Talk:Apartheid wall/Archive1

previous description stated that it is a term used exclusively by Palestinians, which is a blatant lie at best and intellectually dishonest. it shows a great disservice to Palestinians and humanitarians the world over to claim that term is used by Palestinians alone.

---

I disagree with making this a one-line article with no potential for expansion. From Wikipedia:Redirect: "[A redirect may be deleted if:] The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article" and "For example, redirecting Dubya to George W. Bush might be considered offensive, but the redirect aids accidental linking, makes the creation of duplicate articles less likely, and is useful to some people, so it should not be deleted."

This page will only create an extra step for people who want to look up information about the West Bank wall and do so by searching for a loaded term. The article already states that it is a loaded term; this is enough.

I have changed it back into a redirect. - Mike Rosoft 06:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree. Apartheid Wall shall not redirect directly to the Isreali West Bank banner. It shall be an independant page, a stub that explain that it is the word used by palestinians and pro-palestinian groups througout the world, in order to critisize this wall. Shall we transform the page Zionist Occupation Government into a redirect toward the American Governement ? No. So I revert your edits. --Revas 2 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

Revas has a good point. Epithets are not turned into re-directs to the things they are intended to insult. Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)

More discussion about redirect vs separate article is available here where many editors felt it should be merged. --MattWright (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Arguments are presented

Please recall, the article lists the arguments that both sides make, as they present them. People don't "NPOV" their own arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, please recall that these are the arguments that proponents make, regardless of whether or not we think they are accurate. You cannot "NPOV" someone's argument into saying something that they aren't saying. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggest deletion

This article ought to be deleted. Almost nothing links here and odds are the majority of people searching Wikipedia for it are allready aware of its official name. If it means that much to someone, put a section like "claims of racist intent" in Israeli West Bank barrier and back it up with some sources. This article has only three external links for fourteen points. I won't put the vfd tag up until someone comments, but I really think it ought to go before degenerating into a "he said she said" mountain of factless POV. --Uncle Bungle 03:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It's actually gotten quite a number of compliments, and has helped stopped "Apartheid wall" arguments. The term itself is notable, as are the views of those who use it, and those who object to it. More links to it would be a good idea. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As a note, the contents of this article were entirely taken out from Israeli West Bank barrier and placed here as a separate article. It was previously under the heading "Accusations of Apartheid" in the main article. Some felt that the phrase "Apartheid Wall" was an epithet and should not be part of the original article, while others argued that it is a very common label among those opposed to the wall. I think that the phrase "apartheid wall" is common enough (just given by the coverage it gets plus the number of foreign activists who come to protest the wall) that people would look it up on Wikipedia. It does need to be enhanced though, either here or on the main page, because some arguments presented seem to be editors' own OR. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the arguments on the anti-side are all taken from the linked article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

True- but there are a couple of only partially sourced statements on the top half ;) Ramallite ^(talk) 03:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sourced arguments for the top half would be good. More of them would help balance things. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to see the above mentioned compliments on the talk page. The source for the bottom half does not list an author, and readers don't know how qualified the person is to speak on the issue. I really think this article is a bad thing, it is going to get huge and unclear and touch on so many topics as to border on ridicilous. --Uncle Bungle 16:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems quite informative, and is also reasonably limited in size; there are only so many arguments each side is advancing. The arguments used on the bottom half are frequently used; the link used just happens to be a convenient summary. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this page should be deleted. It is entirely biased. Furthermore, the rhetoric of this page is insulting. Although what the Israelis do to the Palestinians is at times terrible, it is not at all comperable to the apartheid in South Africa. Calling this wall an "apartheid wall" insults every single individual who suffered during the aparheid in South Africa. Pages like this that show blatant, ignorant bias do not deserve a place on Wikipedia. User: Notecardforfree 18:33, 15 Jan 2007

External Links

Jayjg one is actually titled "Not an apartheid wall" and the other, stopthewall, is particularly insistant on the term (as opposed to major media outlets). I you want I'll put each URL in line with the point, but its just going to get cluttered and ugly. Up to you. --Uncle Bungle 22:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Lots of groups use the term. Do you have a link to a group which explains why it is appropriate? Links on this page should be to pages discussing the use of the term, not merely talking about the barrier itself. As such, only the last link against the use of the term was relevant, but I took it out as well, because it would seem biased only to have arguments from one side. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop the wall may not say "this is why the term is apropriate" but it does say "these are the characteristics of the apartheid wall". Further, if I am not mistaken the purpose of this article isn't to define the term as correct or not, but simply to state positions of those who use the term, and those who don't. --Uncle Bungle 23:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This article cites arguments for and against the use of the term. The other article presents the details of the actual barrier itself, and its (alleged) effects. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I've only seen one article, the one you provided, which actually makes a case for or against the term. --Uncle Bungle 23:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite's additions

Ramallite, I'm a little troubled by your additions to the article. They appear to be arguments against the barrier itself, not arguments as to why the term "Apartheid Wall" is appropriate. In fact, from what I can tell, the document you've used as a source doesn't even use the word Apartheid. The Israeli West Bank barrier article is already filled with arguments for and against the barrier itself; I can't understand why you would want to repeat them here, rather than presenting arguments about the applicability of the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I could have sworn the title of that article was "Apartheid Wall" - either it never was, or they purposefully removed any reference of apartheid for presentation reasons. My mistake. Can some of these arguments be included in the Israeli West Bank barrier article then? Ramallite ^(talk) 00:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In summarized form some would seem to me to be appropriate for the "Palestinian opinions" section. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wall as Colonial Project

I'm confused as to why my addition to this article was removed. In the section defending the relevancy of the term "apartheid wall" I wrote:

"Its extension into the occupied territories consolidates Israeli settlements in the area and lends the appearance of legitimacy to the settlement project, which, like the apartheid regime of South Africa, is a colonial and imperialist venture. See colonialism and imperialism."

The reason given for its removal is a lack of source material. Nevertheless, in the section dedicated to opponents of the term, an argument of the same form is made, also without sources. The point reads:

"Apartheid was an outgrowth of imperialist, colonial policy; Israel's Jewish population consisted mostly of refugees with a deep historical relationship to the land."

Why is this point allowed to remain while the counter-point in defense of the term is removed? I respectfully request its readmission, or, if that is denied, the removal of its counterpart. In the meantime, I have rewritten the point and provided a source to clarify.--142.150.48.189 17:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The counter-argument has a source; I'll look at your source the argument you have added. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at it; it doesn't even give a page number. Exactly what are you referring to in that source? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The reference is to the section entitled "The Apartheid Wall," with particular reference to the article be Jamal Jumma, p 191-192 (also published in the Miami Herald, 15 Aug. 2003): "In Palestine, and among various solidarity groups, the Wall is referred to as the Apartheid Wall--as part of a colonial project that includes the long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion." p. 192. I would argue that this is common knowledge, but that is an aside. If you consider this article too partisan, I would hasten to point out to you that the source you give, "HonestReporting.com" is explicitly partisan and hardly academic. In their "about us" section they state:

"Since October 2000, in addition to fighting an anti-terror war, Israel has been fighting a media war. In news outlets around the globe, journalists regularly misrepresent Israel as the aggressor and Palestinians as the victims."

If you include this as a source, you can hardly fault an academic work published by Verso.

Incidentally, the changes you made to "clean up" my point resulted in an ungrammatical sentence. I will fix it and give the specific page number reference. Jude W. --142.150.48.163 18:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've edited it again to conform with Wikipedia standards, and removed unrelated rhetoric. It's also completely grammatical. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you remove mention of how the wall consolidates Israeli settlements, ie. by extending a perimeter into the west bank occupied territories, effectively annexing (or rather, consolidating the annexation of) Palestinian land. This is not empty rhetoric, and is key to understanding the use of the term "colonial project" and "apartheid wall." Although grammatically correct, the statement is now virtually non-sense. If you object to the term "occupied territories" or the phrase that the wall "lends the appearance of legitimacy" to the settlement project, I will remove this material, but please don't cripple the argument itself.

