the use of the phrase. Then certain editors wanted to make it about more than the phrase; they wanted to make it about an alleged phenomenon. As long as the article discusses the extent to which Israeli policies can reasonably be compared to apartheid, it is about an allegation and not a phrase. If it is only about a phrase, the article should be much shorter, focusing on usage and other linguistic matters. It would also probably be deleted, because WP is not a dictionary. In other words, you can not have it both ways: you can not breezily dismiss objections on the basis that we're only talking about a phrase; and at the same time insist that the subject be treated like it's anything more. --Leifern 18:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

From my POV the article documents notable allegations that some Israel policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians are analogous to apartheid, at least from the Palestinian perspective, and the debate and criticism of these types of allegations. I find it interesting, especially the response from the left -- which is not yet well documented in the article. To be honset, I can't follow the exact details of the debate above about the term "phrase" but it seems from my POV to just be a distraction and yet another reason to argue for people that like to argue. --Ben Houston 18:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try to suggest that users are just arguing or suggesting new ideas to disrupt or whatever you think the motive is. Please read WP:FAITH. Arniep 06:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To Do: Uri Avnery Criticism

This essay should be integrated into the criticism section. Uri Avnery is highly respected on the left: ]. Even though the website on which this essay is found isn't amazing, the author, Uri, is notable. --Ben Houston 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Criticism from the Peace Activists

There is criticism from the peace activists - Uri Avnery and Moshe Machover -- it would be useful to pull this out into its own subsection of the criticism section. --Ben Houston 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Making this article the primary article for "Apartheid wall" or not?

• Personally, I think it makes the most sense to have the primary article about "Apartheid wall" here, where all the allegations of apartheid are, and leave a small "summary-style" entry on the Israeli West Bank barrier page, similar to what my edits here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=63106903&oldid=63064705

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=63109278&oldid=63107482

-- Avi 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think there's no reason to move the apartheid wall section out of Israeli West Bank barrier.Homey 21:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The redirect into the middle of the article won't work. It's a known bug. You can have wikilinks to tags within an article, but not redirects. Besides, the result of the last vote on that issue was that Apartheid wall should just be a redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. The barrier article starts out with a description of all the names used, so we're covered there. --John Nagle 03:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding my proposal, or I am misunderstanding your position. Did you check the two diffs I posted and see what I proposed? -- Avi 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments/Debate

the only reason for this seems to be to remove any reference to "apartheid wall" from apartheid (disambiguation). Homey 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As I have mentioned throught our discussion, I think that if we have an article sepcifically relating to allegations of Israeli apartheid, then that should more likely be the source article FOR all allegations of Israeli aparthied. The fact that the wall is called the Apartheid wall should be mentioned in the wall article and discussed in the apartheid article, b/c the primary focus of that discussion is APARTHEID and not the wall. In my opinion, of course. But those that are keen on having the wall represented in the apartheid disamb page seem to also share the belief that the apartheid-ness of the wall is primary, and thus, I would think, would agree that the focus should be in this article. At least that is how I would reason. -- Avi 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the parallels made by credible sources. Do these credible sources make use of the term "apartheid wall"? Or do they talk about the barrier? I am concerned that the credibility and focus of the article will be lost. --Ben Houston 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a problem with the section in general, not its placement. -- Avi 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall for the original discussion. The focus of the section is on the barrier itself rather than apartheid.Homey 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Then it does not belong on an apartheid disambiguation page, does it? -- Avi 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because, as Natalya said at Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation):

::On disambiguation pages, there does not necessarily have to be an article solely on the subject for the subject to be listed. In the suggestion above, the term is mentioned, and then the article which contains it is linked to. That way, the term is still mentioned, but the correct article is linked to. This is a frequent occurance on disambiguation pages. For mention in the Manual of Style, see Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#URL_anchor_notation -- Natalya 13:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Homey 21:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, anyone looking up Apartheid wall is redirected to the Israeli West Bank barrier article which makes eminently more sense than redirecting them to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Homey 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if the issue is apartheid. -- Avi 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that most people looking up "apartheid wall" are actually looking for info on the barrier and are using "apartheid wall" because that's a widely used term for it - it's certainly more widely used than "Israeli West Bank barrier". Homey 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the redirect points there, but not the disambiguation page. I posit that anyone needing disambiguation about apartheid is interested in apartheid. -- Avi 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why there's also a link on the disambiguation page to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. But the disambiguation page is not a good enough reason to rewrite the articles the page points to. You are affirming my claim earlier however that "the only reason for this seems to be to remove any reference to "apartheid wall" from apartheid (disambiguation)." Homey 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)\\

