Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Holocaust = Collective Punishment?

I cant believe someone wrote the many Israelis are survivors of the Collective punishment when meaning the Holocaust! Oh see because the roadblocks are the collective punishment first the Jew suffering the collective punishment now they do to Palestinians. That make sense. !!! and Holocaust punishment for what?Opiner 20:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The point the source was attempting to make was that as descendants of collective victims of ethnic discrimation, most of today's Israeli Jews would not be expected to be perpetrators of ethnic discrimation themselves. Are you trying to say the long history of pogroms, culminating in the Holocaust (though certainly continuing in Russia to a later date), wasn't punishment, or that no one ever blamed Jews for anything? I think you'll find in fact the Jews were blamed for just about everything you could imagine over the course of European history. -- Kendrick7talk 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If holocaust only ethnic discrimination it wouldnt be called the holocaust. Trivialize it and now everyone doing it including Europe today and America. Someone unfair to ethnic group hey its like the Holocaust again.

Anyhow having it in the article like that is way of argument just like the one youre making here.Opiner 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Genocide is of course worse than apartheid, but they are, arguably, both fruit born of the same tree. I personally think that the view that the victims of one are less likely to perpetrate the other is naive and ignores the basic human condition. However, such a history makes any such allegations more notable, at least in a "man bites dog" sensibility. That may not be what the source is getting at; my gloss of what they wrote may be inaccurate. I thought it was an interesting point, the source itself calls it out as an important point ("Above all...") so I included it here. --- Kendrick7talk 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This Horse is Alive and Kicking

The subject article is "allegations of Israeli apartheid", and as the article stands there are numerous reliable primary sources that are appropriately referenced and propertly footnoted. There are so many allegations and qualified sources in this article, that discussing all of them had to be trimmed back ("article was getting too long") and many of the allegations were thus shortened. With so many credible footnoted and reliable sources using the term, it would be highly improper to delete it. 6SJ7, I think the mistake you are making on this page is to tell us what your personal opinions are, when all we're supposed to discuss and write about is what relevant, reliable sources say about this concept. There are plenty of reliable sources here including Nobel Peace Prize winners and South African anti-apartheid leaders.Kiyosaki 00:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

--6SJ7: Can you provide your opinion as to why you think: "the fact that there is nothing to support an article here in the first place"? Have you read the article and done the research including looking at the footnotes and sources? There are plenty of them. I'd be curious to know what you think after you have read them all. Thanks.Kiyosaki 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, maybe it was not as obvious to you as it was to me, that the "horse" in the heading of the section that I created was not a reference to this article, itself. It was a somewhat self-deprecating reference to the fact that I am continuing to discuss the issue of whether the article should exist, despite the fact that there doesn't seem to be any real possibility that it is going to go away in the foreseeable future. In other words, I am the one beating the dead (or at least mostly dead horse. I can't seem to let it go, because I think Wikipedia is a good concept but that articles like this one prevent it from being all that it can be.
Anyway, I have not only read the article (in many different versions), but I have been involved on this talk page (all or most of the 14 or so archived pages) since the first day of this article's existence, as well as all of the various discussions and "proceedings" about it that have taken place elsewhere on Wikipedia. To a much lesser extent I have been involved in editing the article itself, again since Day One (or maybe Two). That is probably a reflection of my general opinion as to the value of the article. But even so, among my contributions to the article were a compromise intro that I wrote over the summer that actually stood up with little controversy for at least a few weeks. I also was part of the consensus that gave the article its current name, again as a compromise. As for reading the footnotes and sources in the current version, I can't say I am completely up to date with the footnotes and have not read most of the sources myself, but I don't think the quality of the research done for this article (whatever quality that may be) has much to do with the fundamental problem posed by this article.
Several of my talk page (and other non-article) contributions have mentioned what I believe is inherently wrong with this article, and I do not have time to repeat it right now. Jay has a statement above that sums up the feelings that I also have about why this is not a valid article. In response to your comments, I will add that while this article does indeed have sources and footnotes, that is not enough. What are the sources about? They are just opinions, and they are not even opinions about facts. They are opinions about a nasty name some people want to apply to a set of policies. It would be appropriate to have an article about the practices followed by Israel toward the Palestinian population, and similar articles for other countries, with sources cited as to whether those practices are good or bad, fair or unfair, justified by the security situation or not, etc. In fact, there is or was such an article, Human rights in Israel, and a series of corresponding articles for other countries. I have not read any of these in months; I know that the Israel article was the subject of an edit war after it started, but I do recall reading a version of it that seemed reasonable. Hopefully that is currently the case. So what does this "apartheid" article add? It collects a bunch of opinions about whether Israel's human rights practices and other policies are like, or unlike, or sort-of-like, other policies of another government at another time, in another language. It adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia.
Having said all that, I have no specific plans to do anything about deleting or merging this article. I suspect it is futile, given the number of people on Wikipedia who wish to beat up on Israel, and the shenanigans that have been pulled in the past by the initiator and some of the supporters of this article. However, if someone else wants to make a go of it, nobody needs to guess where I will stand. 6SJ7 06:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try to deny or revise the fact that many people, reliable and credible, have made the allegation of apartheid with regards to Israel/Palestine, see [1]. It exists and the article should cover those facts. Thanks. You wrote: "Jay has a statement above that sums up the feelings that I also have about why this is not a valid article." Can you or Jay provide us that statement, and your exact reasoning below for such a statement? Thanks again. Kiyosaki 03:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reorg

