Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 3

Free advice to Homey
When you are in a hole the first thing is to stop digging. Zeq 07:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Decision by ArbCom
My understanding is that the source (global Exchnage) used for most of this article does not meet WP:RS as well as this decision by ArbCom:

Verifiability and sources 2) Information used in articles, especially those whose content is contested, should be verified by reference to a reliable and scholarly source , see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Support: Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Charles Matthews 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Jayjg (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:

Zeq 07:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Complete failure of NPOV - again
Imagine that an article on the Iranian president will look like this:

http://babakdenver.blogspot.com/2006/05/is-iran-president-ahmadinejad-crazy-or.html

One side
The Iranian presdient is a lunatic because ......

The other side
Other argue He is not lunatic becase.......

This is NPOV ?

Clearly not. because NPOV does not mean getting a stage to a wild accuastion and then using Wikipedia to discuss the rights and wrong of that minority view. 12:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

11:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Banning of Zeq
Under the remedy in Zeq's arbitration case he may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any article which he disrupts by tendentious (aggressive biased) editing. While I would not have banned Zeq myself from this article (he had not done a lot of edit warring and was using the talk page to discuss issues) there are sufficient grounds (in my opinion) to ban him. He should only be blocked if he violates the ban by attempting to edit the article. Fred Bauder 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he makes a good point that the article has propagandistic elements as it is very difficult to see how the opposing viewpoint could be expressed in terms other than denial. It is more or less equivalent to " Israeli fascism " Fred Bauder 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zeq&curid=2801223&diff=56124135&oldid=56118741

Niger is a good example how this article should
"Nigger, also spelled niger (obs.), nigor (obs. dial. Eng.), nigre, nigar (Caribbean), niggor (obs. dial.), neger (obs. U.S.), niggur, nigga, niggah, (obs.), is an extremely pejorative term used for racial abuse towards black people. During the period when slavery was practiced worldwide, and in particular by the United States and European countries, and for several decades after Europe and North America prohibited slavery, it was a standard, casual English term for black people. The word traditionally has been associated with an often casual contempt, a racist assumption of black inherent inferiority, even of bestiality, making it extremely pejorative."

suggestion for lead paragrpah
"a focused, targeted propaganda campaign for a political platform that according to Abraham Cooper, is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state". "

Left Zionists and Israeli apartheid
From the Jerusalem Post:


 * May. 15, 2006 1:41 | Updated May. 15, 2006 9:18
 * Left appalled by citizenship ruling
 * By SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKEL


 * Israel was branded an "apartheid state" by left-wing Knesset members on Sunday, who responded fiercely to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the existing Citizenship and Entry Law.

Homey 17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The " " sais it all. RenyD 17:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it says that certain members of the Knesset used that term to describe Israel. People use quotation marks when they wish to repeat word-for-word what another individual has stated. --Strothra 18:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And further reading reveals that a number of those MKs belong to left wing Zionist parties (Meretz-Yahada is represented in the World Zionist Organization). Homey 18:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe puts in his edit note: "Your only proof for this is their membership in WZO, the labour party is is the world socialist organization)"

First of all, it's possible for a party to belong to more than one international organization. Both Labour and Meretz are members of *both* the WZO and the Socialist International. Secondly, as for my "only proof", a prerequisite of membership in the WZO is being a Zionist so yes, a party that belongs to the WZO and is represented in the World Zionist Congress (as Labour and Meretz/Yahad are)is a Zionist party even if that is in conflict with Moshe's POV. Homey 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are lots of political parties who are members of Socialist international but can really no longer be called socialist, it is the same thing for WZO.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And so you are the arbiter of whether or not a party is Zionist filtered through your particular view of what Zionism is? What complete nonsense. You are showing a profound ignorance of Zionist history and the role the leftists you now claim are not Zionists had in the establishement of the State of Israel. Meretz is by its own policies and declaration a Zionist party and the fact that they belong to the WZO/WZC means they are recognised as such by the predominant Zionist authority in the world. Homey 18:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your molding whatever I said into a strawman version without addressing a single real argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss what I said about WZO membership? Please read up on Labour Zionism as well. Better yet, get yourself elected to the World Zionist Congress and move a motion expelling Yachad. Once you've succeeded come back here and tell us Yachad is not considered Zionist. Homey 19:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Its always comes out rather ludicrous when someone acting as arrogant as yourself is using such over-simplifications and generalizations. I possess quite a bit of knowledge about the founding of Israel and the left-wing routes of Zionism. However the meaning of Zionism has changed considerably in the past half-century, as has the politics of meretz and indeed all Israeli political parties. Just like not every political party in socialist international is really socialist anymore, not every party in the WZO can be automatically described as Zionist.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are not the authority on what is and what is not considered Zionist. We have to go by authoritative criteria such as WZO/WZC recognition etc, not your personal ideological interpretation. Homey 19:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said I was the authority. You can't just use criteria like that, by the same criteria you would come to the conclsuon that the Labor party is still socialist which it clearly isn't.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What is my source for saying Meretz/Yachad is Zionist? The WZO/WZC. What is your source for saying Meretz/Yachad is not Zionist? Yourself. Can you provide any actual source that says Yachad is not Zionist? (not original research from which you derive your conclusion) Homey 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is your research that says that all member of WZO are automatically zionist, you are basicially just assuming. You obviously misunderstand these types of organizations.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The WZO constitution that outlines criteria for membership. Conversely, you have yet to provide one source for your claim. Homey 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Where is your research"

