Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:29, 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)

The qualification "established" should apply to academic community, rather than hateblog. ←Humus sapiens 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Moshe, can you give me a specific citation of what in Wikipeida:What Misplaced Pages is not is being violated? If you can't do this then the tag can't stay on. Homey 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 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. Homey 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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. --Strothra 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of the title it's taking a stance?? I could see that if the title was Israel practices apartheid but it's not. It's presenting the term, which is a term which exists and is established. --Strothra 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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. 6SJ7 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You should be warned that it's going to be really really really difficult to WP:AGF with your edits when you've admitted to wishing to edit this article in order to destroy it. --Strothra 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. 6SJ7 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also an article called Evil empire. Homey 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. 6SJ7 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What about a phrase used by a Nobel Prize Winner like Desmond Tutu?Homey 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Or another deranged politician and Nobel Prize Winner Arafat? ←Humus sapiens 05:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So you think fighting against apartheid in South Africa is deranged? Homey 06:08, 29 May 2006 (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.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:15, 29 May 2006 (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?

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. Homey 06:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a "term". As I said elsewhere (you seem to crosspost a lot), maybe we should disambiguate ritual murder and say that it "is a term used by some critics" to describe Jewish customs? ←Humus sapiens 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If there were an article called Jewish ritual murder than that article would need to be disambiguated. As it is the ritual murder article is largely about the Jewish blood libel so diambiguation is not necessary.Homey 06:44, 29 May 2006 (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. ←Humus sapiens 06:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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.Bless sins 10:05, 29 May 2006 (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. Homey 07:02, 29 May 2006 (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?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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. --Strothra 05:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be moved to Israel and aparthied, like Zionism and Racism adn Islam and anti-Semitism.Bless sins 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is less valid than Iranian genocidal intentions

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

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=Iranian+OR+iran+%22genocidal+intentions%22&btnG=Search

People should really review WP:not Zeq 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What? How do Iranian genocidal intentions factor into this discussion? What are you talking about? What part of WP:NOT are you claiming that this article does not meet? Please provide constructive comments so that the article may be updated accordingly. --Strothra 14:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Two comments below have been copied from user talk pages:

2. 13:09, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Usage - neither is informationclearinghouse.info)
3. 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. Homey 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. Pecher 13:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Peer review requests not specifying archive