For some reason I cannot fathom, Kiyosaki has re-organized that article so that the explanation of how the term is used has been placed below the laundry list of people who have actually used it, and he has denigrated perhaps the only experts in the area who have commented on this. I've restored the original consensus order of the article, pending a new consensus that is should be re-ordered in this new way, which, on the fact of it, appears to make no sense whatsoever. Jayjg (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very much in support of defining the term first. Elizmr 16:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Those who have read my other recent comments on this talk page will not be surprised to learn that I regard any debate over the ordering of sections in this article as being analagous to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. However, on the theory that even a sinking (or sunken) ship could benefit from a bit of feng shui, I endorse Jay's approach to organizing this article. 6SJ7 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, let's focus on the primary sources first to explain the term, not secondary or tertirary sources or US academics that have far less experience than South African anti-apartheid activists. Thanks. Kiyosaki 03:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As explained before, being a member of a South African anti-apartheid group does not in any way make you an expert on the situation in Israel. Let's favor the experts who've actually studied this academically, and are able to provide some intellectual rigor to the discussion. Also, please try to respect consensus, and try to make more intelligent arguments (rather than repetitive and often illogical assertions) in the future; otherwise people will mistake your contributions for trolling. Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Neither of the academics mentioned are "US academics", but rather "Canadian academics". It would be helpful if you actually read the article itself before editing. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm sorry but the president of Columbia University and an Asian studies expert Ian Buruma from Bard College are not better sources than South African anti-apartheid leaders on this subject. You have not shown us your reasoning. Thanks.Kiyosaki 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why Moodley and Adam paragraphs should be split in two. Are you saying "Moodely and Adam" are a better intro to the term than that from South African leaders and Nobel Prize winners? That's getting into POV territory. Kiyosaki 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent VOA News article

Israeli Cabinet Minister Calls for Separation of Jews and Arabs:

"The newest addition to the Israeli Cabinet has called for a near-total separation of Jews and Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The statement sparked outrage, especially among Israel's Arab citizens, who accused the hawkish minister of promoting an "apartheid" policy."

Voice of America News is the international news agency of the US federal government. --Deodar 03:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This has also been picked up by the AP. this one, or this one etc. -- Kendrick7talk 00:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank God for Avigdor Lieberman. Arniep 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Kendrick: "Israel official touts Jew/Arab apartheid". Did I read that correctly? Thanks.Kiyosaki 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

We're in a bit of a back and forth situation here; I find myself having to tidy the same bits. Rather than reverting, we need to start improving the writing so that we have a narrative, rather than a list of quotes and names.

Can someone say why section 1.3 is a separate section (Viewed as an outcome of ...), and what the point of the first paragraph is, which seems to be about South Africa? I've removed it once, maybe twice, but mysteriously it keeps popping back. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were relying on this outline to provide some structure:

*(1.3)"The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals."

  • (1.4)"'Israel is Apartheid' advocates include most Palestinians, many Third World academics, and several Jewish post-Zionists who idealistically predict an ultimate South African solution of a common or binational state."
  • (2.0) A third group which sees both similarities and differences and which looks to South African history for guidance.
yes? -- Kendrick7talk 17:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize that. The section just seems to be hanging there, though, not as part of any obvious structure. Also, the first paragraph has nothing to do with Israel. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It was a comparison of how the UN has responded differently to Israel versus S.A. -- Kendrick7talk 18:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kendrick, the reason I deleted some quotes, which I see you restored, is that parts of the article are just lists of names and quotes, with no connecting narrative. It isn't always necessary to quote people; so long as you paraphrase closely, or even use the same words, and cite the source, it's fine. It's really only important to quote if the source says something distinctive, or something you want to distance yourself from, or something very important where the precise words matter. That's not the case for almost all the quotes we have in that section. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I found section 1.3 to very difficult to comprehend. I've refactored it and also moved it to the bottom. Also deleted the first part of the first paragraph. This is a version of the section I'd been working on my sandbox. It's not perfect but I think it's an improvement. Kla'quot 17:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It's excellent, Kla'quot, thank you. I didn't really get the point of it before, but it's very clear now. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph is back and the unclear header. Kendrick, I really do think Kla'quot's edits improved it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The analogy is an implicit rejection of the two-state solution. If you ignore this, you are missing the entire point. -- Kendrick7talk 18:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The apartheid analogy is a rejection of the two-state solution? I don't follow what you mean by that. Also, can you explain what the first paragraph of that section says? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You see, 'Israel is Apartheid' advocates idealistically predict an ultimate South African solution of a common or binational state, as opposed to the two-state solution. The African National Congress and the International community rejected a similar solution in South Africa, while the UN has always pressed for one in Israel/Palestine. Various people have recognized that the two-state solution is really just bantuisation. This is the "pro" position. It shouldn't be the last section of the article under a misleading title. -- Kendrick7talk 19:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Only one source is quoted for the first two paragraphs. Are there other sources who say the same thing? I can see other sources saying that if Israel retains the territories, an apartheid-type situation could emerge, but your source is saying that, whether or not Israel retains them, it's apartheid either way; it seems to me that that's probably a tiny-minority opinion i.e. that the two-state solution necessarily equals apartheid, so we either need more sources to show it's a significant-minority opinion, or else we need to reduce the space we give to it (at least). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... well, much of the territory originally given to the Palestinians is now on the wrong side of the apartheid wall which doesn't bode well for the idealistic two-state solution, where there ends up being two viable states. A few sources do compare the PLA to the "toy parliaments" of the bantuistans, I have been meaning to add that. -- Kendrick7talk 22:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Most proponents of the apartheid analogy favour a two-state solution. I've added a quote from Tutu that summmarizes it well. Kla'quot 20:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kalyquot: That is absolutely ridiculous, and please provide your back up. People who compare the Palestine situation refer to the "South African solution" (i.e. one hunam being = one vote) as the solution. The whole idea of separation is antitheitical to the solution in South Africa. Prove your statement that "Most proponents of the apartheid analogy favour a two-state solution". Thanks, we're intereted to see and learn what you have to say. Kiyosaki 04:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of controversial in the intro

It is not acceptable to say it is a controversial analogy. It is acceptable to say that a person says it is a controversial analogy or a number of persons have said it is controversial but absolutely not to state an opinion on whether it is controversial. This is a fundemental principal of encyclopedias to record what has happened and what has been said by whom but absolutely never to make a commentary. Arniep 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's exactly it. As SV says above, it's possible to summarise sources, as long as we're faithful. There can be doubt among reasonable people of whatever political persuasion that this issue is controversial. IronDuke 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. To say "x is is controversial" is to make a judgement that the people who have said x is controversial are correct. If this is really an encyclopedia not some kind of blog then we must never state anything as the writer but merely report events and statements. Arniep 23:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No, not when it's obvious, c.f. "Paris is the capital of France." IronDuke 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you are right. It's clear that the theory is disputed. The question is, is the theory controversial, or are it's critics being controversial? The word is being used here to place the reader in a skeptical mindset. In effect, the introduction is the beginning of a not-so-subtle argument against the "allegations", backed by a disproportionate amount of references to criticism. Just the usual subversion of Wikipedia as a propaganda tool by the usual suspects. Oh yeah.. This is made even more blatant by the fact that the word is made redundant by the use of the non-neutral template.Tarma 2002 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)tarma_2002

Farid Esack

Jayjg deleted info about Farid Esack because of potential copyright issues. How long does this take to process through and reopen the article? I'd like to contribute to building that article but cannot for over one week. See: [2].