Also, I'm confused as to why you removed my source, the absence of which was the original object of contention. I've included it again with the assumption that this was an oversight on your part.--Jude W. --142.150.48.204 19:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The source was included, in a comment. Sources shouldn't be included inline like that. Also, your text still contains too much POV rhetoric. I'll fix both issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

O.K., current version is gramatically correct, and addresses all issues in your previous comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope this final edit conforms with your policies. Although, re:POV issues, this article is explicitly intended to present the arguments made by both sides of a very divisive issue. Disagreement with the argument per se is not grounds for its removal. You would have to show how it is in fact not an argument used by opponents of the barrier, and this is contested by my source. Jude W. --142.150.48.204 20:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The argument has to actually be about the barrier itself and its relationship to Apartheid, it can't just be a general rant about Israeli policy. And there are no "final" edits on Wikipedia. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, please try to make sure the points don't duplicate each other; for example, how was the point, as you added it, significantly different from points 2 or 5 below it? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in, but if the argument has to be about the barrier itself, and not general rants on policy, what is "South African blacks did not seek the destruction of South Africa, but merely the reformation of the government; however, the majority of Palestinians in the territories dispute Israel's right to exist" doing here?? Ramallite ^(talk) 20:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're not barging in, your input is always welcome. That's an argument against the use of the "Apartheid" designation in "Apartheid Wall". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Point well taken about "final edits." I will agree that your version is technically clear, but why remove the argument that the barrier is "part of a long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion"? This is not a "general rant" about Israeli policy, but helps to define the term "colonialism" as it is used in this context, i.e. that colonialism, as "occupation, discrimination and expulsion," is the proper term to describe both the Israeli settlement project and the South African Bantustans. The barrier, as it consolidates the settlements, consolidates a racist, colonial project, hence the term "apartheid wall." This is difficult to say in such a small space, and perhaps my addition is wordy, but it does, I think, help to introduce the central argument for the use of the term "apartheid wall," and so helps to cohere the arguments that follow. I will not revert your edit, given that I have edited extensively today, and do not wish to appear to be gunning for an edit war. I will simply ask, at this point, why remove the above passage?

In anticipation of POV-related argument, I will only stress once more that this article is intended to present the arguments for and against the use of the term "apartheid wall." If you do not agree that the barrier and the settlement policy constitutes "occupation, discrimination and expulsion," or you believe these terms to be partisan, please recall that term in question is itself obviously partisan, and arguments for its use are likewise. You need to show me that these arguments are not used by opponents of the wall, not that they are reflect a biased point of view, which, in this case, is an irrelevant point.--Jude w.--142.150.48.204 21:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue is that it appears to duplicate arguments made in other points (see my point above). There is already a point about "discrimination", and a point about "expulsion". Each point should, ideally, make a unique argument, not just repeat the arguments made in other places. Would you prefer to remove the other points instead? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hardly. The point being made is that by introducing these concepts as attributes of colonialism, the arguments that follow are contextualized and clarified. Contextualization and clarification is not duplication. It must also be added that without these terms the argument itself appears dogmatic, since the term "colonialism" is used without much consideration of the relavant terms of comparison (ie. occupation, discrimination and displacement) Your editing serves to cripple argument and makes it appear less cogent than it really is. I assume this is unintentional.--Jude W. --130.63.100.107 03:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Your point refers to "occupation", "discrimination" and "expulsion", and "colonialism". However point 3 refers to discrimination/racism, and point 7 refers to expulsion, and "occupation" had nothing to do with Apartheid. My edits serve to make the points more cogent and relevant, and less repetitive, and that is entirely intentional. If you prefer, we can remove points 3 and 7 instead; let me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, "occupation" and "colonialism" have everything to do with apartheid. Apartheid in all its manifestations, be it in South Africa, the United States or Palestine begins through the occupation and the displacement of a people, and as such is the denial of their existence as a people. That which is not integrated or expelled is held in containment and separated or ghettoized in order to assure the "security" of the occupiers. The Bantustans of South Africa, the reservations and ghettos of North America, are all examples of how occupation and apartheid go hand in hand.

But all this is aside the point. The veracity of the argument is not in question. As you yourself have said:

"recall that these are the arguments that proponents make, regardless of whether or not we think they are accurate."

So if you question the accuracy or legitimacy of my argument, please feel free to contest it with a counterpoint, as I have, but please do not censor my argument.

As for the claim that the phrase is repetitive or duplicates claims made elsewhere, this is pure nonsense. Other points make reference to "discrimination" and "expulsion," but they explore these issues in different ways. What's more, they do not place these terms in the context of a critique of colonialism, which is the ground for the use of the term. By briefly introducing these terms in this context, the arguments that follow are clarified and expanded, they are not made redundant.

Please refrain from deleting or censoring the argument as it is presented. Jude W.--142.150.48.170 22:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Quote the source, and stop repeating arguments in multiple points. Expulsion is expulsion, discrimination is discrimination, and South Africa wasn't "occupied". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The native inhabitants of South Africa might disagree with you. Did they not constitute a people? Were there no human societies in Southern Africa at the time of its colonization by Europeans? I suppose if you considered Africa "a land without a people" you might be able to argue that it was not technically occupied by Europeans.

Secondly, your repetitive assertion that I "repeat points" is dogmatic. I have given you several reasons why this passage is not repetition, but rather introduction, clarification and contextualization. You do not address these arguments. The dogmatic repetition of the accusation of repetition does not constitute debate. It is simply a form of censorship.

Finally, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to depict paraphrase as quotation. A citation is given, that should be sufficient. I will, however, isolate the cited passage and present it as quotation if this satisfies you.--Jude W .--130.63.100.131 01:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote; I've cleaned it up again, mostly adding links and removing the claim that the settlements etc. are "projects", which is your own POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the term "projects" is considered POV, please explain. There is a difference between the term "settlement" and the term "settlement project", but only in the sense that the former refers to particular communities and the latter refers to the general concept of settlement, ie. the settlement as a policy or a movement. The barrier doesn't just consolidate individual communities; it consolidates the movement and its claims. In any case, as pointed out numerous times, and by yourself, POV is irrelevant to the point of whether opponents of the barrier make this particular claim concerning the settlement movement/project.

My main concern is that by removing the term "project," the simile becomes rather shaky, as the settlements are communities created for the occupiers (as the argument goes), and the Bantustans were communities created for the people displaced. They both have the same end, though, and this meaning is retained when we consider these as projects, movements, concepts or policies, etc. and not just individual communities.

Just to be clear, I wasn't the user who deleted/edited passages in the defender's section. I do not undermine your arguments with editing; please show me the same respect.--Jude W.--142.150.48.163 22:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Bantustan project" is a neologism that you appear to have invented, and the notion that the settlements are a "project" is original research on your part. You keep claiming that any difference from your specific wording "undermines" the argument, or makes it "shaky", but there is no evidence that that is the case here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Changing a general term to a specific term in this context does alter its meaning and undermine the analogy given. Please refer to my argument above. As for your "original research" accusation, this is pure sophistry. The term "project" is not a specialized term that requires special elaboration or definition, and to claim that there was no Bantustan "project" amounts to claiming that there was no policy enacted by the apartheid regime to create Bantustans. This is clearly absurd, and borders on the same level of offensiveness as your claim that "South Africa was not occupied."

Referring to the history of this page I note that it was largely created by you. Many of the claims of "opponents of the wall" are made by you, and much to your credit. You seem, however, to be unwilling to allow others to contribute to this page. Those contributions that are offered are "edited" so as to become nonsense. I fear that the opponents' section is becoming a strawman for the defenders. Please prove me wrong and refrain from your ongoing censorship.--Jude W.--142.150.48.163 23:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Bantustan project" is a neologism gets almost no google hits, and original research is forbidden on Wikipedia. The points make perfect sense now, and do not violate Wikipedia policy. Your contribution is fine, but please do not imagine that you have sole ownership of everything you contribute. You seem completely unable to explain why removing your neologisms and original research make the points "nonsense", and your claim of "censorship" is the same nonsense that all editors claim when they insist that they own text, and that they don't have to follow policy. Another policy, by the way, is the three revert rule which you have violated. Revert again and you will simply be blocked. I recommend working this out on the Talk: page instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain to me how "Bantustan project" is a neologism. It seems to be comprised of the words "Bantustan" and "project", both of which are entirely familiar and comprehendible to most people, the combination of which does not create a "new term" (i.e. a neologism), but refers to the Bantustans as a project, that is, the Bantustans as a general policy. By your logic, any movement or undertaking referred to in general or as a project which doesn't receive some arbitrary number of "google hits" is a neologism.