I disagree. I think that when discussing allegations of apartheid as they relate to the wall, that should be done in the article that discusses all the allegations of apartheid. The fact that there is a euphamistic term for the wall to identify it does not make the wall itself the proper place for the discussion. For example, if the term "Uncle Sam" redirects to the USA, would you say that we need a disambiguation term on the "Uncle" page for the US? If you would, then we must agree to disagree and hope other editors help us reach a consensus. -- Avi 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

False analogy. Obviously implicit in the phrase "apartheid wall" is an argument about the barriers function. However, the fact is it's a far better known term for the barrier than any other and that many people looking it up will be wanting to know more about the wall than about the concept of apartheid. Thus the redirect to Israel West Bank barrier makes sense which is why it was the overwhelmingly most popular option at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall. However, it is also a prominent example, perhaps the most prominent example of the term "apartheid" being used outside of the South African context which is why it also belongs in apartheid (disambiguation). Homey 21:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You are stating your personal opinon that the phrase "apartheid wall" is a far better known term for the barrier than any other, as if it was fact. It is nothing of the kind. Kindly keep your POV out of the encyclopedia. Isarig 22:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid wall renders 452,000 hits on google, "West Bank barrier produces 132,000 hits. Homey 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

""West Bank barrier" is WP's attempt to be as NPOV as possible, so naturally it is not a common term. Nice try, though. Keep your POV out of the encyclopedia. Isarig 22:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me which phrase for the structure is more common than "apartheid wall"?Homey 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That does not address the point. As WP:POV as I believe the term is, I am not against the redirect. The fact that the term may be "better known" only addresses that it should redirect to the wall article. However, the purpose of a disambiguation page is, and I quote:

Deciding to disambiguate

Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that closely relate to various meanings of a particular term (some of which might logically utilize said term in a titular fashion). The considerations of what Misplaced Pages is not are not magically invalidated for disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are not intended for games of "free association." Please use them carefully and only when needed.

Confusion

Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up 'Joker', would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

— Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation

Anyone typing in both terms, "Apartheid" and "Wall" will get the redirect. If someone is searching for "apartheid" they should get the article on apartheid. That the wall is an example of an allegation of Israeli apartheid should be handled in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. As Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation said, this is not a way to have "free association" games.

In my opinion, your arguments keep relating to the commonality of the term, not to the logical structure of the articles which should be, IMO, that allegations of apartheid are discussed in the apartheid article with a brief mention in the wall article and the use of a {{main}} template. -- Avi 23:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion: (1) having "Apartheid Wall" in the dab will likely not be that useful, but I am generally an inclusionist, (2) if it is part of the arguments made by reputable and notable individuals then it deserves coverage in this article -- the reputable arguments and proportionally as it appears in those arguments (not as a strawman or just the ISM rhetorical usages), (3) the term should probably still redirect to the main barrier article -- is a propaganda term, like security fence, as as such it should be treated similarly and given equal play and explanation of the perspective it is promoting. --Ben Houston 00:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Avi wrote:"The fact that the term may be "better known" only addresses that it should redirect to the wall article. "

Avi, what is actually being discussed here is whether the apartheid wall segment belongs in Allegations of Israeli apartheid or in Israeli West Bank barrier. The disambiguation page is a separate issue and should not be a factor in this discussion. Your statement quoted above seems to concede the point that the segment should remain where it is, in Israeli West Bank barrier rather than being moved. Homey 01:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was not clear; you seem to be completely missing my points, which I stated on my talk page, on your talk page, on the disamb talk page, and here. Perhaps I lack a certain clarity of explanation, but I hope if you would go back and read all of our conversations, you will see that I have been consistent. I will make the statement here without the depth of argument, opinion, and supports that I feel I have brought on the various pages, to prevent any ambiguity.