I didn't delete anything. Please try to get your facts straight; even one time would be helpful. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. What did this edit do, other than remove info (because of potential copyright)? Please explain to us. [3] Thanks, what did I miss? Kiyosaki 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

PS When will the article be open again for contibutions? Thanks.Kiyosaki 04:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a tag to the top of the page. I deleted nothing. You should do proper research, before making allegations, and especially before editing articles. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When will the Farid Esack article process throught the system, since it was not deleted, but "content made inaccessiable" by Jayjg due to copyright issues? This is the original question: How long will it take until we can contribute to it? Thanks much.Kiyosaki 20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Tutu/Phillips

I'm not entirely averse to returning this section elsewhere in the article, but it does not belong under "criticism of the term". Neither Tutu nor Phillips criticizes the term in the citation provided. (Revised: The passage isn't about "Israeli apartheid at all.)

I'm giving 50/50 odds that it's already been restored, notwithstanding. CJCurrie 04:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC) updated: 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC) and again 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC) I have no problem with the current positioning of the section.

To Humus

Congratulations: You missed my point completely. The "Jewish Lobby" page is about the controversy surrounding that term, and is a more appropriate place to store the Tutu/Phillips exchange. (Btw, we actually agree on something: the term "Jewish lobby" is offensive.) CJCurrie 04:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could CJCurrie explain why he moved the criticism of Tutu out of the criticism section, and why he deleted Ian Buruma? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
(i) "Criticism of a proponent of the term" is not "criticism of the term", (ii) I reverted to Kiyosaki's version, and didn't notice the Buruma deletion; I have no opinion on whether or not it should be kept. CJCurrie 04:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SV, I did that, and please review the above talk sections. What do you think about Buruma's expertise on this subject? Thanks.Kiyosaki 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could Slim, Jay, Humus or IronDuke explain why the Tutu/Phillips exchange is included on this page, when the controversy concerns Tutu's use of the term "Jewish lobby" and not his use of the term "Israeli apartheid"? CJCurrie 04:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see Kiyosaki has just given you a barnstar. You seem to get a lot of support from sockpuppets, CJ.
Phillips has criticized Tutu's comments that Israel as an apartheid state, and she pointed out that he made that criticism while using language that is regarded by some commentators as anti-Semitic. It's a valid criticism and she's a reliable source, so it's not for you to remove it just because you personally don't like it. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks.Kiyosaki 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you an alternate account of another user, Kiyosaki? Have you edited here under another username? IronDuke 05:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Slim: If you have any evidence of sockpuppetry, please share it with us. If you don't, please refrain from making baseless insinuations.

Concerning Phillips: the cited passage only indicates that Phillips criticized Tutu for using the term "Jewish lobby", not "Israel apartheid". "Phillips has criticized Tutu's comments that Israel as (sic) an apartheid state" is not a fair extrapolation of the passage in question. CJCurrie 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to say that you're a sockpuppet, K, because it's painfully obvious that you are.
I'm appalled that CJCurrie is trying to claim Ian Buruma isn't a reliable source just because he doesn't like what he says. Buruma is a very experienced journalist, who's currently Henry R. Luce Professor of Democracy, Human Rights, and Journalism at Bard College, New York. He's the former foreign editor of The Spectator, and has written for The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Financial Times, and The Guardian. He's a former cultural editor of The Far Eastern Economic Review, and a former fellow of the Wissenschaftskolleg, Berlin; the Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington D.C.; St. Antony's College, Oxford; and the Remarque Institute, NYU. He has delivered lectures at Oxford, Princeton, and Harvard.

Ian Buruma is an expert on Asia, not Apartheid. You have not done the research correctly. Please review again. Thanks.Kiyosaki 05:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki, is there anyone here who agrees with you? CJ appears not to. Maybe you need to rethink. IronDuke 05:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
We had this kind of editing from CJCurrie and HOTR at New antisemitism for a long time, and now we have it from CJCurrie and Kiyosaki. Please allow all majority and significant-minority reliable sources to be used, even if you dislike what they have to say. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm appalled that CJCurrie is trying to claim Ian Buruma isn't a reliable source just because he doesn't like what he says. I'm appalled that SlimVirgin didn't read "I reverted to Kiyosaki's version, and didn't notice the Buruma deletion; I have no opinion on whether or not it should be kept". CJCurrie 05:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Then do not engage in blanket reverts. This is exactly how you caused the trouble at NAS, which led to you calling Homey in as a reinforcement, which led to his creation of this article and the months-long disruption and sockpuppetry that followed. Don't try it again here. If you want to make an edit, make an edit; don't revert everything unless you've checked it all. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
A while ago, I asked Slim why she chose to revert an innocuous edit I'd made. She responded that it was part of a blanket revert, and that she didn't even see my alterations. She then cautioned me about "being disruptive" or somesuch. I've spent the last fifteen minutes looking for the page diff on NAS, but I can't seem to find it at present. A pity. Perhaps it on was another page. In any event, I'm glad to see the hobgoblin of consistency isn't haunting these grounds. CJCurrie 05:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, poor little victim of the lobby. Violins please! ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
With critics like these ... CJCurrie 05:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So, Kendrick7 -- Does the Codename Sapphire mean anything to you?? -- Kendrick7talk 05:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't -- I swear to God!! -- Kendrick7talk 05:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
CJ, the graf in question clearly indicates that Philips is criticising Tutu for comparing Israel to SA. That's how she begins her thought Archbishop Desmond Tutu, having compared Israel to South Africa under apartheid.... You think it's just a random non-sequitur? It would be hard for her to be any clearer. IronDuke 05:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The graf does, but the article wording doesn't. Hence my suggestion. Did you read it? CJCurrie 05:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Have I read it? Hmmmm... good question... have I read it... wait! Is that a rhetorical question? Sort of along the lines of, "CJ, are you just trolling now?" IronDuke 15:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There should be no problem there, but please do not include Tutu in the criticism section. His remarks are "allegations of apartheid", not criticism. Thanks.Kiyosaki 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So it is not Israeli after all, simply Jewish

