Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Is this what you call NPOV

To demonize Israel and then "NPOV" it by saying "Pro-Israel groups consider objectionable the use of this term to describe the State of Israel or its policies." - I am sorry this is meaninless this is NOT NPOV.

NPOV is to present both POV not just one POV and then say the other side don't like it.

In this case NPOV would mean to include part of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeq/apartheid_propeganda

Zeq 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Article is unprotected

Ho ho, and now the fun begins, I think you may have mistaken people running out of insults for some kind of detente --Coroebus 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, it's not too bad an article. This could work out. How about leaving the first paragraph alone for a while, and working on the "Criticism" section? Some of the arguments there could be strengthened, and some of them really aren't contributing much to that position. --John Nagle 17:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The division between analogy and critism section creates a situation of non NPOV. Instead the sections need to be combined and each accusations that has a valid answer should be in the same sentence. Zeq 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, won't it get awfully tangled if we have a to and fro debate in the article? --Coroebus 17:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• the problem here is NPOV.

• • The title is not
  • The lead is not (excpet where in the end in accuse thjose who use the term in antisemitism and terrorism - this is empty staements that do not help NPOV
  • next, is the analogy section - all one sided.
  • Next, useage section. long one.

By that point who wants to read the "Critism" section ? Zeq 19:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I've said, I'm happy with 'Allegations...', the lead is perfectly neutral (hedged with 'controversial'), and perhaps a bit anti the term at the end, the analogy section is actually quite short, and the usage section is not that long, then you get to the criticisms. I'd like to make the analogy and usage sections shorter so you'd get down to criticisms more quickly, but I'm also keen on slimming down the criticisms section too. --Coroebus 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To say that critics see something as offensive is not a way to NPOV that something. Once the lead claim an analogy it needs to claim why critics see not analogy. Zeq 19:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

There's no point me unilaterally editing, so I thought I'd give my thoughts:

• The comparison between Israel and South Africa is fictitious and is made in an attempt to demonize Israel as a prelude to an international boycott campaign. The long term goal is to pressure the United Nations to impose economic sanctions against Israel.

I'm not convinced this is a valid criticism as phrased, 'its not true' is a bit lame, but rephrasing it as a criticism that there are ulterior motives behind the comparison is to get sanctions imposed might work (I'll have to leave it in or Zeq'll go spare)

• The analogy "demean(s) Black victims of the real apartheid regime in South Africa."

This is a stupid criticism, it demeans them if it is false, but then the main criticism is that it is false.

• Zionism is not a manifestation of European colonialism.

This sounds like a rather weak objection to me, I suppose it is a rather technical objection to the term.

• Black labor was exploited in slavery-like conditions under apartheid whilst Palestinians rely on employment in Israel due to the economic failures and corruption of the Palestinain Authority.

(note to self, correct spelling of Palestinian) - This again seems somewhat weak, could it not be better phrased that the Israelis are not exploiting the Palestinians for their labour?

• Equating Zionism with apartheid is propaganda used to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks and deny Israelis the right of self-defence by demonizing the construction of the West Bank security barrier with the name "Apartheid wall".

Bit of editorialising here, I wonder whether it ought to be merged with the other motives argument.

• Opponents of the term argue that the security wall is a reasonable and necessary security precaution to protect Israeli civilians from terroristic violence, and that its existence was made necessary by the Palestinians themselves.

I'm for removing the wall reference completely, so this bit would not then be needed.

Actually, I've changed my mind, I think he might be getting at what is the best and most intellectually coherent argument, that the Israelis are reactive, which is why their actions cannot compare with South African apartheid - e.g. Arab-Israeli wars, terrorism etc. Anyone know a good reference that makes this case (I'm having trouble finding one? --Coroebus 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Dr. Moshe Machover, professor of philosophy in London and co-founder of Matzpen, argues against the use of the term on the basis that the situation in Israel is worse than apartheid. Machover points out some significant differences between the policy of the Israeli government and the apartheid model. According to Machover, drawing a close analogy between Israel and South Africa is both a theoretical and political mistake.

