Revision as of 15:57, 29 May 2006 editNonexistant User (talk | contribs)9,925 edits →Reliable sources← Previous edit |
Revision as of 16:10, 20 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,118 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 44) (botNext edit → |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{expand}} |
|
{{Pp-move-indef}} |
|
{{peerreview}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
|
<!-- Do not remove the sanction template --> |
|
|
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|
|
{{Be calm}} |
|
|
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |text=Article history and WikiProjects |1= |
|
|
{{Old XfD multi |
|
|
|date=3 June 2006<!-- oldid 56729010 --> |
|
|
|page=Israeli apartheid (phrase) |
|
|
|result='''No consensus''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|date2=15 July 2006<!-- oldid 64035264 --> |
|
==POV tag== |
|
|
|
|page2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (2nd nomination) |
|
Would it be possible to make this more POV? I don't think so. ←] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|result2='''Speedy keep''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|date3=11 August 2006<!-- oldid 69110851 --> |
|
Ironically, you posted your pov notice while I was writing a "criticism" section. ] 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|page3=Allegations of Israeli apartheid |
|
|
|result3='''No consensus''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|date4=4 April 2007<!-- oldid 120120303 --> |
|
|
|page4=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination) |
|
|
|result4='''Keep''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|date5=24 April 2007<!-- oldid 125667783 --> |
|
== Expansion Needed == |
|
|
|
|page5=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination) |
|
|
|result5='''No consensus''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|date6=26 June 2007<!-- oldid 140841349 --> |
|
To avoid POV you may wish to focus more centrally on the history of the idea of Israeli apartheid and make sure that you distinguish Zionism and Israel because I think that the term is more often meant to be Zionist Israeli Apartheid rather than Israeli Apartheid. It is, however, a legit term but I think it needs to be presented is a different fashion. --] 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|page6=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination) |
|
|
|result6='''Speedy keep''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|date7=4 September 2007<!-- oldid 155568006 --> |
|
==Preposterous== |
|
|
|
|page7=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination) |
|
Even with the "criticism" section, this article is completely preposterous. So now every time someone calls something a name, there has to be an article about it? Between this, "Wall of Shame," "Apartheid Wall" and other "articles," Misplaced Pages is quickly becoming an Encyclopedia of Name-Calling. If I knew how to request the deletion of an article (yes, I know I should), I would do it with this one. It's ridiculous. ] 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|result7='''No consensus''' |
|
:um. The concept of Israeli apartheid is not new. I've heard it since the early nineties. It is, however, controversial but the article does not claim to take a stance on it. The article seems to be improving and making itself to be more about the controversy surrounding the term. I still believe that it needs to do more research into the history of the term itself though because it would also be quite interesting. --] 04:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|date8=11 June 2008<!-- oldid 218733282 --> |
|
6SJ7, you would have a point if there were only a handful of instances where the term has been used. However, if you google "Israeli apartheid" you will get approximately '''240,000 hits'''. I would agree that "every time someone calls something a name" there needn't be an article about it but when 240,000 people use a phrase it's notable. ] 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|page8=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination) |
|
:Well there you have it. But please keep up your work in doing research into this article and improving it. The article should not stand on Google alone. Make the article one that stands on solid research. --] 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|result8='''No consensus''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|date9=21 August 2010<!-- oldid 380158466 --> |
|
6SJ7, you must be more specific. What, exactly, in the article is inaccurate? What, exactly, is NPOV? Please give specific examples. ] 04:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|page9=Israel and the apartheid analogy (9th nomination) |
|
|
|result9='''Keep''' per ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
|title1=Allegations of Apartheid in Israel |
|
|
|title2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid |
|
|
|title3=Apartheid in Israel |
|
|
|title4=Israel and apartheid |
|
|
|title5=Israel and the apartheid analogy |
|
|
|title6=Israel and the apartheid analogy allegations |
|
|
|title7=Israeli apartheid |
|
|
|title8=Israeli apartheid (epithet) |
|
|
|title9=Israeli apartheid (phrase) |
|
|
|title10=Israeli apartheid (term) |
|
|
|title11=Israeli apartheid allegations |
|
|
|title12=Israeli apartheid analogy |
|
|
|title13=Israel and apartheid |
|
|
|list= |
|
|
* Israel and apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Moved''', 20 July 2024, see ]. |
|
|
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, '''Moved''', 24 July 2022, see ]. |
|
|
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid allegation, '''No consensus''', 4 December 2021, see ]. |
|
|
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, '''Withdrawn''' per ], 3 May 2021, see ]. |
|
|
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Claims of Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 8 June 2017, see ]. |
|
|
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid analogy, '''No consensus''' due to procedural issue, 29 May 2017, see ]. |
|
|
|oldlist= |
|
|
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → ''?'', '''Not moved''', 12 January 2017, see ]. |