Thank you CJCurrie for admitting it. Next time, don't bother to bring the argument "we are against Zionists, not the Jews". ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm "admitting" that "Jewish lobby" and "Israeli apartheid" are different terms, but I'm not surprised you jumped to a different conclusion. CJCurrie 04:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Israeli Apartheid and the many reliable sources and quotes that are footnoted that refer to it? Please explain. Thanks.Kiyosaki 04:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. Ask Tutu and your favorite WPian. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you want to deny and revise Tutu's remarks, but that's not possible. What is your expertise on the subject? Are you a reliable source? Thanks.Kiyosaki 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "deny and revise Tutu's remarks" but to answer your question: when I have the all-powerful lobby behind me, anything is possible. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Are we talking about a smoking or non-smoking lobby? -- Kendrick7talk 05:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens is not a serious editor.Kiyosaki 06:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Before this gets completely out of control

I've looked up the Melanie Phillips article, and found this line:

Take, as an example, former Archbishop Desmond Tutu, given a platform in the Church Times and The Guardian. Not content with comparing Israel - where Arabs have the vote and are members of the Knesset and the Supreme Court - to apartheid South Africa, Tutu compared the 'very powerful Jewish lobby' in America to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic and Idi Amin, and called on the world to exercise an equivalent duty to make it 'bite the dust'.

The current wording on the article page does not indicate that Phillips draws a connection between Tutu's use of the term "Jewish Lobby" and his use of the term "Israeli apartheid". May I suggest that the wording be changed, to indicate that she does?

I suspect this tempest in a teapot may die down shortly. CJCurrie 05:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It will die down if you stay out of it, but anything you involve yourself in seems to flare up. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Slim, why are you being so disruptive? I've suggested a means of resolving the matter, and you've responded with an ad hominem attack. CJCurrie 05:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SV, I was thinking the opposite. I have asked repeatedly as to why Ian Buruma is a good source? So far, nobody but me has done the research on him. We have not been provided any compelling information to the contrary that he is an extremely weak for this article. A vetted article would not include him as a source. I ask other Wikipedia editors other than anti-Tutu POV types to review. Thanks. Slim Virgin, please explain in detail Buruma's strengths on this very subject not generalities like before. Please stick to the subject or stop imflaming the situation. Thanks.Kiyosaki 05:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 0:With all due respect, Kiyosaki-san, I believe this is a lost cause. -- Kendrick7talk 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fairly pro-Tutu POV type, and I think the quote from Baruma belongs in the article. Request fulfilled. Kla'quot 08:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian Buruma is an extremely weak source that should not be included in a legitimate vetted article on this subject. Thanks. It's quite simple that some people are not honest about it. Do the research. He is not appropriate. Kiyosaki 05:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

People can judge his credentials for themselves. You should have faith that many will come to the same conclusion you have. -- Kendrick7talk 05:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kendrick, nobody has reviewed his lack of reliable credentials. Instead we waste time with POV-types who have not done the research. Let's see a detailed review. Do you care to review? Thanks.Kiyosaki 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Kiyosaki has a point. We should only quote experts who have academic degrees in "Israeli Apartheid". Oop! There are none! Could this mean the article is unencyclopedic? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You have still not shown Buruma's expertise and kindly do so. Do you really want me to list Ian Buruma's expertise on Asia? Seriously, I can, but it will take up this entire page. Kindly show us Buruma's direct and eminent expertise on this subject. Just put up or shut up, and please take this issue seriously. Thanks.Kiyosaki 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is being knowledgeable of Asia mutually exclusive? He is professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism. Perhaps you think apartheid is not about human rights. If that is the case you are not taking the issue seriously and should stop wasting people's time. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done the research on Ian Buruma and have not seen the link DIRECTLY to anything substantial that would suggest he is "eminently" qualified as per Jayjg. I'd like to see the evidence, is it that hard to find? I have asked for over one week. MPerel, if you think this discussion subsection is a 'waste of time' to you personally, kindly feel free to edit elsewhere on this vast Wikpedia. Thanks.Kiyosaki 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your bias and hostility is blinding you to the obvious which has already been shown to you repeatedly. As for your invitation for me to "kindly feel free" etc, I'm actually not sensing much kindness or freedom behind those words. And in fact your tone to editors in general is not very conducive to a productive and cooperative editing environment. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We would be grateful if you would show us the information on Buruma. I really do not understand how much more politely one could ask. Thanks much.Kiyosaki 10:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I have politely asked User:Kiyosaki to fill out edit summaries (twice) and to use preview (once). By now I can only assume that he intentionally does a large number of small edits without WP:ES to evade scrutiny and WP:3RR. I am writing this here - since I see no change to the better - to draw attention of other editors to these tactics. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just asked him again myself. -- Kendrick7talk 06:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens is not a serious editor. Please review WP:STALK, WP:POINT, WP:ES, WP:NPA and WP:RS. Thanks.Kiyosaki 06:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on Kiyosaki's Talk page asking him not to make personal attacks such as the above. Kiyosaki, please use edit summaries. It's a courtesy to other editors. Kla'quot 07:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate personal attacks either. Thanks much.Kiyosaki 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Layout