I'll have to read his specific objections about the analogy, but the 'its worse' objection is just slipping a pro-view into the anti- side at face value.

• According to Fred Taub, the President of Boycott Watch, "The assertion ... that Israel is practicing apartheid is not only false, but may be considered libelous. ... The fact is that it is the Arabs who are discriminating against non-Muslims, especially Jews."

You can't libel countries, and this is just another 'its false' objection, unless we consider the Arab discrimination turnaround to be worth including?

--Coroebus 17:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The statements "... Israeli Supreme Court ruling upholding the country's controversial citizenship law "The Supreme Court could have taken a braver decision and not relegated us to the level of an apartheid state." and "All Israeli citizens, including Arabs have full virtually the same rights, including suffrage, political representation, recourse to the courts, etc. " seem to contradict each other. Those statements need to be reconciled. (The actual "citizenship law" is at [1], and there's extensive commentary on it available.) (Also, "full virtually" needs to be fixed.) --John Nagle 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Analogy

• The Israeli West Bank barrier is referred to by detractors as the Apartheid Wall for its impact on the Palestinian population in the West Bank.

But isn't that a bit circular, isn't the name Apartheid Wall and extension of the apartheid accusation? --Coroebus 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

On further reflection this section actually isn't great, I think it could draw the analogy much more pithily, the central comparison I think we're trying to draw is between Israeli control over the occupied territories, making the Bantustan comparison plus the general point about one ethnically identified group dominating another. At the moment I don't think the article really gets to the point of the analogy --Coroebus 20:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Usage

• It has been widely used by Palestinian rights advocates and also by some on the Israeli Jewish left.

yet we then go on to say

• Several left wing Members of the Knesset (MKs) have also drawn an analogy between Israeli policies and apartheid

and

• The term has also been used by some Palestinian-rights activists[2] and anti-Zionists

apart from anti-Zionists (who I think it is pretty debatable we need to explicitly identify here) we are not adding anything new in the last bit.

• and some neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic individuals or groups such as David Duke and Jew Watch,.

are these groups really that notable as users of the term? I'm not convinced that people associate the use of the phrase 'Israeli apartheid' with these people particularly, if they're notable (I've heard of them at least) we mightn't want such a prominent bit, maybe more 'and has been used by the neo-Nazi David Duke and the anti-Semitic group Jew Watch' (if I've go that the right way around?). --Coroebus 17:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It comes with the territiory. If some feel uncomfortable in their company, they know what to do. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ref

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

NPOV (again)

The analogy section is grossly non NPOV. Clear violation of wikipedia most basic policy. Zeq 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) in what specific way is it not NPOV Zeq?--Coroebus 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example. An editor tried to NPOV a line and you removed it further down: [3]. You created a POV fork inside the article itself and called it "critism" section. Zeq 20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I simply moved it into the existing criticism section. There is no such thing as a POV fork within an article, we explicitly divide up pro/anti arguments in most articles. If you really think we shoulod have the analogy and criticisms sections merged mock me up what you think it should look like and we'll see if it is a mess or not. I don't think most other editors share your view on this one --Coroebus 20:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

as the article stands now, the claim section stands out it comes first after an already non NPOV title. NPOV policy is clear that diffrent POV should be given equal "space" and disputes chaterized without asserting one view as correct. (which now seems to be the case until the reader get to line 36 which is too late.) Zeq 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the criticisms section is most of the article, I note that people have been busy adding in more criticisms and slimming down the analogy section. Currently it just looks silly. If we reduce the criticisms section down to just the most salient objections (to be about the same size as the analogy section is currently) it could be merged in underneath the analogy section (i.e. here's why people make the analogy, here's why people think they shouldn't, here's who uses it,...), which would presumably make Zeq happier. --Coroebus 14:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see we've taken the opposite tack of making it all even longer, a strategic mistake if you want to eventually merge into Apartheid outside of South Africa I'd have thought. --Coroebus 11:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial life and homosexual agenda

While the first article does noy insult anyone (if it exist or not) it highlights right at the intro that such life may not exist. The 2nd artickle is even a better one:

• It describe the term as a term that is derogative, who use it and why.