|
|
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 13 January 2011, see ]. |
|
|
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid '']<nowiki>]</nowiki>'', '''No consensus''', 20 August 2010, see ]. |
|
|
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 3 May 2009, see ]. |
|
|
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, '''No consensus''', 28 August 2007, see ]. |
|
|
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, '''No consensus''', 17 August 2007, see ]. |
|
|
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 16 March 2007, see ]. |
|
|
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 14 December 2006, see ]. |
|
|
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 6 October 2006, see ]. |
|
|
* Israeli apartheid → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, '''Move''', 26 June 2006, see ]. |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old peer review |reviewedname=Israeli apartheid |archive=1 |ID=58811773 |date=17 June 2006}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Palestine |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{press |
|
|
| author=Haviv Rettig Gur |
|
|
| title=Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Misplaced Pages |
|
|
| org=The Jerusalem Post |
|
|
| url=http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175660 |
|
|
| date=16 May 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| author2=Omer Benjakob |
|
And what, specifically, in ] is being violated?] 04:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| title2=On Misplaced Pages, Israel Is Losing the Battle Against the Word 'Apartheid' |
|
|
| org2=Haaretz |
|
|
| url2=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-on-wikipedia-israel-is-losing-the-battle-against-the-word-apartheid-1.9330590 |
|
|
| date2=26 November 2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|author3 = Hava Mendelle |
|
I'm reinserting the unencyclopedic tag, just because the name has a couple hundred thousand hits does not automatically mean there should be an article about it. It clearly represents a strong pov, just because it doesn't take an explicit stance on the subject doesn't mean it isn't doing it implicitly.- ] | ] 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|title3 = The World Jewish Congress investigates Misplaced Pages |
|
:I agree that an article can take an implicit stance, however, I feel that an article which is taking a controversial but established term, such as this one, and presents both sides of the controversy is not violating POV. The point is, this article will have to present both sides clearly and equally and establish the history of the term in a well-cited well-researched manner that includes verifiable and reliable sources. --] 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|date3 = March 23, 2024 |
|
|
|org3 = ] |
|
|
|url3 = https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/the-world-jewish-congress-investigates-wikipedia/ |
|
|
|lang3 = |
|
|
|quote3 = |
|
|
|archiveurl3 = |
|
|
|archivedate3 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|
|accessdate3 = March 23, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|author4 = Yaakov Menken |
|
|
|title4 = Misplaced Pages hates Israel and Jews |
|
|
|date4 = August 6, 2024 |
|
|
|org4 = ] |
|
|
|url4 = https://www.jns.org/wikipedia-hates-israel-and-jews/ |
|
|
|lang4 = |
|
|
|quote4 = |
|
|
|archiveurl4 = |
|
|
|archivedate4 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|
|accessdate4 = August 6, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|author5 = Aaron Bandler |
|
:: The qualification "established" should apply to academic community, rather than hateblog. ←] <sup>]</sup> 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|title5 = Misplaced Pages Editors Title Article “Israeli Apartheid” |
|
|
|date5 = September 26, 2024 |
|
|
|org5 = ] |
|
|
|url5 = https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/375347/wikipedia-editors-title-article-israeli-apartheid/ |
|
|
|lang5 = |
|
|
|quote5 = |
|
|
|archiveurl5 = |
|
|
|archivedate5 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|
|accessdate5 = October 7, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|author6 = |
|
::By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject. The term itself represents a pov, if it should be mentioned on[REDACTED] at all it should be on another article.- ] | ] 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|title6 = Misplaced Pages Decrees: Israel is an Apartheid State |
|
|
|date6 = September 19, 2024 |
|
|
|org6 = The Misplaced Pages Flood |
|
|
|url6 = https://thewikipediaflood.blogspot.com/2024/09/wikipedia-decrees-israel-is-apartheid.html |
|
|
|lang6 = |
|
|
|quote6 = |
|
|
|archiveurl6 = |
|
|
|archivedate6 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|
|accessdate6 = October 7, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|author7 = Shraga Simmons |
|
1) Moshe, can you give me a specific citation of what in ] is being violated? If you can't do this then the tag can't stay on. ] 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|title7 = Weaponizing Misplaced Pages against Israel: How the global information pipeline is being hijacked by digital jihadists. |
|
2)"By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject." That's absolutely preposterous. The term is widely used and merits definition and exposition. Just because you don't like a phrase doesn't mean you can ban it from[REDACTED] if it is in broad use. This looks like an attempt to censor a concept for POV reasons. The term is in wide use, your comments on NPOV should be directed at the article, not its title. ] 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|date7 = November 11, 2024 |
|
:: I don't think that anything has been established and if articles were required, in practice, to generally meet that requirement on Misplaced Pages then most articles here would be speedily deleted and I feel that the community is growing impatient with my AfD's. I don't think that this article even approaches hateblog right now. All this is why I requested a peer review so that the article will get the attention it needs. --] 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|org7 = aish |