Kendrick, who agreed on that layout? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Was there some reason to merge those sections presented that I had not been made aware of? -- Kendrick7talk 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you've been made aware of it before. We have use of term/criticism of term. That makes it perfectly balanced. There's no need to unbalance it with an unnecessary header in favor of the use of the term, especially given that our first source says most commentators deplore its use. We must not present a minority position as though it's a majority one. See WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To declare that the "first source" deplores its use is POV. Who determined this POV first source? It shall not be considered final. The first source should not be "criticism" that is sloppy and POV work. Thanks.Kiyosaki 06:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting to create an unbalanced TOC? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The first section doesn't the favor the term. Using it to balance with the critism, by merging it with the sectio of people who have used the term doesn't make sense. -- Kendrick7talk 06:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What is TOC? Thanks.Kiyosaki 06:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Table of Contents. -- Kendrick7talk 06:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the case for the analogy presented near the end of the article? I'd think it is both common and natural for an article on any concept to start with a short introduction/definition, then move on to the case for the validity of the concept, then to criticism vs. said validity. This is more than a little ass backwards, especially as the "Arguments for the term" section also includes almost point-by-point rebuttal. That is not balanced, unless "Arguments against" contains its own set of rebuttals, and so too "criticism of", and the we're in a right mess. Might I suggest the main body consist of the following: 1. Arguments for (exclusively); 2. Arguments against (exclusively); 3. Criticism of use. Asgrrr 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article first discusses the term, then it discusses the arguments. In the section for the term, it discusses pro and con, and then in the section for the arguments, it discusses pro and con. That's a logical order. Jayjg (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when is it logical for an encyclopedia to go over the same thing twice in the same article? Presenting pro and con IS a discussion of arguments. It's like an article on seabird stating in the intro that the species is threatened by oil spills, then only to repeat that message in a section "threat to the species".Asgrrr 14:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The table of contents

Kendrick keeps reverting the TOC to include an extra header making the "pro" section appear longer. I feel we should stick to the balanced TOC where the first headers are:

1. The term

1.1 Use of the term
1.2 Criticism of the term

2. The issues

2.2 Arguments for the term
2.3 Arguments against the term

And then anything else that's relevant to follow. Other subheads within 1. or 2. should be written with ; in front, so as to create a bolded header that doesn't add to the TOC. Would editors who agree with this please sign below?

Support

  1. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. I've been arguing for neutral headers for years. Guy Montag 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. I can live with this. I prefer "analogy" to "term." Also, keeping headers out of the TOC is fine in the short term but not ideal in the long term. In theory, if an article is balanced and well-organized into appropriate sections, the TOC would naturally also be balanced. But I think the proposal is fine for now. Kla'quot 08:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    I agree that once the article stabilizes into something we needn't be embarrassed by, we could branch out into different headers. But for now, the TOC is being used as a POV weapon (recall the previous twenty headers before we reached criticism [4]), so I feel we need to clamp down on it for now. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Slim, can you elaborate why the TOC is a POV weapon? I think you may be right that there is too much POV directed towards denying the "allegations" from reliable sources and delaying discussing what the allegations are, and there is an effort to delete the article (and sources) and focus on pro-Israel "criticism" prior to discussing the allegations themselves. We must cover the spectrum of appropriate sources and give them coverage, moreso than covering the critics first. I think we could use New antisemitism as an example. In that article the Criticism come after the discussion, do you want to reverse it here? That wouldn't be consistent. What do you think? Where would you say criticism of "new antisemtism" is located in the article? Pretty far down? Let's be consistent on both. Thanks. Kiyosaki 10:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Leifern 10:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Makes sense. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 11:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. It seems more logical to place "Commentators who have used the term" as a subcategory (with ;) under the "Use of the term" than to make it a parallel section to "Use of the term" and "Criticism of the term". --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 15:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Keep it balanced. IronDuke 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Logical and balanced. Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Seems reasonable. 6SJ7 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support this logical and neutral layout. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support it.Opiner 20:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per above Elizmr 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. (As of now/Wait and see). What is likely to take place from this (is what has been tried before), is moving the Criticism (a collection of haphazard quotes) above the use of the term as per South Afican anti-apartheid activists like Tutu and Winnie Mandela. If Lee Bollinger's quote or Ian Buruma's quotes end up placed before the actual allegations as per South Afican anti-apartheid leaders like Tutu and Winnie Mandela, then that is POV. The allegations should come before the Criticism, unless we retitle the article: "Criticism of Allegations of Israel Apartheid" which is what I believe is what some editors, consciously or not, would prefer. Thanks.Kiyosaki 20:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You still haven't explained what makes people like Tutu and Winnie Mandela any sort of expert on the situation in Israel. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Jayjg Elizmr 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the above File:UK Royal Coat of Arms.pngUKWiki 21:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. First of all, academic expertise is only one kind of authority, and Wikipedia articles do not in every instance privilege it. Another compelling form of authority is moral authority, and on the topic of apartheid Tutu and Mandela not only have this form of authority but embody it. Which brings me to my second point. This page is about the comparison between apartheid South Africa and Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories. Relevant "authorities" for this article include moral authorities as well as academic ones, and authorities (of both kinds) on the South African situation as well as the Israeli one.--G-Dett 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (and Elizmr), you would rather rely on obscure academics to support your POV, than rely on South African anti-apartheid leaders that have the most direct experience and reliable expertise in the World on the subject of apartheid and its conditions. Let's just say that you have not convinced me, and let's leave it at that. You will have a tough time convincing anyone but allies that Ian Buruma knows more than Mandela or Tutu!! Good luck to you though. Thanks.Kiyosaki 00:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments
You are merely creating the illustion of balance where none exists. The proponents' section of the article was moved and rewritten not so long ago that I have forgotten, and is now section #3. -- Kendrick7talk 06:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Slim is also creating the illusion of consensus where none exists. Perhaps we should simply assume that all of SlimVirgin's allies are in favour of SlimVirgin's proposal. CJCurrie 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hard to see how it's an illusion, unless people you disagree with somehow don't exist for you. Come to think of it... IronDuke 01:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

CJ: I most defintely agree that it's an illusion, see my comment above. The proponents' section of the article was moved and rewritten not so long ago that I have forgotten, and is now section #3. See also edits like these [5]. Lee Bollinger and Ian Buruma should not precede Desmond Tutu, and will anyone here make the case for the article being structured as such? Please explain yourself for us, if you do. Thanks.Kiyosaki 20:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New ant-Semitism