• The main article about apartheid as it relates to Israel is Allegations of Israeli apartheid.
  • Ergo, issues that relate to allegations of Israeli apartheid belong primarily in the aforementioned article.
  • The Israeli barrier is referred to by some as the "Apartheid wall"
  • Ergo, the primary place for discussing the APARTHEID elements of the wall is Allegations of Israeli apartheid.
  • Thus, there should be a small blurb in Israeli West Bank barrier saying that some call it that, and others disagree, with a {{Main}} tag pointing to this article.
• The above is what I feel is the logical structure of the ideas contained in the encyclopedia.
  • A result of this is, that there should be no mention of the wall in particular on the disambiguation page of apartheid, as the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid is already there, is the logical address for any discussion of allegations of Israeli apartheid, and will discuss the apartheid elements and connection of the wall in detail.
  • Any concerns that someone specifically looking for the wall, and using the epithet "Apartheid wall" will be confused is handled by the redirect which will point to the wall article (which I may have my issues with as well, but that is not under this discussion).

So, in a nutshell Allegations of Israeli apartheid is the article to discuss apartheid, including that element about the wall. The wall article should have just a blurb, and no mention in the disambiguation link since Allegations of Israeli apartheid is the prper place to discuss the apartheid element of the wall.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding you have about the gist of my argument and opinion as to the best and logical grouping, in my opinion, about the articles in question. Thank you. -- Avi 01:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So basically, the whole purpose of your proposal is to remove the "apartheid wall" reference from Apartheid (disambiguation).

"Any concerns that someone specifically looking for the wall, and using the epithet "Apartheid wall" will be confused is handled by the redirect which will point to the wall article (which I may have my issues with as well, but that is not under this discussion).

So this means if someone types "apartheid wall" into the search engine they will be taken to an article that has had almost everything on the term "apartheid wall" removed from it. That clearly makes no sense, unless, as I say above, the purpose of your move is not logical flow but to remove the apartheid wall reference from the disambiguation page. Homey 01:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you would make an excellent rhetoric partner in certain circumstances, and I admire your zeal. However, I think that you are pointedly avoiding my points and trying to hide behind confusing the disambiguation issues and this article. Maybe I'm just too tired. Regardless, I will respond by saying, as you have mentioned numerous times, that that term is most often used as a euphamism, a code word. YES, if you believe that the term is used as a "codeword" or a euphamsim for the wall, it should redirect to an article that has little mention of the apartheid, because that article is not the proper place to DISCUSS the apartheid. If you believe that they are referring to apartheid, then it should redirect here. Please make up your mind, Homey. -- Avi 01:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The status quo should remain. Homey 02:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a non-answer, and does not address the points that I have raised numerous times above, and on other pages. However, it is late where I live, so I am logging off for now. I hope that by tomorrow we will have some other people besides ourselves chiming in. Good night, Homey. -- Avi 02:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... this is making me think a lot. I think that the section about the apartheid wall should be left in Israeli West Bank barrier, because it does relate to that article. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be the main article, but I'm not 100% sure which article should. The fact that this article links at Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Occupied_territories to the section of Israeli West Bank barrier referring to the apartheid wall makes me lean towards leaving Israeli West Bank barrier as the main article. That doesn't lower the fact that this article is very much related to the apartheid wall, and should mention it. It just seems like Israeli West Bank barrier is more directly related to it, while this article is a bit broader. However, I do not claim to be an expert on the Israeli conflicts, so if I am missing something that will affect my judgement, please do inform me. -- Natalya 02:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that both of you are overestimating the persuasive power of a dab entry -- this will be my last comment on this topic, its not worth arguing over. Homey, if you have spare time, would you be interested in helping me bring User_talk:Bhouston/Academic boycott of South Africa up to the level of a proper article? --Ben Houston 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This has gone one quite long enough. Homey, please stop being such a troll. You've been here long enough to know better. Tomer 05:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Please don't throw words like troll around. We'll see which way this proposal goes I'm simply stating I think it's unnecessary and I think the proposal has gotten the cart before the horse ie it's driven by a preference regarding the disambig page rather than making things easiest for users. Homey 06:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you have yet to respond on the merits of my argument that primary apartheid discussions belong in the apartheid article. -- Avi 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the information about "apartheid wall" is primarily about the separation barrier and views about it. Homey 15:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It also makes absolutely no sense to, as you suggest, have Apartheid wall redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier whilst having most of the information on "apartheid wall" in another article. Homey 15:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Homey. the information about the apartheid portion of the term "apartheid wall" is not about the wall, but Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Once again, you are mixing kasha with borscht, as my dear and late departed grandmother-in-law would say. When discussing Allegations of Israeli apartheid, it should be done in the eponymous article. The fact that some people call the Israeli West Bank barrier, the "apartheid wall", only means that they mean to find the wall that way. There should be a small listing about the apartheid nature of the wall in Israeli West Bank barrier as I have here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=63109278&oldid=63107482 and the {{main}} tag should point to a section here, like I show here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=63106903&oldid=63064705