I'm exhausted by this pointless debate. I appeal to other users to intercede here.--Jude W.--142.150.48.163 23:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Bantustan project" is a phrase, and a neologism. If it was in common use, then the phrase would get thousands of Google hits; yet it only gets 36 Google hits, and many of those are, in fact, a pejorative reference to the Oslo Accords. Google really is a pretty good test for neologisms. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the test for neologisms is fairly simple: if the phrase cannot be understood outside of context and requires elaboration it is a neologism. If it is meaningful without such elaboration it is not. But if you want to engage in sophistry, I'm game. According to "google" there is only 64 hits for the phrase "deep historical relationship" (one of them is this site). That must mean that "deep historical relationship" is a neologism and is not appropriate on this site. Please remove the point which refers to a European "deep historical relationship" to Israel/Palestine.--Jude W.--130.63.100.45 05:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

When you talk about The Bantustan project you are clearly referring to a specific set of actions or historical events which together constitute something that is commonly known as The Bantustan project. That being the case, the question that arises is "is or was there such a thing as a Bantustan project, and if so, was it commonly referred to that way?" Well, South Africa promoted a Bantustan policy, but if it existed as a project it certainly wasn't referred to that way. Compare, for example, the "Manhattan Project", which was indeed commonly referred to that way, and which gets over 650,000 Google hits, or the "Human Genome Project", which gets over 715,000 hits. And when you mention that you are "game", picking any two or three words in a sentence and claiming they are "original research" if not commonly put together that way on the internet is, indeed, game-playing, and I'm not keen on game-playing. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So is the word "project" the only remaining item of dispute? Would "endeavor" be better? I was asked by Jude to try and help out... Ramallite ^(talk) 15:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's the only remaining item of dispute, because I've already given in on all the others. What makes it an "endeavour"? Who calls it that? And in what way would it improve the accuracy or readability of the point? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Upon sober reflection (and I mean that literally) I realize that the term at issue is irrelevant. The analogy is sufficiently clear without using the term project, endeavour, enterprise, or whatever else. My apologies. Enjoy your constructing your Uqbar, friends ;) --Jude--142.150.48.209 19:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad, because I wasn't sure either that a word after "settlement" was actually necessary to convey the (good) point you were trying to make. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The title of this article

Because it appears that (at least for the time being) this article will not be merged back into Israeli West Bank barrier, I think it is appropriate to address the title of this article. I have not changed the title in order to give others the opportunity to suggest better ideas for what it should be changed to. But before I get to that, here is why the title of this article should not be "Apartheid Wall": There is no such thing. An encyclopedia article should be about a "thing," whether that thing is a physical object or series of objects, or a person, or a controversy, idea or ideology. Now, a thing may be called different things by different people, but that does not mean that all of those names are appropriate as the title of an article. I'd say, the more "POV" an alternative name is, the less likely that it should be the title of an article about the "thing." In this case, "Apartheid Wall" is just about the most POV name that one could call the barrier, wall, whatever it is. (Objectively, it is really a series of impediments to entry, of different types in different locations, including fences, walls, guarded zones and other things; but that is for the other article.) This article (unlike Israeli West Bank barrier) is really not "about" the "barrier," it is about what the barrier should be called. So the title of the article should not be "Apartheid Wall." Rather, it should indicate that the article is about the controversy over what to call the "barrier."

And what should that name be? As I said, it should indicate that the article is about what something should be called. Or, looked at another way, it should indicate that the article is about the belief that the thing should be called an "Apartheid Wall." My first thought was "Apartheid Wall" ideology, with the first two words in quotation marks, indicating a belief about a name. That is certainly much shorter than [[Controversy over calling the Israeli West Bank barrier an "Apartheid Wall"]]. Maybe someone can suggest something better. The point is that the article should be (and will be) renamed. 6SJ7 21:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You have (inadvertently) caused a Cache-22. This article was once a small section in the Israeli West Bank barrier article to describe the controversy in naming, especially as many sources regarded the reasons to call it "Apartheid Wall" as valid. Due to some controversy swirling in that article (where to put the "Apartheid Wall" reference (top or middle), is it legitimate or an epithet, is it widely used or not, etc), an editor familiar with the topic decided to move it into its own article (I don't remember the exact nature of the conflict that day). Once it was moved, other editors (most of whom did not realize that the article was once a part of the other one) objected (like you did) to it being its own article and wanted to merge it back, hence the Merge Tag. The last proposal was to redirect this article to it's section in the other article (but not to the top of that article). It looked like most people would have agreed to that, but nobody implemented this idea, although I don't remember that anybody objected to it either. So there you have it. The one thing that will probably not be accepted is to delete reference to "Apartheid Wall" entirely, since many editors feel that, based on sources familiar with the conflict, it should stay as the Palestinian POV. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

When you say "objected (like you did) to it being its own article and wanted to merge it back..." I am not sure why you are referring to me. I did not object to it being its own article and want to merge it back. I am the one who removed the "merge tag" from both articles. I did that primarily because I thought that having a prominent multi-colored box at the top of the other article saying "Apartheid Wall" improperly introduced a POV to that article, especially since the idea of merging the two seemed to have fizzled out. What I am saying here is that the article should be titled differently so it is referring to a dispute, controversy, ideology or whatever about whether it is appropriate to call the barrier a particular thing. I am not proposing to remove the words "Apartheid Wall" from the title, merely to add other words. (I will acknowledge that I think Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia without this article at all, either as a section of another article or as its own article, but since (as you point out) that battle was fought and decided before I got here, I do not choose to re-fight it.)

As for the article (and title?) remaining as the "Palestinian POV," I thought the whole point was that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to express a POV; however, they can be about a POV (and the arguments against that POV) as the text of this article is. The problem here is that the current title does express a POV, and I want to change it so that it is about the POV. 6SJ7 21:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My mistake for misreading, I thought you meant you objected to it being its own article (without "and wanting to merge it back" part, I should have inserted a comma between the two). You are right that WP is not supposed to express a POV. I don't agree that this reference should be removed entirely from WP because there are valid (and significant) sources that argue for it, and I suspect enough people would search for it under "Apartheid Wall" to warrant having it available (as a redirect or otherwise). However, if you merely add words to the title, it will 1) still stick out as a POV title since the words are still there, and 2) will probably make the title look even less encyclopedic. Therefore I think the best thing to do would be make it a subsection of the original article as it was before. There is already a section there about the naming controversy. It could also be significantly shortened, this tirade of arguments both lengthens it unnecessarily and is not too encyclopedic in my judgment. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible for a title to "look even less encyclopedic" than one that states the name of something that does not exist... or to put it another way, something that exists only as a POV. Either way, that is what we have now. Nevertheless, I will think about it some more. It sure would be nice if someone other than you or me would weigh in here. 6SJ7 04:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