I've moved the New anti-Semitism link into the text as per arguments here, I moved it to the end of the section before but someone reverted saying that I was "hiding" the link. Amusingly the main objection to my proposal was the prominence of crime of apartheid which has now been merged into the text. --Coroebus 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, I was reverting Kiyosaki there, not you. We had an edit conflict of some kind. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:STALK

(moved from SV's talk page) Slim, why do you continue to edit war and revert me without engaging in any discussion? Please stop stalking WP:STALK, and make let us all make good faith edits. Thanks.Kiyosaki 21:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Groups

The article states: "white supremacist David Duke,[8] Holocaust denier Paul Grubach of the Institute for Historical Review,[9] and anti-Semitic groups (like Jewwatch). This could be consolidated into "anti-semetic groups". Frankly, I have no idea why a non-RS like a holocaust denier is even appropriate in this article about Apartheid, unless it's a smear by association by whoever put it in there. I though Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, and if Paul Grubach is going to be listed here, then do we put him everywhere that the WP:RS definition is met? Thanks.Kiyosaki 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The question of who makes allegations of apartheid is very much germane to this topic. Nobody is saying that anti-semitic groups are reliable sources on anything except the question of what their own beliefs are. Kla'quot 07:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess you support quoting Jewwatch and David Duke and Holocaust deniers on topics they choose to speak about. I'll note that. I think we will do the same henceforth, with the very same sources, on other Wikipeida articles. Thanks much for your opinion. I will copy and save that quote of yours. Kiyosaki 09:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We quote several sources in that section that we wouldn't normally regard as reliable; Winnie Mandela and the Syrian government, for example. The point of the section is "who has used the term." It was the people who wanted this article to exist that started the list, as I recall, so you can't complain when names are added that you happen not to like. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Winnie Mandela isn't reliable? What is your reasoning or source for that? Do you know more about apartheid than she does? What are your qualifications? Why do you think she is unqualified? I can tell you why jewwatch is non-RS. Thanks.Kiyosaki 11:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Blockquoting

Opiner, why are you being inconsistent with editing as regards to 'blockquoting' on this article? Kindly respond and discuss, and we would be grateful if you didn't just revert without discussion. Thanks.Kiyosaki 10:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate the other blockquotes also. They are making Wikipedia into the quote farm. Please remove these formats.Opiner 10:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed them as per your instruction. I hope it doesn't start another edit war with SlimVirgin!!! (just kidding there). Thanks.Kiyosaki 10:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Worst are those giant blue quotes that are bigger than the words themself. I hate those who are making these? Not on this article.Opiner 10:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Arab and Palestinian Sources

The article contains few (if any!) Palestininan and Arab voices and sources. We should all endeavor to make the article more NPOV by providing these views too. SlimVirgin, IronDuke, Jayjg, JoshuaZ, Isarig, Humus Sapiens, Moshe, Avraham perhaps you could help us build up this missing part of the article. Thanks in advance.Kiyosaki 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see any evidence that this is a term ever used by Palestinians or Arabs, it appears to be mostly a Western invention created to serve political purposes. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tell us what poltical purposes Desmond Tutu and South Africans anti-apartheid leaders are serving by speaking from their experience? Mperel, please show some good faith to people like Archbishop Tutu, after all he has won a Nobel Peace Prize, what are your qualifications and expertise in comparison? Thanks.

--1) Can some of the experienced Wikipedia editors following this discussion help to craft these RS into the article, so there is no conflict or edit war? I'd be glad to review the effort. Otherwise, I can do it. Let me know. Thanks.

"The Palestinian cause is a case of colonialist apartheid. If a permanent and relatively just solution is not found, Israel will impose its own solution, which is to entrench its apartheid system through a unilateral disengagement that will leave the Palestinians in isolated cantons, without sovereignty over their land. There are only two ways to end the apartheid....." Azmi Bishara source: [6]

--2) "Many liberal Zionists were active in the antiapartheid struggle and cannot accept that the Israel they love could have anything in common with the hated apartheid regime." Ali Abunimah , source: [7], page 117.)

--3) "Jamal Zahalka described Israeli political discourse on the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories as revolving around three main ideas: separation, apartheid, and transfer. An apartheid system has already taken shape. Zahalka pointed out that Israel has even now divided the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into several cantons and requires Palestinians to carry permits allowing them to travel between those cantons." Jamal Zahalka, source: [8]Kiyosaki 00:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

While citing these sources, why not mention that they are also big on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus, can you back up your slur? Kindly edit seriously on articles somewhere on this vast Wiki, but please contribute in a positive manner. Thanks.Kiyosaki 09:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki PLEASE stop the trolling against the other editors such as SlimVirgin and Humus sapiens.
About your commenting before of the qualification and expertise of the Nobel Peace Prize. There IS NO qualification and expertise from this prize! Its only media and political.Opiner 09:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's one very recent example of a nobel winner who has been found guilty of wrongdoing [9]. Elizmr 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have more qualifications that Desmond Tutu on the subject of apartheid we would be glad to consider you seriously. Kindly show us.

Do not make bizarre personal attacks, review WP:NPA and WP:PAIN. Thanks.Kiyosaki 09:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki youre making the personal attacks left right and centre! And bizarre! Tutu has what experience with Israel? NONE! What because he live under actual Apartheid he is now a doctor of Apartheid Studies and can call anything the Apartheid? Before you were saying the Nobel Peace Prize confers the authority.Opiner 09:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks, and like all other Wikipedia editors DO NOT like receiving them. Kindly stop. Thanks much.Kiyosaki 10:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

'after all he has won a Nobel Peace Prize, what are your qualifications and expertise in comparison?'Opiner 10:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thanks for contributing. I'll review what you've done. However it appears you are moving Desmond Tutu down the article again. Do you realize this is occurring? thanks.Kiyosaki 10:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