Your argument in a nutshell is that people call the wall by apartheid, so the redirect should exist, and then it makes no sense to talk about apartheid in the apartheid article, if the redirect exists. Again, that is analogous to having a redirect from "Uncle Sam" to the United States, and then saying we should discuss avuncularism in the US article. -- Avi 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not my argument. The redirect should go to Israeli West Bank barrier as Apartheid wall is a common description of it, possibly the most common description of it outside of Israel. Ergo a section on the phrase "apartheid wall" belongs in the barrier article. I don't see the point of repeating myself ad nauseum so let's leave it to other people to comment. Your analogy, btw, is reductio ad absurdum. Homey 15:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I used that myself, Homey, :D but my point was that your thesis is tenuous. But I appreciate its use :D -- Avi 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Avi, why don't you just add the main tag for now -- the section on "apartheid wall" in the security barrier article is already quite short, and if you think it needs additional summarizing, you can take that up there. I don't think the "main" tag, by itself, is likely to be controversial. TheronJ

Perhaps the most sensible thing is to just revive the independent Apartheid wall article?Homey 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That, Homey, is rather insensible as in my opinion, the only relevance that phrase has to Misplaced Pages is a shortcut search phrase to Israeli West Bank barrier. -- Avi 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are arguing, however, that Apartheid wall should redirect to one article while being discussed in another then it makes more sense to have a separate article than to engage in the bifurcation you are requesting. The alternative is the status quo. Homey 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

/sigh You and I are going around in circles, Homey. You disagree with my position; I disagree with yours, and the reasons have been explained above. I'd like to hear from other people now, and perhaps a poll to reach some consensus of those who have followed our debate. -- Avi 15:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"...the information about the apartheid portion of the term "apartheid wall" is not about the wall, but Allegations of Israeli apartheid"

