| Revision as of 04:53, 29 May 2006 editMoshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,202 edits →Preposterous← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:57, 29 May 2006 edit undoNonexistant User (talk | contribs)9,925 edits →PreposterousNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| 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) | 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) | ||
| :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) | |||
Revision as of 04:57, 29 May 2006
 | Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically. |
POV tag
Would it be possible to make this more POV? I don't think so. ←Humus sapiens 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, you posted your pov notice while I was writing a "criticism" section. Homey 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Expansion Needed
To avoid POV you may wish to focus more centrally on the history of the idea of Israeli apartheid and make sure that you distinguish Zionism and Israel because I think that the term is more often meant to be Zionist Israeli Apartheid rather than Israeli Apartheid. It is, however, a legit term but I think it needs to be presented is a different fashion. --Strothra 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Preposterous
Even with the "criticism" section, this article is completely preposterous. So now every time someone calls something a name, there has to be an article about it? Between this, "Wall of Shame," "Apartheid Wall" and other "articles," 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. 6SJ7 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- um. The concept of Israeli apartheid is not new. I've heard it since the early nineties. It is, however, controversial but the article does not claim to take a stance on it. The article seems to be improving and making itself to be more about the controversy surrounding the term. I still believe that it needs to do more research into the history of the term itself though because it would also be quite interesting. --Strothra 04:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
6SJ7, you would have a point if there were only a handful of instances where the term has been used. However, if you google "Israeli apartheid" you will get approximately 240,000 hits. I would agree that "every time someone calls something a name" there needn't be an article about it but when 240,000 people use a phrase it's notable. Homey 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well there you have it. But please keep up your work in doing research into this article and improving it. The article should not stand on Google alone. Make the article one that stands on solid research. --Strothra 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
6SJ7, you must be more specific. What, exactly, in the article is inaccurate? What, exactly, is NPOV? Please give specific examples. Homey 04:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
And what, specifically, in Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not is being violated?Homey 04:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm reinserting the unencyclopedic tag, just because the name has a couple hundred thousand hits does not automatically mean there should be an article about it. It clearly represents a strong pov, just because it doesn't take an explicit stance on the subject doesn't mean it isn't doing it implicitly.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that an article can take an implicit stance, however, I feel that an article which is taking a controversial but established term, such as this one, and presents both sides of the controversy is not violating POV. The point is, this article will have to present both sides clearly and equally and establish the history of the term in a well-cited well-researched manner that includes verifiable and reliable sources. --Strothra 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)