--Slim, I reviewed part of your edits. While I agree with you that Jamal Zalhalka and Azmi Bishara are very important sources of "allegations of israeli apartheid", I have replaced their positioning in the article with Desmond Tutu. What do you think? Thanks much.Kiyosaki 10:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It was better before so I reverted, but for the sake of peace, I have moved Tutu's name into the top list, so he is now the only one who is mentioned twice. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You reverted again, resulting in the Tutu paragraph getting buried again, below Jamal Zalhalka. Kindly explain why Zalhalka warrants a better position than Tutu? Explain first, then edit. Please do not provoke others unnecessarily. Thanks.Kiyosaki 11:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR. I strongly advise you to take the opportunity to revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to do that, and I don't think I did. What specifically are you talking about. This is a serious inquiry. I do not understand.Kiyosaki 11:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed personal attack. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
John, I'm sure you don't mean to be encouraging Kiyosaki to continue to violate 3RR and ignore consensus, as he has been doing. Also, I think it's safe to say that your characterization of Slim and Jay's behavior (and the arbcom decision) is quite, quite wrong, as anyone following your link can see. I'm sure you're familiar with WP:CIV, so I'll forbear from suggesting you read it. IronDuke 19:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
From the arbitration decision for this article:
All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.
Passed 6 to 0 at 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's part of their Permanent Record. --John Nagle 05:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Good grief, John, what result are you trying to achieve? You're waving some hints, but I'd much prefer it if you would come out and say straightforwardly what you would like us to do. Are you saying it's time for mediation? Kla'quot 05:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
John, please use the article talk pages for their intended purpose, discussing article content, rather than mischaracterizing ArbCom decisions and making personal attacks? Jayjg (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John Nagle, that explains alot, in fact it explains that hostility is not created by me, it their issue that they have been reprimanded over it before. It explains alot, and could you (or someone else) provide me with a link so I can review that in more detail? I was told that editing warring in and of itself is a good enough reason for blocking, so perhaps SlimVirgin could use a block for continual edit waring with others. I will comprise a list soon of my contributions to this article, of which there are many, all of which contain footnotes (please look at this very section above in italics) and links to RS's. I see that many of the edit warriors here have contributed little in comparison recently to the article's content. I think this episode was a disgrace: [10], I asked for help no less than 5 times. ThanksKiyosaki 07:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead Sources are Red Links?

OK, I have been trying help build this article and I was hoping to slowly work on this over the next few weeks and get it up to better article status, but that won't be possible if every edit has to be discussed in advance with editors that hold only the Israeli POV. Now I have been reverted, and edit warred, and reverted again by a few editors, who are keen on maintaining Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley comments above those of Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, other South African anti-apartheid leaders, etc. and then we find out that the article's lead sources are two obscure academics that are red links.

Let's try to get this thing to a correctly vetted version, and highlighting those two guys isn't really covering the issue correctly or NPOV. Therefore, unless someone can explain why 2 POV red links should be the source here, I will begin to rework the sources to a proper write-up for an encyclopedia. Also, if someone has a credible source that says the likes of Carter, Tutu, Mandela, Esack, etc ARE NOT NPOV, let's hear why. I see no reason to question the motives of Tutu and Carter, after all they are not players in the conflict as are all Israelis and Palestinian Arabs. Thanks.

PS Based on this reasoning I can see no reason to support the comment made above: "There's no need to unbalance it with an unnecessary header in favor of the use of the term, especially given that our first source says most commentators deplore its use" SlimVirgin (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC) That is not an NPOV or vetted way to start an article. It's POV to say most commentators deplore its use. That is untrue. Furthermore the first sources are people nobody has ever heard of. This article is about allegations of Israeli apartheid, it is not titled Criticism, Discrediting, and Refutations of Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Thanks.Kiyosaki 09:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks Slim for creating the new blue link to our lead source Heribert Adam and further reading link to "the Jewish Independent, September 30, 2005". I'll review it in detail as back-up to make sure it doesn't violate any copyright issues. But don't you think you should do research before prior reverting/edit wars back to red links and POV sources in the future? The new information on Heribert Adam and the lack of information still about Kogila Moodley still make the lead of that section worth reworking as they are rather obscure academics to lead the article. Surely you could help us find a better and NPOV source more suited to a well-written encyclopedia article. Let us know what you find, as I'll continue to look for a better lead source too. Thanks.Kiyosaki 18:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Heribert Adam is a well-known academic in this area, the only one I know of who has made a specific study of the allegation, and who has the background in South African politics to know how to view it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, then why did someone revert and delete an entire paragraph from his study? Slim, will you reinsert the info from the study of Heribert Adam and revert the drive-by POV edit by CrzRussian [11]? I left a note on the Talk page of CrzRussian asking why he did this, and perhaps in the future we can have less edit warring from those that haven't contributed to the discussion or made contributions to this article. Thanks.Kiyosaki 20:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The information you included encompassed far more than that, and your cherry-picked piece from Adam and Moodley completely misrepresented the thrust of their arguments. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you have not done the research otherwise you wouldn't say that. Sorry, the article as it stands cherry-picks for Israeli-POV, and if we're going to use that source we need to be fair and NPOV and provide the reader a full idea of what their arguments are. "Cherry-picking", you know what that terms means to have used it above. Please review the research in more detail, and you'll see that right now we are not NPOV with regards to Adam and Moodley. Thanks.Kiyosaki 05:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring again

According to Wikipedia: "One-click rollback is only intended for vandalism, spam, etc.; if reverting over disputed content, it should be done manually with an appropriate edit summary." Why is Crzrussian, an administrator, abusing admn powers without presenting any discussion? Can someone please review? thanks.Kiyosaki 21:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki, given that you've been reverted on this article by 10 different editors in the past week alone, and during that period been blocked 3 times for 3RR here, perhaps you should examine the possibility that the problem lies with you. Since you appear to have a great deal of difficulty editing within policy, I would recommend proposing all changes on the Talk: page here first. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
People have reverted 100 other editors on this article perhaps 250 times or more. You have been reverted multiple times, so has SlimVirgin. You have been warned not to abuse admn. powers to edit war. Kindly set a better example in the future. Please also refrain from attacking me and kindly focus on the inappropriate use of the rollback by Crzrussian to revert an entire paragraph of reliably sourced NEW info. Focus on the issue of this subsection. Regarding 3RR, Let me state that I do not intend to break that rule and never did intend to. I am new here. Thanks. PS Crzrussian also rollbacked the improved link to Jimmy Carter's book, among other things, without looking at it in detail. Kiyosaki 05:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You are the only person who has been reverted by ten different editors in the past week. No-one else has been reverted by even two editors in the past week. You have been blocked for three 3RR violations on this article three times in the past two weeks. No-one else has been blocked for even one 3RR violation. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please quit the personal attacks, Kiyosaki, and focus on improving your edits so that people don't keep reverting you. You could start by reviewing the content policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you could use a refresher also of WP:Civility and WP:NPA. Kindly also review your abuse of WP:RS and kindly restore my edit of accurately footnoted info as per Wikipedia NPOV policy and also WP:RS. You really should, as an admn. endeavour to be NPOV. Keeping Heribert Adam as a pro-Israel source only, is not correctly vetting the artcile. Sorry clearly you haven't looked at the new edit and quote/sourced info for Adam. He does acknowledge allegations of Israeli apartheid. I read the source, have you?