I'm making this a new section, because I think it is a) very important, and b) may be able to solve all the problems. Avi, this is a great statement, and really clears the issue. Since it does seem that the term "apartheid wall" is more about the use of the word, that makes a lot of sense, and supports making Allegations of Israeli apartheid the primary article. However, Homey has a good point that it still does relate to Israeli West Bank barrier. I think that if we make Allegations of Israeli apartheid the main article, but are sure to mention Israeli West Bank barrier in the section of this article referring to the "apartheid wall", we may be able to solve all the problems. -- Natalya 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I did that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=prev&oldid=63107482 and the {{main}} tag should point to a section here, like I show here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=63106903&oldid=63064705 Although, I am sure that it could be edited to make it even better. -- Avi 23:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's really, really good. After some cleanup, I would support putting those two edits in, and then having Allegations of Israeli apartheid as the main article. Homey, would that be satisfactory? If not, what can be done to improve it? -- Natalya 11:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could reach a consensus on this, and it appears we have a number of editors who prefer this formulation, and Homey who does not. Is there anyone else who would like to contribute to this discussion before any changes are (perhaps) made? Thank you -- Avi 18:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, we have myself, Natalya, and 6SJ7 (on the disamb page) agree to the proposal that this should be the primary article, the Wall article should have a brief mention, and the disamb page should not make special mention of the wall. We have Homey, who disagrees. Without anyone else's comments, I think the consensus is to restore the above proposal, especially in light that Homey has brought Natalya as a resource in the discussion, and she concurs, so I believe we now actually have a consensus proposal. -- Avi 03:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You can add me as another supporter to the proposal. Dionyseus 03:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with the present situation, where Apartheid wall redirects to Israeli West Bank barrier? It's an alternate name; a redirect is appropriate. If any renames are being planned, they should be mentioned in the current arbitration proceeding. --John Nagle 06:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, John, but I beleive you missed the point. The redirect is not changing. The issue was which article should have the primary discussion of the apartheid elements of the wall. -- Avi 06:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Very little of the information in the section on criticisms" of the apartheid wall term are sourced ie we need sources that opponents of the term are saying this, otherwise it's original research. We also need a source for the proponents claim regarding Israeli State Prosecution. Homey 04:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

New lead section suggestion

"Israeli apartheid" is a controversial phrase used by some individuals and organizations to allege that the policies of Israel toward West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens are comparable to the actions of the white minority government to the non-white majority in apartheid-era South Africa. Opponents of this phrase's usage state that the allegation is without merit, and is misused to isolate and condemn Israel.

Arniep 07:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence seems too long. I'd keep what we've got for now, since it's been up for a few days and nobody has been screaming much, which is as close to consensus as we're likely to get here. --John Nagle 07:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I am not happy with it and I am sure others are not. It includes both the word "allege" which Moshe wants to include and the word "phrase" which others think should be included. The current paragraph is extremely bad english. Arniep 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be obvious that your "new" version is in fact very similar to the version that was recently changed for good reasons.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not obvious to me please allow for my slowness of wit. What are your objections to my version. Thanks so much. Arniep 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody made yet another change to the header line, and I changed it back, since they hadn't discussed it here. I'm not entirely happy with it either, but at least what we have isn't totally unacceptable to either side. --John Nagle 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I like Avi's version (the one you reverted) better than what you reverted it to (which essentially is what I had written about a week ago and what you added to the article.) It has the advantage of having the article title together at the beginning of the first sentence. Neither solution is perfect but no first-sentence for this article will ever be perfect since, as I may have mentioned a few times in the past, the article should not have a first sentence in the first place because it should be part of another article. I have left it alone for now to see if anyone else wants to express an opinion. Also, in your edit summary you called the current version a "consensus" version. It is not, and I wish people would stop claiming that there has been a "consensus" about things in this article when there has not. What it is, is a version that I wrote that drew little objection because it was better than the mess that was there before. However, it has no special status that prevents editing. 6SJ7 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote in the edit summary, if you really want to follow the heading style, then the entire phrase should tie together. Splitting it out but bolding the two sections is difficult to justify from a mark-up/stylistic basis. I didn't realize that I had to copy my edit summary to the talk page, however. -- Avi 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Avi's version is what makes the most sense due to the fact that the entire title is written together.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article looks fine to me -- it is neutrally descriptive. One sentence that says that some feel it is accurate or something to that extent should be added to balance out the what is currently the second sentence saying that those opposing it feel it is inaccurate. --Ben Houston 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Avi's version is fine. Arniep 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that is necessary, since the very fact that there are allegations means that the maker of the allegations believes that they are accurate. The second sentence shows that these allegations are disputed. Thus both sides are already represented, in my opinion. -- Avi 02:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Avi. The first sentence is not neutral, for the same reason that this article's very existence is inherently POV. The second sentence partially balances the first. No additional sentence are necessary in the first paragraph. It will never be good, but I think this is the most tolerable that it is going to get. 6SJ7 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris McGreal