so, to all those who oppose (based on comparsion to homosexual agenda) since your objection to the "allegation" name was in good faith you should now continue to look at these articles as an example and describe the term Israeli apartheid for waht it is: A term that is used as propeganda aahansit Israel and that most people think does not exist in reality (after all, despite the occupation and the descrimination there are no apartheid laws in israel in the same way that they were in South Africa - and this, my fellow editors, makes all the difference. Zeq 15:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone here understand basic hebrew

"The government of Israel has termed its policy of disengagement Hafrada which literally means "separation". " - not true it was nmed hintankut which means......disengagement Zeq 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no familiarity with this issue and really can't judge either side - you'll have to fight it out without me --Coroebus 20:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That is the whole problem. someone writes something that is pure wrong and then people have "to fiight" ver it .... ridiculous. Zeq 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There's been some real progress here

The article is looking better. There's real progress. Thanks, everyone.

I'm going to the beach. Play nice Thanks. --John Nagle 21:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm back. In hopes of getting some convergence on the first paragraph, I moved the "Critics" line to the criticism section. I also tried moving the "usage" line to the "usage" section, but then noticed that it duplicated the last entry there, so I kept only one copy, the one already at the end of the "usage" section. I'm trying to pare the first paragraph down to a bare definition that's as neutral as possible, with the arguments in the "Usage" and "Criticism" sections. Comments? --John Nagle 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What you did is a violation of WP:NPOV, read WP:Lead Zeq 05:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Who uses the term

CJC, how do you know who uses the term primarily, as opposed to who uses it, period? [4] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As has been noted elsewhere, Jewwatch and David Duke's group are fringe organizations. I have no problem mentioning them in the article, but we shouldn't pretend they've been among the primary proponents of the term. CJCurrie 01:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence simply says used by anti-Semitic groups and people, and then gives them as examples. We can't say who primarily uses the term without finding a good source who says that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There are already numerous good sources in the main body of the article, including Davis & Tutu.

On a related matter, what evidence do you have that JW and Duke have been influential in their use of the term? CJCurrie 01:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant we have no good source saying who uses it primarily. We would need that before we could make the claim. It doesn't matter how influential any particular source has been.

Also, why did you remove "opponents of the Jewish state"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The SA/Israel comparison has been made by some left-wing Israelis who are not anti-Zionists. "Critics of Israel or Israeli policy" seems like fairer wording. CJCurrie 01:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples, CJ? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions Zehava Gal-On. Meretz are/were a Zionist party, the last I checked. CJCurrie 01:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin, so much so in fact, that before I had read her comment I had already reverted the primarily/although formulation out of the intro. 6SJ7 01:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Fenced refugee camps at Jenin and Ramallah" ?

I just came back from Jenin.

There are no such thing in jenin and I am sure Ramalla does not have these has well ( unless someone wants to argue that than the wall between A-ram and Kfar Akeb or between Suafat camp and sufat vilage are "Fenced refugee camps" - in which case i would just refer him/her to a map that shows it is not so.)

so who came up with this nonsense ? botom line: keep this in mind : WP:RS and also arbcom rullings about "using only relaible scholarly sources" for such articles as this one. Can we keep the nonsense out. ? Zeq 16:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish-only roads " ?

There are no such thing and even betselem (in an not so accurate report) never went so far as arguing that.

what there is a re several roads in which:

1. only cars with Israeli license plates (both Israeli jews arab israelis and /or Arabs from east jerusalem can travel - in fact it is only based on license plate not on who the driver is)
2. as well as palestinia comerical trafic and public transport