  • 1) Will you restore the footnoted paragraph or do you support deleting it? Why/why not?
  • 2) Do you believe it meets WP:RS, why/why not?
  • 3) Do you believe Crzrussian's rollback met Wikipedia policy for admns. Why/Why not?

Please stick to the article. Thanks. If anyone were to really look into this situation, they'd see that I have contributed more to this article recently than any other user. Reverts are being done in violation of WP:RS from POV editors that want to deny or diminish the actual allegations from being covered. It's really quite disgraceful. Please also show where I have violated WP:NOR. Kindly SHOW your accusations and prove them, otherwise refrain from making inaccurate ones in the future.

Adam and Moodley write "that a difference between Israel and apartheid South Africa lies in sufferage for Israeli Arabs. However, if Palestinian territories under more or less permanent Israeli occupation and settler presence are considered a part of the entity under analysis, the comparison between a disenfranchised African population in apartheid South Africa and the 3.5 million stateless Palestinians under Israeli domination gains more validity." [12]. This info is needed to make the Adam and Moodley source NPOV, not POV as the cherry-picked quotes now exist. Why is this objectionable to include? Kindly give any answer. Thanks. Kiyosaki 06:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Lead contains more Criticism than facts about the Subject topic

The lead is POV and could be better balanced. I will edit to make the lead more fair, accurate, informative, and with RS. This has already been done, however this information was deleted without discussion. Hopefully, we won't have that kind of editing in the future. Thanks. Kiyosaki 08:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph's balance as it stands is in violation of WP:NPOV; that can change with the addition of a single sentence, in my opinion. In addition, following Carter's book, the term is now, while still obviously controversial and hardly-used in academic circles, getting to be about as 'legitimate', or at any rate recognisable, as, say, Islamofascism. Given that, I think we need to start considering at what point the article title switches back to "Israeli apartheid". Hornplease 10:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've considered it, and the answer is "never," except of course when Israel actually engages in apartheid-like practices, which I hope will also be "never." Just because Carter doesn't think Jews should be allowed to defend themselves doesn't mean that he's right. --Leifern 11:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That is not an answer to my question. My question was about the term. Terms are used frequently as article titles when they are phrases that have entered the public vocabulary, even when many people, and a good number of editors, believe they may have little basis in fact and/or are defamatory. Islamofascism is one example. Great Satan, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and Intelligent Design are others, as is, to cite the most controversial one that I can think of offhand, Armenian genocide. At what point does this phrase, distasteful and inaccurate though we may think it is, have enough worldwide traction that we need to restore the original name to the article? Hornplease 11:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the term begs the question. This is the problem with political rhetoric - the very terms are coined to hijack the premise for the debate. Anti-Israeli activists want the term to come into common usage so that it's no longer a question of whether Israel is an apartheid state, but rather just how apartheid it is. We could discuss the other terms as well, but I tend to avoid such phrases that play this rhetorical trick, and so should this encyclopedia. --Leifern 11:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
A very sensible point. However, similar arguments can be made, as I said, for Islamofascism, and indeed were, at its AfD; and your concerns about hijacking were believed to be moot once the term gained considerable independent use. I repeat: when does this term satisfy the same criterion? Anyone else? Hornplease 11:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"Nigger" also gained considerable independent use at some point - that didn't make it any less offensive. I think the term Islamofascism is highly problematic as well, though it's a slightly different issue once you parse it. The mere fact that an offensive term gains accepted use does not make it the right term in an encyclopedia. --Leifern 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It did. And it has an article. I think that the consensus on WP has been that if term such as this gains popular recognition as a term, it has an article, and the title of the article is the term itself. I understand now that you disagree with that. I solicit input now, therefore, from people who do agree with that, but think the principle is inapplicable here, or that this term has not yet reached that point of recognition. Why and when, respectively? Hornplease 13:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that I am aware of the contentious history of this page title; I am merely pointing out that this is a term which is growing in popularity and all those who voted recently on the basis that this was a neologism should start considering - out loud, preferably - at what point it ceases to be one. Hornplease 14:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you want to create an article about the term? Is that what you're suggesting? Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
At the very least. More appropriately, again: when do the similarities between this and, say, Islamofascism start to outweigh the differences, namely the shrinking degree to which the term is known outside WP? And, at that point, how can we justify the divergent approaches to the two articles? Hornplease 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I added two different RS and footnoted sentences to expand on the topic of this article and NPOV the first paragraph, but they were reverted without discussion in violation of just about every spirit and guideline that Wikipedia has. Someone could review those contributions that were deleted. The first paragraph as it stands is POV and a disgrace to covering the subject topic appropriately for an encyclopedia.Kiyosaki 02:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian and Humus Sapiens rollbacks

Jayjg, you are an Administrator, perhaps you could look into this as the administrator job description supposes one should. We look forward to your conclusion and fair appraisal. Thanks.Kiyosaki 02:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Moshe (moved)

Just to help me as a wikipedia editor, why don't you describe in detail what about my last comment was in violation of WP:Civility.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to stick to the subject of the article, instead you choose to be INCIVIL: "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

Please stick to the topic as requested. Let's discuss the subject. Thanks.Kiyosaki 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png

Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png

Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png

Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel_and_apartheid/Archive_17&oldid=1109974885"