Moved the Chris McGreal section to its own article, keeping all the critical references. Linked to it under a section headed "Usage in the press" --John Nagle 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I combined the three times it was references into one multi-linked citation. -- Avi 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone took out the Chris McGreal cite today, and someone else put it back in. It probably should stay in. We used to have a rather big Chris McGreal section, but it had become an individual bio embedded in this article, so I moved it out a week ago to a separate Chris McGreal article. That's been stable for a while. Nobody objected, and others fixed up some dangling cites, so that seems to be acceptable for now. --John Nagle 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

More explicit sourcing

I've been making some of the sources more explicit in the text. Rather than "Opponents claim", I've written "Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, claimed in 2004". This is consistent with WP:WEASEL, and is more journalistic in tone. --John Nagle 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's good I found those two sources then, isn't it ;) Seriously, good pickup. -- Avi 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Glaser, D. J. 2003. Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison: pdf available

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

Abstract: This article subjects to normative-theoretical scrutiny the common claim that Israeli Zionism is 'like' South African apartheid. Drawing on a range of historical and sociological evidence, it shows that this claim (or accusation) is substantially justified in two senses. Firstly, Israeli Zionism is, in many areas, morally bad in the same way as apartheid; secondly, where it is different from apartheid in character, it is in some respects anyway as bad - that is, the difference is not invariably morally favourable to Israeli Zionism. 'Israel proper' (within its pre-1967 borders) is neither much like nor as bad as apartheid. The justification of the analogy only becomes clear when we view Israel and its occupied territories as a single political entity. The article argues that we are justified in so viewing them.

I have the pdf available, if you are interested, send me an e-mail, I cannot post it here as it is copyrighted. -- Kim van der Linde 14:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Do POV reflective categories belong on an article? Is policy a solution?

On Allegations of Israeli apartheid the POV category currently applied is Category:Pejorative political terms. One could also apply the converse POV category Category:Discrimination. Recently, on the related Hasbara article there was a recent discussion as to whether or not the POV reflective Category:Propaganda should be used.

Of course, proponents of each POV can say that the category reflective of their POV clearly applies while the proponents of the contrasting POV can say that it doesn't meet NPOV requirements.

At the moment, it seems from my recent experience, that POV categories are applied in some cases and not in others, usually based on the relative rhetorical skill, or the distribution of vocal participants, of those involved in each article.

To me I would prefer if there was policy with regards to how to deal with this that one could reference so that it could be applied consistently.

This is an honest question that I am asking. Could we try to develop a consistent solution to this issue? I think it is more productive that fighting it out over and over again on various articles. --Ben Houston 13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts that a workable policy could be developed, but if you want to try, there is nothing to stop you.

As for this page in particular, in my opinion it would definitely not fit into "category:propaganda". That category is for articles dealing with the subject of propaganda, not with subjects that someone thinks are examples of propaganda.

I note this article has already been entered under "perjorative political terms", and that highlights an additional problem with the renaming of this article to "allegations of..." "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is not a perjorative political term, obviously. Israeli apartheid is the perjorative. This article looks very out of place amongst the list of political perjoratives, and I don't think it belongs there. Gatoclass 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen Category:Pejorative political terms before, but now that I have, it seems to me that almost every entry is "very out of place" with almost every other entry. It is kind of a silly category. 6SJ7 01:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about that. Most of them seem to be very obvious examples of political perjoratives to me. Gatoclass 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Title

This article should be renamed "Israeli Apartheid Debate". "Israeli Apartheid" is a fact contested, no doubt, but it is to shallow a description to call it "allegations". They are not mere allegations, but a complete body of political activity and POV, supported by notables of world reknown like Desmond Tutu. To call the political views that uphold the "Israeli Apartheid" as mere allegations, is a disingenious attempt at minimizing the real impact such ideas have on contemporary political views. Hence the title I propose is more fitting: it recognizes that there is indeed a debate, not just disjointed or minimal "allegations", while repsecting NPOV.

Now, the article as it stands does need a rewrite and must be expanded, but the debate on the existence or not of an Israeli Apartheid is an important debate, in view of the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, and is one that we as editors owe wikipedian readers a good shot at a quality, NPOV entry.--Cerejota 05:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review