So........... is this "apartheid" ? if palestinian private trafic is forbeden from some west bank roads ? It is surly not convinient but it is not an apartheid. Israeli Arabs and Even palestiniasn from E. Jerusalem can travle on any road. Zeq 16:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

still not true (this edit: [5] - read the Betselem report (I took part in writing - it i should know) and also bring NPOV responses to it which were published widely. Zeq 17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked by this statement. If Blacks were banned from private roads in the US we wouldn't describe it as a mere "inconvenience". Homey 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No we wouldn't, and more to the point, we didn't. Until the 1950s/60s, in parts of the U.S., black people in the U.S. were "banned" from a lot of things: All-white schools, the front of a public bus, "white" drinking fountains, some restaurants, sometimes from voting, and many other things. Sometimes this was imposed by law, sometimes by just the way a state or local government did things, and sometimes by non-governmental "common agreement." In at least one state, there was a law against marriage between blacks and whites that was not struck down by the Supreme Court until the early 1970s. But guess what, none of this was ever called "apartheid." It was called segregation, discrimination, "Jim Crow" (with reference to the actual laws), probably a few other things. It had its own names, we didn't need to import a name from another language on another continent, and nobody needs to import that name to Israel, either. 6SJ7 03:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Read the facts. It is not that one race (blacks) is banned from one type of roads. (like you (mis)represent the situation)
• The facts are that a type of cars (private vehicles) who carry a license plate of a specific country are banned form roads in which there is a lot of "drive-by shootings". Anyone, from any "race" can still use public transportation on these roads, comercial trafic (any license) is also allowed and people from any "race" (Jews, Arabs) who drive cars that have Israeli license plates are also allowed. ( in fact much of the trafic on these roads is public Palestinian trafic and private cars owned by Palestinians from east Jeruisalem who have Israeli license plates and not palestinian plates Is it discrimination ? yes. Is it fair, justified, optimal security solution ? anyonme can argue about it, but is it true to say that these are "jewish only roads" - of course not.

These are not even "Israeli-only roads". These are roads in which some private cars are prevented from driving. Zeq 03:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Read your own sources

The article sais: " The road closings came in the wake of drive-by shootings " and indeed the roads are open again.

I strongly suggest you read the Btselem report. not every news paper report is accurate but if you choose to use it include all relevant facts. (the bottom line is that there are no "israeli only" roads in the west bank (there are however plans or better be describe as "wishfull thinking" on the part of some settler supporters to have such roads.

In fact, Israel west bank disenegagment plan will prevent the need for such roads since remote settlments will be evcuated but this article should focus on the present not on speculations to either side. Zeq 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tracing origins

Out of curiosity, I've done a bit of research using newspaper archives to try to find out when the comparison was first made. I've found no references prior to 1967, but following then the comparison has been made with increasing frequency. It seems to have been a major argument in the debate that led up to UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 and was being promoted by the USSR as early as 1971. The comparison is used very frequently now; Lexis-Nexis found no less than 747 newspaper articles including the words "Israel" and "apartheid" from the last three months alone. -- ChrisO 20:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not surprizing given the use of the term "apartheid wall" by very vocal groups. The issue is more complex than just counting two words. Zeq 20:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Early on, the term seems to have been mostly pejorative, but once the "separation" plan became official Israeli policy and fence/barrier/wall building went into high gear, the term has become more mainstream. --John Nagle 20:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The interesting thing is that the use of the comparison appears to have peaked in the mid-1970s and again from the late 1990s to now. Presumably this reflects campaigning by the very vocal groups you mention. -- ChrisO 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick lesson in Hebrew:

• sepration comes from the same root in Hebrew that is to divide (as in to distance from one another), to break-up a fight (as in between a couple in divorce proceddings) .
• It is not used it the disengament plan , there the word "hitantkut" was used which is to disengage, to dis associate from, to severe ties with.

The use of the word "hafrda" was in the context of the fence/wall - to create a sepration between the two sides as in creating a border. It was frequntly used by PM Barak (prior to Sharon) who always attached to it the words: "They are over there and we are over here" (in other words: "Two states for two people".) Zeq 20:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

RS

I've removed the reference to David Duke and Jew Watch since no reliable sources are cited.

If someone can find an academic article or mainstream news site that associates David Duke and/or Jew Watch with the concept of "Israeli apartheid" we can put it back in. David Duke also refers to the USSR as the "Evil Empire" but I don't see our article on Evil Empire claiming that "Ronald Reagan used the term, as do neo-Nazis such as David Duke".

Duke and Jew Watch neither coined the term "Israeli apartheid" nor popularized it, nor are they responsible for a significant number of uses of term (maybe one or two). Mentioning them in an article might appear as an attempt to poison the well or imply guilt by association.