When you say "I am not proposing to remove the words "Apartheid Wall" from the title, merely to add other words", then the only titles I can think of are things along the lines of "The so-called Apartheid Wall" or "The barrier known to some as the Apartheid Wall" or something of that nature, which is (in my opinion) inherently un-encyclopedic. I'm sure others will weigh in soon enough... Ramallite ^(talk) 14:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The solution of having it here, and having it fully described the positions on both sides, calmed all the edit wars. It is a reasonable approach to the POV issue; don't assert that the barrier is an Apartheid wall, but instead provide a summary of the arguments made on both sides. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, perhaps I am being dense here, but based on what you just said, the title of this article should be changed to "Apartheid Wall" argument. Right or wrong? 6SJ7 03:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, the phrase "apartheid wall" is discussed in the other article. No reason this can't be a redirect. It's the most commonly used term, other than simply "the wall" by people who oppose it. The POV argument is silly, since it's equally POV to state that there isn't a state of apartheid in Israel/Palestine - and a lot less sensible. I've heard right-wing pro-Zionists admit as much. --Tothebarricades 22:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is it so important what people call it? What is important is what it is and what it does, and people can argue and have edit and revert wars about that, but the issue of what different people call it doesn't seem very important. It is what it is. I have come to agree that it is reasonable for this aspect of what people call it (namely "apartheid wall" which is blatantly POV and frankly ridiculous regardless of what Tothebarricades says) to have its own little article here, to keep it out of the main article, and for any other South Africa-related references in the main article to be sent over here as well. If as you say the word "apartheid" is still in the main article, I will go over there right now and delete it, unless it is simply a pointer to this article. I still think this article should be renamed, but since I seem to be the only one who thinks so, I will not do it (for now at least.) 6SJ7 00:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Change of Format

I would like to suggest a change in the format of this article. Below I have rewritten the defenders' section as a single paragraph in order to reduce the number of redundant arguments and clarify the central issue. I would like to invite opponents of the term to rewrite their section along the same lines. If we can articulate the central point of contention with brevity, I see no reason why we cannot include this section in the main article on the barrier. Please feel free to suggest alternate edits.

---

Apartheid wall is a term sometimes used to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier by its opponents. They refer to it this way because they argue that:

The extension of the barrier into the West Bank isolates Palestinian communities and consolidates the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements. The barrier, it is argued, is part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," which effectively constitutes a form of apartheid. ¹ Although the Israeli government cites security concerns as the rationale for the construction of the barrier, the barrier also serves to separate, isolate and disenfranchise an entire people. Moreover, its current route on confiscated Palestinian land suggests that there are motives involved which go beyond security. This is corroborated by Israeli left wing groups such as Gush Shalom and more recently by the Israeli State Prosecution itself (referring only to the part built beyond the 1949 Armistice lines).[1] It is estimated that 16% of the Palestinians in the West Bank live on what will become the Israeli side of the barrier, and it is feared that they will eventually be expelled or forced to migrate.

---

161.184.46.161 21:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

For reasons I and others have stated, this article has no place in the main article, or on Wikipedia at all. But if the anti-Israel bullies insist on putting it somewhere, it might as well be here where fewer people will see it. It is really an abomination. I don't think you should waste any more of your time editing it. 6SJ7 02:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, even if that is the consensus (and I'm not sure it is), it couldn't hurt to clean up this page and make it resemble something approximating an encyclopedic article. 136.159.209.156 18:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus was not separate articles, there were quite a few people in favor of a merge. You can read a longer discussion we had on this topic from a previous merge request. Tomer, Zero, SlimVirgin, Ramallite, AladdinSE, Pharos and myself agreed that it should be merged back in where it originally came from, with most people feeling it needed to be cleaned up and presented much better. It seems that there would be enough support to merge it back if it can be cleaned up substantially, which I think means making it into paragraph form and not a long list of arguments. --MattWright (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Either way it is anti-Israel POV, but given the political climate on Wikipedia I recognize it is not going to go away. On balance I suppose a merger does the least damage, and might give this ridiculous argument slightly less play than it is getting now. My main problem with a merge, if there is a redirect from this article to the Israeli West Bank Barrier, is that the redirect itself labels the barrier as an "Apartheid Wall." Just on a hunch I did a search on the word Apartheid which leads you to an article about South African Apartheid that has a disambiguation tag to a much-disputed article about Apartheid Outside South Africa. That article (AOAS)has a link to this one, and even worse, the first heading in that article is "Israel." If that article is deleted, which I see is proposed, then merging this article into "Barrier" with a redirect would be less objectionable. As I stated when I eliminated the "merge tags" from the two articles, I see POV in "overall visual impact" and not just the words. (Which also means that if the merger does take place, please someone just do the merger and forget about the merge tag.) 6SJ7 21:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In my mind there are two times the redirect will come into play:

1. If the term is searched on. In this case, the user is likely looking for the barrier article, so the redirect is appropriate. Furthermore, it is made obvious that apartheid wall is not the wikipedia name for that structure, since the article is titled Israeli West Bank barrier.
2. If the term is linked from elsewhere within wikipedia. Under normal circumstances, this term should not appear elsewhere in wikipedia, since it is not wikipedia's name for the barrier. If it is deemed the appropriate term, such as on the "Apartheid Outside South Africa" page that you mention, the term should be linked to the appropriate section inside of the article, (Israeli West Bank barrier#Apartheid wall) which will then explain the naming dispute. This makes it quite clear that this is not wikipedia's sanctioned name for this barrier, but rather a disputed term that is used in certain circles. Direct linking to the redirect can be watched for and corrected using the "What links here" special page. --MattWright (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand the rationale for a merge; the article is a discussion of the term "Apartheid Wall", which links in its first sentence to the West Bank barrier. This neatly avoids all possible POV issues, yet inconveniences no-one. Why merge? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to push you too hard on this. I was just summarizing for the most recent Talk: topic the outcomes of one of the other discussions to refute the statement "this article has no place in the main article, or on Wikipedia at all" by 6SJ7. I really do not agree with you that this "neatly avoids all possible POV issues." Clearly some people still have a problem with it being its own article, or the naming, etc. as is mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. I just happen to think that this article isn't very encyclopedic in the way it is currently presented and would be better summarized in a couple paragraphs and merged back into the main article, with any links to apartheid wall pointing to the section discussing the term. As you are an editor with vast amounts more experience than me and no one else had backed up my proposed modification, I'll just leave it as-is for now. --MattWright (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, since I've heard no objections to the form or content of my suggested edit (see above), I'm going to go ahead with it. I hope this will encourage someone to edit the rather long, largely repetitive section devoted to opponents of the term. Again, please feel free to offer alternative edits. --136.159.208.28 19:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't even see your suggestion above, as it was subsumed in the debate about whether or not this article should even exist. I can't agree to that format change for a number of reasons, including the fact that it assumes one side is correct, and leaves out important arguments for the "Apartheid" side. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it was the first message under this subheading. Could you be more specific? Which important arguments do you think should be included? As for the POV issue, I tried to account for this by introducing the paragraph as "arguments used by opponents of the barrier," leaving the other section alone for the moment. Would you like to suggest a different means of phrasing this? -136.159.208.31 23:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten it to address your concerns. NPOV language is used throughout, and all the major points listed by opponents are included. Do you have any other suggestions? -136.159.208.23 20:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you insist on deleting arguments against the barrier, so be it, but I've actually NPOVd your text now. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the motives involved or the effectiveness of the barrier as a security measure, the barrier clearly "separates, isolates and disenfranchises a particular ethnic group." Opponents do not "claim" this; they "point it out" as a matter of fact. -136.159.209.175 17:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is a claim, particularly that it "isolates" and "disenfranchises" a particular ethnic group. It's also rather silly, given that millions of members of that particular ethnic group are not affected by the barrier in any particular way. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there is an Arab minority living in Israel doesn't change the fact that the barrier is built along ethnic lines and disproportionately affects Palestinians in a negative way. Everyone recognizes this fact. What's at issue is whether this measure is justified by Israeli security concerns. For the most part I do agree with your corrections. I agree, for instance, with your edit in latter part of the sentence, i.e. that opponents ??argue that it is therefore racially discriminatory,? since the facts are interpreted to be evidence of racial discrimination. But inserting qualifiers into statements of fact is somewhat misleading. Can we agree to keep the qualifier at the end of the sentence, where the interpretation of racial discrimination is made? -161.184.44.139 17:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

They are all claims though - that the barrier "isolates", that it "disenfranchises". Supporters of the barrier would disagree that this is the case. If you wanted to state that it affects Palestinians in a negative way, that would be a fact, though it has also been claimed that it has affected Palestinians in a positive way, by reducing the need for checkpoints etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not all that convinced by your arguments, but I don't think it's worth belabouring such a minor point. Given the nature of your objections, however, I would like to see some changes to the supporters' section. Numerous claims are presented as statements of fact, or misrepresent the facts through omission, and stand in stark contrast to the neutral language and qualified descriptions used in the opponents' section. I have made some tentative changes, although I really think the section needs to be rewritten as a paragraph by someone who is more familiar with the arguments. I've removed the sixth point because, as far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that the majority of Palestinians seek the destruction of Israel. Don't the majority support a two-state solution, or else the reformation of Israel, that is, a bi-national government? -136.159.209.85 20:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, the whole section is the arguments made by supporters of the barrier, and they are all sourced. You can't have them make the arguments you think they should be making, but rather, they make the arguments they make. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

While there is a single qualifier at the beginning of the section, each subsequent argument is presented as a statement of fact. If you feel that each of the arguments opponents make should be qualified as claims (a point I have acceded to) I see no reason why the arguments made by supporters shouldn't be similarly qualified. While it is true that some of the points made in this section are indeed statements of fact, the majority are not, so the overall presentation is misleading. I've tried to account for this by rewriting the section as a paragraph, but perhaps someone more familiar with the arguments could express them into a more coherent and succinct fashion.