|
:: Because of the title it's taking a stance?? I could see that if the title was ] but it's not. It's presenting the term, which is a term which exists and is established. --] 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|url7 = https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/ |
|
|
|lang7 = |
|
|
|quote7 = |
|
|
|archiveurl7 = https://web.archive.org/web/20241113082217/https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/ |
|
|
|archivedate7 = November 13, 2024 |
|
|
|accessdate7 = December 1, 2024 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Mbox |image=] |text=For a list of references that may be useful when improving this article in the future, please see ''']'''.}} |
|
|
{{Archives|banner=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 44 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent lede edit == |
|
I have now been edit-conflicted out of commenting four times, so some of this may seem out of place. My original explanations for my tags didn't make it to the page when I thought it did, and now the explanation is already moot and the tags have been changed back and forth several times. Humus and Moshe have expressed what I would have said, and I feel the tags are ok as they are now -- but only as a preliminary to eliminating or merging this article out of existence, or at least re-titling it. After all, Misplaced Pages is the place where you can't have an article called "Palestinian terrorism" (something that undoubtedly exists and has existed for many years) without it being turned into "Palestinian political violence," and I and others have had to fight just to keep the word "terrorism" somewhere in the first paragraph -- and yet there can be an article "Israeli apartheid"? Ridiculous. ] 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: You should be warned that it's going to be '''really really really difficult''' to ] with your edits when you've admitted to wishing to edit this article in order to destroy it. --] 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::And where exactly did I do that? Please notice that I have not touched one word of the text of the article, and I do not intend to. So how is that I have admitted wishing to edit it in order to destroy it? I am not editing it. There are procedures on Misplaced Pages for deleting, merging and re-naming articles, and if I do not get around to following one of those procedures, I hope someone else does. This article cannot become a proper encyclopedia article, and that is why I have put back the unencyclopedic tag. By the way, that tag is justified by Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ] 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole paragraph should be trimmed: "The International Court of Justice in its 2024 advisory opinion found that Israel's occupation {{strikethrough|of the Palestinian territories constitutes systemic discrimination and}} is in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. {{strikethrough|The opinion itself was silent as to whether the discrimination amounted to apartheid while individual judges were split on the issue}}" ] (]) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
There's also an article called ]. ] 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I hope the "Evil Empire" is in quotes. If not, it should be. I would say that a phrase that was a centerpiece of a major speech (probably more than one) by a president of the United States becomes encyclopedic all by itself. ] 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I think the former trim would be fine; with the latter it seems important to somehow clarify how the opinion relates to the topic of apartheid. We could trim {{tq|while individual judges were split on the issue}} though which is a non-essential detail. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
What about a phrase used by a Nobel Prize Winner like ]?] 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Fyi {{ping|AlsoWukai}} since you just copy edited the latter sentence. Waiting for other opinions as well. ] (]) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Fwiw, I think the "systemic discrimination" element is due, because it is that finding that led to the Article 3 finding. ] (]) 14:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Racism and Zionism in lede == |
|
: Or another deranged politician and Nobel Prize Winner Arafat? ←] <sup>]</sup> 05:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi @], |
|
So you think fighting against ] in ] is deranged? ] 06:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tried to make your recent edit work in the lede, but I ultimately removed it as out of place and ]. Since the lede is a summary of the overall topic, it doesn't need to go into that level of detail about a matter which is tangential to the topic of apartheid. I think you'll need to get consensus here first before reinstating. ] (]) 10:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:You seem to have a talent for hypebole and loaded questions. People with good international reputations take crazy positions all of the time. Tutu's support alone does not make it a neutral and mainstream term.- ] | ] 06:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with your removal and would have removed it myself, it is irrelevant to the article in general not just the lede which is about the israeli apartheid, not whether zionism is racist or not. ] (]) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
So Tutu is only "deranged" when it comes to Israel? Is that your NPOV assessment? Is he only deranged because he comes to a political conclusion you disagree with? |
|
|
|
::It makes more sense in context, but it's still tangential. If you go to "American views", it's there currently: |
|
|