Again, if an RS such as a journal article, scholarly book or newspaper article associates Jew Watch or Duke with the term then we should cite them. If not, we can't due to WP:RS and WP:OR.Homey 03:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I put the references back. The Jew Watch web site is cited, and it is a reliable source for what Jew Watch itself has to say... if anyone cares, and apparently someone does, because they have their own article on Wikipedia. They aren't cited in the article for anything other than what they say, and who knows better than they do? As for who coined or popularized the phrase, the article has already gone way beyond that. As for guilt by association... well how about if we don't assume the readers of Wikipedia are stupid, and that we can just report the facts and let them make up their own minds. 6SJ7 03:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And Homey took them right back out again. Well, I choose not to get into a revert war. However, it is clear that this article is heading right back where it was. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia that this article even exists. 6SJ7 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources were their own websites, where they published the term. That material is perfectly legitimate and important because these are the people who use the term. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Isn't it nice that we can have this consensus?  :) 6SJ7 04:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources are not legitimate sources. Please cite one mainstream book, newspaper or journal article that associates the concept of Israeli apartheid with Duke or Jew Watch? Should we go through David Duke's website and add "David Duke uses this term" to every wikipeda article on a word or phrase he uses?

Please consider the concepts of poisoning the well and guilt by association. Throwing in a gratuitous reference to neo-nazis is, arguably, an attempt to indict others who use a term by associating them with neo-nazis. If Duke or Jew Watch's use of the term were a) not isolated b) uses which were noted by RS - then we could refernce it. Otherwise it's OR and a violation of WP:RSHomey 04:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Poisoning the well and guilt by association? Let me just ask you, Homey, do you see the irony in the fact that you are making those arguments? 6SJ7 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

6SJ7 and Slim Virgin, since you've either forgotten about it or are unaware of it, I'm reposting below from Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 6 regarding consensus on the lead including removing reference to who uses the term etc. The "second line" Kim refers to is a line that is similar to the one you are trying to include in the lead. 04:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The "old consensus" was two weeks ago! Perhaps you should raise the question on this talk page and try to establish a consensus around your position rather than declare a consensus settlement defunct because it is all of two weeks old?Homey 05:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not what the "consensus" was about. The consensus, if it can be called that, dealt with just the first paragraph, not the entire intro section. What Homey removed was a second paragraph in the intro section. So the old consensus is still reflected in the first paragraph. The rest of the intro has nothing to do with it. 6SJ7 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. See the diff and see what the mediator removed in favour of the consenseus version. All references to users of the term, including Duke, were removed. Homey 06:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, if *no* mainstream or scholarly sources have reported the fact that Duke has used the term "Israeli apartheid" once or twice how do you justify wikipedia doing so? Why should we make it an issue when no one else has?Homey 05:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The Jew Watch citation provided here is actually a Ha'aretz article copied onto the Jew Watch website. This hardly seems like strong evidence that Jew Watch is a notable user of the term. Should we say something in our Ha'aretz article about the paper being quoted by Jew Watch? Should we say the same in our article on the New York Times?Homey 05:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

And what about Jew Watch? Do you honestly think Jew Watch reprinting a "Ha'aretz" artricle merits inclusion?Homey 05:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, you have not answered my question. Can you cite any mainstream or scholarly source that has seen fit to mention Duke's use of the term? If you cannot, how do you justify wikipedia making an issue of it? Sounds a lot like OR. And since when is quoting a message board acceptable in Wikipedia?Homey 06:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, here is Paul Grubach of the Institute for Historical Review, the Holocaust denial group, writing about Israeli apartheid for CODOH (Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust). [6] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need a source saying Duke has used it, and not one showing he has used it? You haven't explained yet. Please explain why, rather than just continuing to ask the same question. We are not interpreting anything. We are just quoting him. It is simple reporting. We do it all the time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Because, unless you can show us that mainstream sources have commented on Duke's use of the term you are engaging in original research. You are making Duke's usage an issue when no one else in the mainstream has. That's not our role. Homey 06:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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