And again, I'm afraid I do not see any source given for the claim that "the majority of Palestinians in the territories dispute Israel's right to exist." It is well known that many Palestinians dispute the right of Israel to exist as an ethnic state (the bi-national argument), but that argument is essentially reformist, and is not substantially different from the demands made by black South Africans. But perhaps someone could enlighten us with some figures. -136.159.209.148 22:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to change the entire format of the first section, which also used to say "based on the following claims", then complain that the second section is unclear because it doesn't have a disclaimer in every sentence. The format was chosen because it was clear and minimized repetition; I'm returning to it. Furthermore, if you can't be bothered to click on the links provided, and read the arguments made by supporters of the barrier, then I don't see how you can justify editing the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The change in format was suggested by many people with a variety of views on the matter. The changes I've made were in response to the commonly expressed view that the arguments should be expressed in two brief paragraphs. I have invited comments and I have responded to criticism; there was nothing disingenuous about my actions. The previous edit was an attempt to make the article consistent and was presented as provisional. I do not think our dispute justifies reverting the entire article. Perhaps we can arrive at a compromise some other way. I have reverted the article to your previous revert. I invite you to make changes to the supporter's section.

I have no problem with presenting all arguments involved, what I am concerned about is how they are presented, and whether they truly reflect the position they claim to represent. --136.159.209.148 23:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the link yet? The one with supporters arguments? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's at the bottom I see. Yes, they do argue that, which is very odd. They don't provide any statistics to support their claim. I went digging for some stats. The Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre publishes polls of Palestinian opinion on a variety of issues. Their methodology and raw data is published along with their findings. I found the following poll conducted last year:

When asked the preferred solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, 57% of Palestinians said they supported a two-state solution, 24% supported a bi-national state, 9% supported a Palestinian state, and 3% supported an Islamic state, 5% did not think there was a solution and 3% did not know or did not provide an answer.

You can find this info here:[2]

Do you still want to include that argument? While it is certainly an argument made by some supporters, many would be of the opinion that inaccurate arguments really discredit their cause. -161.184.50.129 17:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Poll results change all the time, and stated Palestinian opinion has varied widely on this. Equally relevant is the fact that people often lie to pollsters. If that's the argument they make, then it should stay, regardless of whether or not you or I feel it is accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Poll

I realize the "poll" is discussed somewhat above, but since I am not really responding to anyone, I made it a separate thread. Today, the sentence about the poll was edited to insert the word "vast," so it now reads: "Recent polls suggest that the vast majority of Palestinians seek a peaceful resolution with Israel, and the construction of the barrier is seen as an impediment to this process." First of all, I am not sure why information about this "poll" belongs in this article at all. It does not have anything to do with whether "Apartheid Wall" is a correct epithet to apply to the West Bank Barrier, which is what this article is about. Arguably it could belong in the West Bank Barrier article itself, since that article also has the arguments for and against the barrier. This particular ridiculous article should be limited to the arguments for and against calling it an "apartheid wall," which do not include the question of how more or less likely it makes peace. Second of all, when I click on the link that supposedly contains this poll result, I am faced with a page-full of links to PDF files. I looked for support for the quoted statement in the first one listed, but didn't find it. To whoever put this here, or wants it here, what specific page of what specific document contains this specific poll result? I don't think a reader should have go hunting all over a web site to find the alleged verification for a statement. 6SJ7 00:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The information comes from the most recent poll at the top of the list (volume 5, number 15 - December 2004, pp. 8-9). Methodology is included at the end of the document. I'm not sure how to make a direct link to a PDF file; perhaps you could show me. While it is true that poll results change from time to time, this result has been relatively stable. You can check the results in earlier polls. A "vast majority" seems an appropriate interpretation of the results, since over 80% prefer a two-state or bi-national solution to the conflict, and only about 12% explicitly support a Palestinian state on what is now Israel. I agree, however, that this information is not directly relevant to the article. It was included to counter the 7th argument in the supporter's section, which was written into the article despite similar objections made by opponents. This argument reads: "South African blacks did not seek the destruction of South Africa, but merely the reformation of the government; however, the majority of Palestinians in the territories dispute Israel's right to exist." This seems an inappropriate addition, mainly because it is manifestly false. No evidence is offered to support this claim. It is certainly an argument made by some extremists, but its inclusion here seems to conflate an (arguably) legitimate security concern with a wholly illegitimate characterization of the Palestinian majority, a characterization which is directly contradicted by available evidence. This conflation misrepresents supporters of the barrier, many of whom would not wish to see their support twisted into a denunciation of Palestinians in general. I would of course agree to remove the offending sentence in the defender's section if the seventh point in the supporter's section was also removed. -Gregor Samsa 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You can paste the link of the PDF file itself, which is: http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/pop/04/dec/pop15.pdf

It is easy to copy this link if your browser is capable of opening a PDF file within the browser using a PDF plugin, which should be installed automatically if you install Adobe Reader 7.0. Otherwise, right-click (or Control-click if you use a one-button-mouse Mac) on the PDF link and select "Copy Link" and then paste it to whatever page you want. I agree that, based on this and other data, the statement you are referring to is indeed false. Ramallite ^(talk) 06:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's original research, specifically forbidden by the policy. You can't make up your own arguments to counter something you don't like in an article. If you can find a relevant source which makes this argument, then that's fine, but you can't make them up on your own. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ramallite, I have a mac, and PDF files always pop up in the preview program. I didn't know you could use the control button that way.

Well, this is an interesting interpretation of original research. Are you suggesting that the polls themselves are illegitimate, or do you disagree with the use of the term "vast majority" to describe the over 80% (at least) of Palestinians who support some kind of negotiated settlement which would recognize the continued existence of Israel? The two-state solution implies recognition of Israel, and the bi-national solution actually resembles a "reformation of the government" along the lines of the South African example. I'm truly confused. Published statistical data ought to be forbidden? The inclusion of extremist rhetoric adequately represents supporters of the barrier? -Gregor Samsa 06:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the original research policy. When an editor reading an article sees an argument that they don't like, their temptation is to write a counter-argument to what they are reading. However, the WP:NOR policy forbids editors from doing so - it states that arguments "which purport to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position" are specifically excluded from Wikipedia articles because they are original research. The fact that something may be factual and cited from a reasonable source does not mean that it should be included in any particular article; rather, it should only be included if it meets many other criteria (including relevance and adherence to policies). This article is about the term "Apartheid wall". It contains arguments from those who believe the term is appropriate, and arguments from those who believe the term is inappropriate. If you can find a citeable source arguing the same thing you have, but made by someone promoting the accuracy of the term "Apartheid wall", then by all means include it. However, making up your own arguments is simply not allowed (and you explicitly admit above that that is the reason you created this argument). Nor is this a matter for bargaining - that is, you cannot, as you have done above, say "exclude the argument that the opponents of the term make, and I will exclude the argument that I have invented". This article simply reproduces the arguments made by others on each side of the debate, it doesn't advance our own arguments - that is the essence of the WP:NOR policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the points made in the supporter's section explicitly "purport to refute another idea, theory, argument or position," but it would be absurd to remove the entire section for that reason. As I said earlier, I agree that the point shouldn't have to be made since it is not directly related to the article. But then neither is the 7th point in the supporter's section. If the real issue is relevance, what is the relevance of an argument that essentially defends the existence of the barrier? Even if it were true that the majority of Palestinians seek the destruction of Israel or dispute Israel's right to exist, of what relevance is this to the use of the term "apartheid wall"? This is an argument in defense of the barrier; it is not an argument concerning the use of the term itself.