::{{blockquote|In 1975, former ] ] voiced the United States' strong disagreement with the ] that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", saying that unlike apartheid, Zionism is not a racist ideology. He said that racist ideologies such as apartheid favor discrimination on the grounds of alleged biological differences, yet few people are as biologically heterogeneous as the Jews. Moynihan called the UN resolution "a great evil", adding, "the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction by the UN". ], executive director of the ], said the resolution smeared the 'racist' label on Zionism, adding that Black people could “easily smell out the fact that ‘anti-Zionism’ in this context is a code word for anti-Semitism”. The General Assembly's resolution equating Zionism with racism was revoked in 1991.}} |
|
|
::Neither Moynihan nor his argument is important enough to go into the lede and it takes up far too much time to explain its relevance to the topic anyway. Hence, ]. And, TBH, the statement is still probably overly long where it is, even now. ] (]) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Israeli civil law == |
|
I never said the term was neutral or mainstream. My concern is that the article is NPOV. The term is used in political discourse on the Middle East, that is not contestable. That you are trying to ban an article on a term you dislike is POV. The NPOV position is to recognise that the term is used with increasing frequency and attempt to write an article explaining the term in an NPOV way. Are you willing or able to do this? Trying to ban a term you don't like is not NPOV. ] 06:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Makeandtoss}} In the sentence that conveys who in the West Bank is subject to Israeli civil law, I changed "Jewish settlers" to "Israeli settlers" because it is precisely the Israelis there who are subject to Israeli civil law. The previous wording, by ], misled the reader into wrongly thinking that the legal determination of which law to apply is governed by religion, rather than citizenship. |
|
: It is not a "term". As I said elsewhere (you seem to crosspost a lot), maybe we should disambiguate ] and say that it "is a term used by some critics" to describe Jewish customs? ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(which you claim to be a "middle ground") return the article to that ]. The article you mention in your edit message ("A Threshold Crossed") does indeed use the phrase "Jewish Israelis", but does not claim that some other laws apply to non-Jewish Israelis in the West Bank. If you wish to convey that non-Jewish Israeli residents of the West Bank are not subject to Israeli civil law, please first find a reliable source that supports such a claim. Or do you have some other motivation? ] (]) 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
If there were an article called ''Jewish ritual murder'' than that article would need to be disambiguated. As it is the ] article is largely about the Jewish blood libel so diambiguation is not necessary.] 06:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:WP reflects RS, as I clearly linked HRW in my edit summary. Jewish Israelis and Palestinians are the primary groups involved in this analysis about apartheid: HRW: "Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them." Further details are footnotes to this primary framing by RS. ] (]) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: You miss the point, and you are 31 year behind. The accusation of apartheid (along with other similar crap) was a part of 1975 "Zionism is racism" Cold War effort. Even the UN revoked it, so stop your propaganda. ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest adding a note to the effect that the vast majority of Israeli settlers are of Jewish nationality as it says in first sentence of the lead at ]. "They are populated by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of ],<ref name=Haklai2015>{{cite book | last1=Haklai | first1=O. | last2=Loizides | first2=N. | title=Settlers in Contested Lands: Territorial Disputes and Ethnic Conflicts | publisher=Stanford University Press | year=2015 | isbn=978-0-8047-9650-7 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xeyACgAAQBAJ&pg=PA19 | access-date=2018-12-14 | page=19 | quote=the Israel settlers reside almost solely in exclusively Jewish communities (one exception is a small enclave within the city of Hebron).}}</ref><ref name=Dumper2014>{{cite book | last=Dumper | first=M. | title=Jerusalem Unbound: Geography, History, and the Future of the Holy City | publisher=Columbia University Press | year=2014 | isbn=978-0-231-53735-3 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E8nbAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA85 | access-date=2018-12-14 | page=85 | quote=This is despite huge efforts by successive governments to fragment and encircle Palestinian residential areas with exclusively Jewish zones of residence – the settlements.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-settlements-idUSKBN0JL0D620141207|title=Leave or let live? Arabs move in to Jewish settlements|newspaper=Reuters|date=7 December 2014|via=www.reuters.com|access-date=21 February 2023|archive-date=30 July 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150730104133/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/07/us-israel-palestinians-settlements-idUSKBN0JL0D620141207|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|
:::Actually, the 2001 World conference against racism adopted resolution labelling Israel as such. Also nearly 30,000 to 50,000 people turned up to protest Israel's alleged apartheid.. This term is a 21st century one.] 10:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: The situation is more complex than this implies. First, it isn't just a matter of where someone lives but also where they are when they commit an "offence". Second, the rules are somewhat flexible, and in some cases should be called policies rather than rules; this allows the fate of individuals to be decided on a case by case basis. This makes it difficult to find a definitive description. Generally speaking, a Palestinian who is an Israeli citizen will be tried in a civil court, but this needs a search for sources and there are probably exceptions. However, Jews who are not Israeli citizens are always, or almost always, tried in civil courts. Since 1984 this has been explicit policy; the order includes "persons entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return" (i.e. Jews) in the same category as citizens. Many military orders have the same clause. Sorry no citations for now, too busy. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I am not condoning the phrase, I simply recognize that it's in use and merits a[REDACTED] article. Please set your POV aside. ] 07:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Another complicating factor is which courts handle West Bank cases involving tourists. But, for the sentence being edited, the question at hand is (IMO) whether all cases involving Israeli defendants are handled by Israeli civil law, or whether some are handled differently. ] (]) 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:We obviously have articles about notable fringe organizations, Your basically arguing that the term "Israeli Apartheid" is notable enough in of itself, however the term is not some organization, it is a pov term that other fringe organizations use. For example, it would be fine if we wanted to write articles about those same groups themselves, just not about every single claim or charge they make. Would we write an article about some of the horrible things that the KKK believe in?- ] | ] 09:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::The HRW report (ie dealing with the apartheid issue) "Israeli authorities also maintain parallel criminal justice systems for settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. Israeli authorities try Palestinians charged with crimes in military courts, where they face a conviction rate of nearly 100 percent. By contrast, authorities have passed regulations that extend Israeli criminal law on a personal basis to settlers, and grant Israeli courts jurisdiction over them, while authorities have followed a longstanding policy not to prosecute Jewish settlers in military courts. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) found in a 2014 report that “since the 1980s, all Israeli citizens brought to trial before the military courts were Arab citizens and residents of Israel." |
|
|
:::This imo is the main point for the lead, two systems, one territory, technicalities and sundry irrelevant details can be dealt with in the article body. ] (]) 11:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Good find. Links to the 2014 ACRI report can be found at the bottom of . The HRW report cites p. 37 of the ACRI report, but it's worth reading all of section B (pp. 36-39), including footnotes. ] (]) 12:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That is good support for "Jewish Israelis" rather than just "Israelis". We can always add clarity via a quote in the reference. ] (]) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reftalk}} |
|
:I think we should call it a night with this article. It's getting heated and needs new voices and opinions. I feel that we're headed to polarized arguments here. --] 05:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Request for Sources and Balanced Representation == |
|
Perhaps the article should be moved to ], like ] adn ].] 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{hat|]. ] (]) 00:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
I noticed that the article has recently shifted its language to refer to Israel as an "apartheid state" and the stance now being solidified due to the ongoing war. Its language refers to Israel as an "apartheid state" in a way that seems more definitive. Given that this term is highly contested and there are valid arguments on both sides, I believe it's important to ensure that we present the full spectrum of perspectives. Could we include more references to sources that provide an opposing viewpoint, particularly those that challenge the use of the term "apartheid" in relation to Israel? This would help maintain neutrality and offer readers a broader understanding of the issue. ] (]) 00:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:No. See ]. ] (]) 00:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
== This article is less valid than ] == |
|
|
|
{{Hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== I believe that the revised version of this article fails to maintain absolute impartiality and neutrality based on both sides. == |
|
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Iranian+genocidal+intentions&spell=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that the new version of this article violates the rule of neutrality, and is, to an extent, leaning towards an opinionated Palestinian narrative. While it is a fact that Israel's occupation may be seen by some as being characteristic and similar to the apartheid system of South Africa, I believe that much of the information sources given on this topic are very obviously influenced by Hamas - the media department is notoriously versatile and, while sometimes telling the truth, spreads falsified or over-exaggerated statistics and information. For example, the article mentions that the Law of Return is part of the apartheid system, which lacks a citation and, quite frankly, sense in itself, or the mention of Israel's alleged 'mistreatment' of its own Palestinian citizens, which also lacks a citation and appears to be more of an opinion rather than a factual piece of information. I will reiterate that it is important to remember that both Israel and Palestine are doing things wrong and unlawful within this seemingly perpetual conflict, however we must also remember to factor in the other side, such as the verified sources of Israel's pro-immigration policies, or the slight indoctrination of the Gaza strip by Hamas of elements of hatred for the Jewish people. Please note, I am not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, I am pro-solution - this really is not neutral. ] (]) 18:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=Iranian+OR+iran+%22genocidal+intentions%22&btnG=Search |
|
|
|
|
|
People should really review ] ] 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:What? How do Iranian genocidal intentions factor into this discussion? What are you talking about? What part of ] are you claiming that this article does not meet? Please provide constructive comments so that the article may be updated accordingly. --] 14:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought |
|
|
Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please do not use Misplaced Pages for any of the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Misplaced Pages will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Misplaced Pages has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion. |
|
|
Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Misplaced Pages is not for things made up in school one day! |
|
|
Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedic. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No. 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction. |
|
|
Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Misplaced Pages is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Misplaced Pages are welcome at Meta. There is a Misplaced Pages fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles. |
|
|
Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Misplaced Pages is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. |
|
|
Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. |
|
|
For a wiki-like site that will publish your original thoughts, see Everything2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox |
|
|
Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Misplaced Pages articles are not: |
|
|
|
|
|
Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Misplaced Pages was not made for opinion, it was made for fact. |
|
|
Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, Misplaced Pages:Vanity, and Misplaced Pages:Notability. |
|
|
Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Misplaced Pages does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files |
|
|
Misplaced Pages is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Misplaced Pages may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. 1 Misplaced Pages articles are not: |
|
|
|
|
|
Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Misplaced Pages:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines. |
|
|
Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. |
|
|
Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources (including mathematical tables, astronomical tables, or source code) should go into Wikisource. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Misplaced Pages:Don't include copies of primary sources. |
|
|
Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Misplaced Pages:Images with missing articles or Misplaced Pages:Public domain image resources. |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site |
|
|
|
|
|
] 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reliable sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
Two comments below have been copied from user talk pages: |
|
|
# |
|
|
# 13:09, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Usage - neither is informationclearinghouse.info) |
|
|
# 13:08, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Analogy - globalexchange.org is not a reliable source) |
|
|
|
|
|
They may or may not be reliable sources for facts about Israel. They are, however, reliable sources for what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are arguing. ] 13:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, unsigned articles or articles by a random writer from random websites cannot possibly be reliable sources on any matter. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge == |
|
|
|
|
|
] not only repeats some of the ideas in this article but also seems that it would be a very good section of this article as the topics are very similar but this one seems to be more of an umbrella title which Apartheid wall would fit under. --] 15:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
The whole paragraph should be trimmed: "The International Court of Justice in its 2024 advisory opinion found that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories constitutes systemic discrimination and is in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. The opinion itself was silent as to whether the discrimination amounted to apartheid while individual judges were split on the issue" Makeandtoss (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I tried to make your recent edit work in the lede, but I ultimately removed it as out of place and WP:UNDUE. Since the lede is a summary of the overall topic, it doesn't need to go into that level of detail about a matter which is tangential to the topic of apartheid. I think you'll need to get consensus here first before reinstating. Lewisguile (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I suggest adding a note to the effect that the vast majority of Israeli settlers are of Jewish nationality as it says in first sentence of the lead at Israeli settlement. "They are populated by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of Jewish identity or ethnicity,
I believe that the new version of this article violates the rule of neutrality, and is, to an extent, leaning towards an opinionated Palestinian narrative. While it is a fact that Israel's occupation may be seen by some as being characteristic and similar to the apartheid system of South Africa, I believe that much of the information sources given on this topic are very obviously influenced by Hamas - the media department is notoriously versatile and, while sometimes telling the truth, spreads falsified or over-exaggerated statistics and information. For example, the article mentions that the Law of Return is part of the apartheid system, which lacks a citation and, quite frankly, sense in itself, or the mention of Israel's alleged 'mistreatment' of its own Palestinian citizens, which also lacks a citation and appears to be more of an opinion rather than a factual piece of information. I will reiterate that it is important to remember that both Israel and Palestine are doing things wrong and unlawful within this seemingly perpetual conflict, however we must also remember to factor in the other side, such as the verified sources of Israel's pro-immigration policies, or the slight indoctrination of the Gaza strip by Hamas of elements of hatred for the Jewish people. Please note, I am not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, I am pro-solution - this really is not neutral. Canyouseedis (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)