I think we can all agree that the majority of Palestinians do in fact recognize the existence of Israel and want some kind of negotiated settlement. Even if some extremists deny this, why present their views as those of all supporters of the barrier? Not only is the argument irrelevant and unrepresentative, it is also blatantly false, and does a disservice to both sides of the debate. -Gregor Samsa 18:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You've missed the point here; the arguments all have to be brought from an outside source. WP:NOR says we can't make up our own arguments, which is exactly what you have done. Whether or not you think the arguments made by either side make sense, or are good arguments, is not really relevant. Rather, WP:NOR demands we go to outside sources and quote them, not make up stuff on our own, even if we really think the opposing argument is a bad one, and easily refuted. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding your arguments themselves, Hamas is arguably the most popular Palestinian group, and it's quite explicit in its desire for the destruction of Israel. For that matters, insistence on "one state solutions", or a "right of return", which are espoused by many, many non-Hamas supporting Palestinians, are also formulas for the desctruction of Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My two main questions are as follows:

1. What is the relevance of the 7th point to this article?

2. Does this argument even reflect the views of those which it purports to represent?

Regarding your specific arguments I would say that support for a party or group does not mean support for all of its policies. The sepratist Bloc Quebecois regularly wins most of the seats and the popular vote in Quebec, but no referendum on Quebec independence has ever been successful. There is no contradiction, then, when we find that a minority of Palestinians support Hamas, but a far smaller minority actually supports its apocalyptic fantasies. Finally, there is no doubt that a bi-national state in Israel-Palestine would result in the radical transformation of the existing government, but even a bi-national government is not nearly as radical as the reformation of the South African state, which reduced European presence in parliament to a tiny (and permanent) minority. It's therefore hard to imagine how anyone could seriously argue that the reformation of the South African government is somehow less radical than the proposed bi-national or 2-state solution supported by the majority of Palestinians. -Gregor Samsa 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not I think it is relevant, what matters is that opponents of the term "Apartheid wall" think it is relevant. And it obviously reflects their views, they published it! Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Who published it? "HonestReporting.com"? "The Worker's Vanguard" makes all sorts of claims on behalf of working people, that doesn't mean their editorializing represents their alleged constituency. -Gregor Samsa 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how that's relevant. They oppose the term, and they've published something outlining their opposition. If you want to quote the arguments of other opponents of the term, or other proponents, for that matter, feel free to quote them. Them, not you. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Does the argument really represent defenders of the barrier? Let's take a close look at the argument as it is presented: "South African blacks did not seek the destruction of South Africa, but merely the reformation of the government; however, the majority of Palestinians in the territories dispute Israel's right to exist." What does this mean precisely? The argument seems to dispute the validity of the Israel-South Africa analogy implicit in the term apartheid wall, but when we examine the argument carefully we find that it actually reinforces the analogy, even when we accept the truth of the proposition. For the argument, to the extent that it is an argument and not two unrelated statements, implies the following: "black South Africans did not seek the destruction of South Africa, therefore apartheid in South Africa was unjustified; Palestinians seek the destruction of Israel, therefore apartheid in Israel is justified." But this is not an argument most defenders of the barrier make; they claim that the term apartheid is illegitimate with reference to Israel, not that apartheid is justified in Israel because the majority of Palestinians are genocidal

On the other hand, to say "The majority of Palestinians dispute Israel's right to exist, therefore there is no state of apartheid in Israel" is a non-sequitur, for the political aspirations of Palestinians (or South Africans for that matter) has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a state of apartheid. Therefore, the only coherent reading of this argument leads one to believe that defenders of the barrier actually defend apartheid in Israel, which, I think you'll agree, is rather misleading. Gregor Samsa 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're doing this. You are saying they have made a bad argument, which is perfectly within your rights, but nevertheless that is the argument they make. You could equally well say that the defenders of the term "Apartheid wall" are making bad arguments, and therefore they should all be removed. It's not up to us to decide what arguments people should or should not make; rather, we can only faithfully reproduce them. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

But it's not just a bad argument; it's an argument that is not really made by supporters of the barrier. The argument does not deny the appropriateness of the term apartheid as it is applied to Israel; instead it attempts to justify the apartheid-like policies of Israel by comparing the alleged political aspirations of the Palestinians with those of black South Africans. South Africans, it is argued, did not seek the destruction of South Africa, so apartheid there was an unnecessarily oppressive and unjustified institution, whereas Palestinians seek the destruction of Israel, so apartheid-like policies are necessary and justified because they protect Israelis from extermination. At first I thought the argument was incoherent, but actually it is quite coherent, only it makes an argument that would be dismissed out of hand by most supporters of the barrier. Gregor Samsa 01:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about arguments for and against the barrier; rather, it is about arguments for and against the "Apartheid wall" epithet. Perhaps this has been the confusion all along. And it is clear that the argument in question has been made by people who think the "Apartheid wall" epithet is incorrect: [3] Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and that's precisely the problem, because the argument is not even about the apartheid wall epithet per se; it is an argument that attempts to justify the barrier--black South Africans did not seek the destruction of South Africa, so apartheid in South Africa was unjust; Palestinians seek the destruction of Israel, therefore apartheid in Israel is just. As a justification of apartheid, the argument does not "reject the term apartheid," as is claimed at the beginning of the section, and the argument is therefore both irrelevant and misrepresentative. Gregor Samsa 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be back to square one again. You are now saying that it is a bad argument, and therefore should be removed. Nevertheless, the source itself is a list of reasons/arguments why the "apartheid wall" epithet is inaccurate or unreasonable. You can't delete arguments just because you think they are bad arguments; otherwise, someone could easily delete all of the arguments in favour of the epithet as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking that the argument be removed on the grounds that it is a bad argument. I'm asking that it be removed because it is both irrelevant and misrepresentative. It is irrelevant because it is not an argument against the use of the term apartheid wall, but an argument that attempts to justify apartheid in Israel; it is misrepresentative because defenders of the barrier argue that the term apartheid is illegitimate with reference to Israel, not that apartheid is justified in Israel because the majority of Palestinians are genocidal. The fact that there is a source for this argument is not enough. The argument must be relevant to the article and represent the views of those it purports to represent. Most of the arguments made by HonestReporting.com do fit these criteria, but not this particular argument. You yourself have said that the fact that something is cited from a source "does not mean that it should be included in any particular article; rather, it should only be included if it meets many other criteria (including relevance and adherence to policies)." I'm arguing that this argument is not relevant, and further, that it does not adequately represent defenders of the barrier. Gregor Samsa 18:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous comment

In my opinion, this article is not neutral in nature. It contains an elaborate list of counter-arguments to the opinion that the wall creates apartheid, rather than stating arguments in favour of the name given, which it should, since this is the title of the article. It is only superficially hidden that this article was created to refute arguments in favour of the name "apartheid wall". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.164.161.104 (talk • contribs) .

In my opinion you could not be further from the truth. As I have said before (probably in different words) the very existence of this article, and especially its title, represent a kowtowing to the anti-Israel POV-bullies. However, since the bullying has succeeded to the point where this article is not going to go away, it should not be allowed to become worse than it already is. If you look back in the edit history of this article, which pre-dates my arrival here, it appears that the incarnation of this article as an actual article (rather than a redirect) was originally written (by Jayjg) in an absolutely even-handed manner, containing a listing of the arguments on both sides, in the same format. Other people have tried to make it much more anti-Israel POV, but Jayjg (and perhaps others) have resisted those efforts. Unfortunately, someone who claimed to be on the pro-apartheid-terminology "side" came along and rewrote the "list" in the first half the article into a single paragraph, which is probably not as effective. Nevertheless, it does still state the basic argument in favor of apartheid terminology. The same person, as I recall, invited those who oppose the apartheid terminology to similarly rewrite the second half of the article, but nobody has chosen to do so. So your claim that the article was created to refute arrguments in favor of apartheid terminology, is clearly incorrect. If it appears that way, it is because someone thought they knew better than the original author, how to present the pro-apartheid-terminology argument. Evidently, they did not. 6SJ7 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That's somewhat misleading. The first section was rewritten as a paragraph because the majority of editors on both sides believed the article's general format was not encyclopedic and needed to be changed (lists of arguments are generally avoided because they tend to express a point of view rather than present it). The second section hasn't been rewritten because defenders of the barrier now resist that change. One can only speculate on their reasons. If there is some concern about the proposed change in format, I would like to hear it voiced so we might come to some sort of compromise; I would also hope we could present all relevant arguments in neutral fashion and in such a way that they adequately represent the parties involved. Gregor Samsa 16:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gregor, based on the information that I am aware of (all of which is on this Talk page but I have not read the whole page), my statements are not misleading. I have just re-read the section "Change of Format" above, which is where I think the relevant events unfolded, and I do not think it supports your chronology. Unless you are referring to some other discussion, in which case can you put in the link(s)? And if you are referring to the "Change of Format" discussion, can you identify who the "majority of editors" on both sides were? I see one person, 161.184.46.161, who made a proposal about rewriting the "wall-as-apartheid" side of the article, and suggested that the people on the other side "rewrite their section along the same lines." After that the proposal was picked up by several other IP addresses but it appears very much as if they are the same person as 161etc. (Are you them, Gregor? Just curious.) This series of IP addresses then had a discussion with Jayjg, which eventually turned to the subject of the poll. Nowhere do I see "defenders of the barrier" ever agreeing that the second half of the article should be changed from the "list form," but as I say above, maybe there was another discussion that I do not know about. 6SJ7 00:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion under the "Change of Format" heading was the continuation of a discussion about a possible merge in which several editors expressed the opinion that a merge may be possible, but only if the article was substantially shortened and its format changed. This included several supporters of the barrier who felt that there was no need for a separate article devoted to the use of the term, but acknowledged that a brief description of the controversy could be included in the main article. You can find most of this discussion in the Israeli West Bank barrier archive, here. Personally I think there should be a merge; I don't see why this subject requires its own article. But aside from the merge question(which is debatable), I haven't yet heard why the change in format is a problem. As far as I know, point-form lists are generally avoided because they are not consistent with encyclopedic form and often lead to the expression of different points of view, undermining the article's descriptive intent. Finally, concerning your question about the IP addresses--yes, I was the 161er who rewrote the first section as a paragraph. I was still new to Wikipedia then, and wasn't aware of conventions. I was not, however, the anon who posted the comment which begins this section. I hope this clarifies matters. Gregor Samsa 19:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Gregor, the reason this article was required was for NPOV reasons, as outlined in earlier discussion. In addition, your summary was hardly an accurate representation of the beliefs of the barrier supporters, and was therefore inappropriate. And finally, I am not a "defender of the barrier"; until you recognize that, and stop speculating about my motives, there is little chance for any progress here at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for referring to you (indirectly) as a "defender of the barrier," which was indeed an assumption on my part. Gregor Samsa 18:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Prose vs. Bullet Points

I think the format here is inappropriate. Either both arguments (that of proponents and opponents) should be in point form, or neither. Personally I think both should be in point form. I am willing to edit this article to change the format, if that is acceptable to you guys. Also, I think this article should remain seperate from the main article "west bank barrier". Bless_sins 28 January 2006

Please do not change it to point form. That is how it used to appear, but most editors believe an encyclopedia article should not be a listing of arguments (which allows in POV statements accompanied by the claim "you can't NPOV an argument"), but rather a nice summary in a neutral point of view. Although there are always exceptions, the Wikipedia guide to layout says "Articles generally comprise prose paragraphs, not bullet points." --MattWright (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I will cahnge the "ooponent" perspective into a paragraph form as well. I'll do this sometime in the enar future and not now.Bless_sins 29 January 2006

I'd strongly recommend getting approval for changes on the Talk: page first, since the "summaries" I've seen have not presented the4 arguments properly, and I've also been concerned about the neutrality and accuracy of other edits you've been making to Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about this:

"Opponents of the term reject both the "Apartheid" and "wall" designations, mainly because they disagree with the implicit analogy with South Africa, but also because 93% of barrier is currently fenced while only seven percent is actually walled. Opponents of the term argue that apartheid was a system unique to South Africa, established to disenfranchise citizens--based on skin color--from their own country; the use of the term apartheid, it is argued, is not appropriate in the context of Israel, for West Bank Palestinians were never citizens of Israel, and Jews and Palestinians are not racially distinct. Opponents of the term claim that the barrier is not intended to separate Jews from Arabs, as over 1 million Arabs on the Israeli side of the barrier are full citizens of Israel, and constitute 15% of Israel's population. While apartheid involved the forced removal of about 1.5 million South Africans to Bantustans, opponents claim that the West Bank barrier will cause no transfer of population and insist that none of the estimated 10,000 Palestinians (0.5%) who will be left on the Israeli side of the barrier (based on the February, 2005 route) [2] will be forced to migrate. Moreover, opponents argue, the Bantustans were created in order to force legal borders and eliminate the rights of the majority South African black population; however, it is claimed that the barrier is not a border but a temporary defensive measure designed to protect Israeli civilians from terrorist infiltration and attack, and can be dismantled if appropriate. Opponents also point out that the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the barrier is indeed defensive and accepted the Israeli claim that the route is based on security considerations (Articles 28-30). Accordingly, they argue that if this separation barrier is an expression of apartheid, then any number of similar defensive barriers around the world must also meet that definition.

Some opponents also take issue with the apartheid analogy because of the historical claim of the Jewish people; they argue that apartheid was an outgrowth of imperialist, colonial policy, while Israel's Jewish population consisted mostly of refugees with a deep historical relationship to the land. Others question the analogy because they view the political aspirations of Palestinians to be more extreme than those of black South Africans; they point out that South African blacks did not seek the destruction of South Africa, but merely the reformation of the government, and they claim that the majority of Palestinians in the territories dispute Israel's right to exist. [3]"

I've included all the points above. I have some doubts about the relevance of one or two of the points, but I will leave that for a later debate. Please offer your opinion of the general format as a basis for further edits. Gregor Samsa 05:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I find lengthy paragraphs covering many different points like that hard to read; there's a reason for bullet points. I suppose I could be convinced, but why are you so set on it? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is difficult to read. I think it could be broken up into two separate paragraphs, and perhaps one of the rather long sentences could be removed, as it mostly repeats arguments made elsewhere (i.e. that the barrier is a defensive measure--see above changes). I think the change in format is necessary in order for the article to serve its stated purpose, that is, to be an explanation of the term and the controversy surrounding its use; this article shouldn't be a forum for the expression of conflicting viewpoints. Point form lists of arguments may be more accessible, but they are not very encyclopedic. I think with a little work a paragraph (or two) summary can be made which is both neutral and readable. Gregor Samsa 19:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What issue do you take with this sentence: "Moreover, opponents argue, the Bantustans were created in order to force legal borders and eliminate the rights of the majority South African black population; however, it is claimed that the barrier is not a border but a temporary defensive measure designed to protect Israeli civilians from terrorist infiltration and attack, and can be dismantled if appropriate."? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the sentence. I was only suggesting its removal because it mostly repeats points made elsewhere--that the barrier is a defensive measure is mentioned, and that it is temporary is implied in the assertion that the barrier is mostly a fence. Of course, it does make explicit important points that would otherwise be implicit. I have no problem including it; if you think the passage is readable at its current length, or can be made readable without removing material, I'll support your edits. Gregor Samsa 18:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I want to replace the current bullets with the paragraphs as presented by Gregor Samsa. Do you (JAyjg) have any objections to the paragraphs above?Bless sins 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is false.

Apartheid involved the forced removal of about 1.5 million South Africans to bantustans, but the barrier causes no transfer of population. None of the 10,000 Palestinians (0.5%) who will be left on the Israeli side of the barrier (based on the latest February, 2005 route)[1] will be forced to migrate.

I think this is false. The follwoing source,[4], suggests that 15,000 Palestinians have been forced to move. This link suggests that the number could skyorcket to 90,000: [5] 212.138.47.29 00:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to respond to me, or should I remove the sentences.Bless sins 17:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If you logged in, it would be easier to know where you are asking questions. The source in question says 10,000; it's cited from a reliable source. The source you have quoted is ambiguous at best; as has been pointed out elsewhere, you have no idea what is meant by "displaced", or what the actual report says. Also, as the verifiability policy makes clear, the key to Wikipedia articles, is "verifiability, not truth"; you certainly don't remove reliable sources in favour of ambiguous ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So something from [www.zinkle.com] is a good source, but BBC is ambiguous?

Secondly, "zinkle/Oakland Tribune"'s article is dated Oakland Tribune, Feb 21, 2005 (obviously outdated), while the "ambiguos" article is dated March 9 2006.

Thirldy U.N. commission in Geneva is also considered a bad source? Why???

Bless sins 03:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, you haven't quoted the U.N. commission in Geneva, you instead keep referring to an ambiguous BBC article about a 25 page paper written by a U.N. employee; please desist from mis-representing this, it is becoming tiresome. More importantly, the article is about arguments for and against the Apartheid wall designation, and neither the BBC article nor the UN paper use those figures in defence of the use of that term. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep on suggesting that the BBC article is "ambiguous"? BBC is a reliable source (certainly more reliable than www.winkle.com). Why would BBC lie about the report by U.N. commission in Geneva ?? As for arguments for and agianst the tem aparthied, the article you are defending as "reliable" is not in anyway an attempt to refute the "aparthied" claim. That is just simply a report, (just like the BBC one), and is not an attempt to defend or oppose any claim. I don't want to support the claim aparthied, I only want to bring the facts into light.Bless sins 21:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, this claim is made by propnents of the term. One proponent of the term, Palestine Monitor, sepcifically refers to the UN report [6].Bless sins 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How could it possibly refer to the same report? The Palestine Monitor reprints a BBC article discussing a 2003 report which claims 210,000 Palestinians will be displaced, whereas the 2006 BBC article discusses a new report claiming 15,000 Palestinians have been displaced. Also, the Palestine Monitor article tampers with the headline of the BBC article, inserting the phrase "Apartheid Wall" in it. Tampering with the words in a newspaper article is a classic example of why Palestine Monitor is not a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant material

The article now contains the following sentences: "These concerns have been echoed by Israeli left wing groups such as Gush Shalom and more recently by the Israeli State Prosecution itself (referring only to the part built beyond the 1949 Armistice lines).[7] According to a recent UN report, the land between the barrier and the Green Line is currently the home for over 49,400 West Bank Palestinians living in 38 villages and towns, and it is feared that they will eventually be expelled or forced to migrate.[8]". This article is about the term "Apartheid wall", not about the Israeli West Bank barrier in general. Therefore, it should discuss only the term, not the whole barrier issue. The sources in question discuss certain concerns relating to the barrier, but do not refer to the term "apartheid wall" itself. I see no reason for keeping these sentences in the article. Pecher ^Talk 10:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the text more carefully: "Although the Israeli government cites security concerns as the rationale for the construction of the barrier, opponents of the barrier claim that it also serves to separate, isolate and disenfranchise a particular ethnic group, and argue that it is therefore racially discriminatory. These concerns have been echoed by Israeli left wing groups such as Gush Shalom and more recently by the Israeli State Prosecution itself (referring only to the part built beyond the 1949 Armistice lines).[1] According to a recent UN report, the land between the barrier and the Green Line is currently the home for over 49,400 West Bank Palestinians living in 38 villages and towns, and it is feared that they will eventually be expelled or forced to migrate.[2]"

What we have is the argument that the barrier is racially discriminatory. Then we have (in italics) that fact that Gush Shalom also makes this argument ("These concerns have been echoed by ..."). 172.163.180.12 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Racially discriminatory" is not an argument that it is an "apartheid wall". And please recall User:Bless sins (assuming this is Bless sins), if you don't login, I won't be responding again. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg's earlier comments. The 10,000 figure should remain. The numbers are disputed and this figure is certainly used by opponents of the term. I think a better source could be found, but there should be no difficulty finding one. However, I do think the 49,400 figure should also remain. It is from a credible source and is relevant to this article. Neither source refers specifically to the term apartheid wall, but the information is relevant to the use of the term. One last thing: have you given any more thought to the format changes suggested above? I think this change will ensure that the article’s descriptive intent is not confused with advocacy. Gregor Samsa 03:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The format changes are fine. As for the numbers, perhaps none should remain, if none of the sources refer to the term "Apartheid wall". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent POV changes

"Apartheid wall" is a term, not a name. Those who oppose the term are not necessarily those who defend the barrier. Also, when opponents of the barrier make an argument, it is an argument, not merely a "remark" about the "facts". And finally, referring to it as a wall automatically takes one side in the debate. Please respect long-term consensus on the page, and please try to use neutral terminology. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In reading the new article on "Wall of Shame," it occurred to me that both that article and this one are, as Jayjg says above, about terms rather than names. That being the case, I think the title of the article should be in quotes. I recognize that this article has been here for awhile under its current title and that there have been debates over the title, so for now I will leave this article with its current title. I have no such hesitancy about "Wall of Shame" which is a brand new article, and therefore I am changing the title of that one. As for this article, in the immortal words of the current governor of California, "I'll be back." If anyone would like to discuss this idea in the meantime, I am sure the discussion would be entertaining. 6SJ7 23:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that idea ran into a barrier, or a wall, if you will. I tried to rename Wall of Shame to "Wall of Shame" but I got a message back that I can't rename the article either because I am not logged in, I am blocked or my account is too new. Neither of the first two are true and I can find no explanation of how old an account needs to be in order for me to be able to rename an article. I was directed to WP:RN where I could "request" the moving/renaming, but the instructions there made my head start to spin, so I gave up. I asked over there for someone else (someone who knows the secret handshake) to consider making the change. 6SJ7 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried the move (of Wall of Shame to "Wall of Shame") again and it worked. Now, can anyone give me a good reason (note the word "good") why the same should not be done with this article? 6SJ7 15:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:not

This article has become excatly what Wikipedia should not be: A BB for discussing accusations about israel. Similarly the article Israeli apartheid describe something that does not exist.

This article shoul have only one line: "The apartheid wall is a term used by the same critics to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier being built to seperate Israel from the West Bank".

The Israeli apartheid article existence is an insolt to almost every non antisemitic person. The fact that wikipedia allow such article (as if this "apartheid" exists) is an endorsment by Wikipedia of a very extrme antisemitic view. Zeq 12:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed content

I dispute this on the grounds it is not NPOV. An NPOV description would tell the truth that this is a term used because it is more "marketable" to the westrn world:

"Apartheid wall is a political epithet sometimes used to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier. Some opponents of the barrier refer to it this way because they argue that its extension into the West Bank isolates Palestinian communities and consolidates the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements. The barrier, it is argued, is part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," which effectively constitutes a feature of Israeli apartheid. [1] a term used as an analogy for South African apartheid."

Zeq 18:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

I'm having a hard time figuring out why this article exists. Any information in this article belongs in the Israeli West Bank Barrier article. If that page has become too long, then a separate article discussing how people refer to the barrier is appropriate. The very existence of this article is not just POV, but also inflamatory. I would have the same response to a page entitled "Israeli Anti-School-Bus-Bomber Fence". A lot of effort went into coming up with the term "Israeli West Bank Barrier" in order to be as NPOV and non-inflamatory as possible. Why throw all that away with the existence of this article?

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The one-sentence article proposals are all merely definition entries for "apartheid wall". This page should be a redirect to a complete article about the subject, not a partially complete, inflamatory, POV article sitting on its own. Chuck 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)