Shulamit Aloni, who uses the phrase, was a member of the Hagana and fought to liberate Jerusalem in 1948. Sorry Moshe but that makes her more of a Zionist than most. Homey 00:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources?
Are there any reliable sources using this phrase? So far I'm mostly seeing propaganda sites which don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Can this be cleaned up please? Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Nation, the BBC, the Guardian, the Jerusalem Post, the British Medical JournalHomey 20:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good, let's remove anything that isn't reliable, then. Jayjg (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So are you conceding that the phrase is used by reliable sources then? When can we expect you to change your vote on the AFD?Homey 20:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First I'm going to try to clean up the garbage that has already infested this POV-magnet attack page; then we'll see what's left to work with. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent question and suggestion Jay. Most of this article is based on one source: globalexchange.com - not a WP:RS (see Talk:Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29) . Zeq 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This source is cited for many of the claims, but is at times extremely misleading (wrong?). Also, not every offense committed against Palestinians is tantamount to apartheid - where can the line be drawn?  Tewfik Talk 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is by a professor of middle east history outlining his views on Israeli apartheid. The section in the article is on what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" say therefore the source is reliable on two counts a) made by an academic expert in the area b) made by a proponent of the phrase. Homey 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article in question is the non-academic personal web site of a partisan with an axe to grind. It does not meet WP:RS Isarig 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is not by the host of the website but by a professor of middle east history. Homey 02:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then find a WP:RS that publishes that article. As a reminder: "Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. " Isarig 03:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a similar article by Davidson published in the journal Logos. There's also this article by Davidson in Logos where he refers to Israel as "a wretched apartheid state". Many of the same points Davidson makes in the article carried on Baker's website are made in this article by Davidson and Baker published in the Australian journal Borderlands. Homey 03:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  http://www.monabaker.com/ is a blog  it happend to have in the past to include links leading to neo-Nazi material. Indeed a WP:RS source. Zeq 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

1) You evidently don't know what a blog is.


 * You can idenify a blog when you see one:

2) The article on the site is not by Mona Baker but by Lawrence Davidson, a professor of history specialising in the Middle East 3) You have yet to produce any evidence of your "neo-Nazi" allegation. Please don't engage in libels and smears. Homey 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a self published web site (which like a blog is not WP:RS. As for the connection to Neo nazis see below. Zeq 04:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I hope everyone is in good spirits. I realise there are a number of discussions going on...
 * I'd like to question the usage of this source, as well as the ensuing quotation of questionable facts in the passage:
 * Israel has constructed "Jewish-only" [6] settlements in the West Bank, which preclude "some of the most fertile land and richest water resources in the West Bank" from the "indigenous population" [7]. (Ibid)
 * First of all, the source deals with the effects of the "apartheid wall," so at the least should be cited there. Beyond that, I'm unclear how to separate between the claims and reality. While the passage places in quotations some problematic statements like those addressed at Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase), at what point does it cease to present a POV and act as a disseminator of nonfactual information? I'm committed to maintaining an NPOV, but I'm not sure if this type of passage contributes to that end. Cheers all, and happy editing.  Tewfik Talk 06:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bantustans and apartheid
Jay, how can you possibly argue that linking Bantustans with apartheid is "original research"? See and. Any sources on Bantustans will speak of them being a feature of apartheid and vice versa. The reference to Bantustans and the West Bank should be restored as clearly referring to Bantustans is a reference to apartheid. Or is it your argument that Bantustan is not an Afrikaans word but a Hebrew or Arabic one? If so I'd love to see your sources. Homey 19:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is about a phrase, it's not a soapbox for an argument. Please find sources promoting that phrase, not anything remotely related. Jayjg (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So it is your position that someone alleging that Israel is setting up "Bantustans" is not arguing that there is an "Israeli apartheid". Keep splitting those hairs. Homey 20:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's about the phrase Israeli apartheid, not about various arguments people use to vilify Israel. Please ensure the article is kept on subject, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The same person who alleged that Israel is setting up "Bantustans" also alleged it is setting up "cantons" - in the same sentence, and in trhe same context. Shall we rename this article Israeli Switzerland? Or should we go edit the Switzerland article to reflect that the Swiss federal system is actually a variant of Apartheid? Isarig 01:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Other uses ignored
The article seems to focus on the fact that non-notables like student demonstrators use the term, but fails to note its prevalent use among neo-Nazis and anti-Semites such as David Duke and Jew Watch. I've rectified that. Let's make sure we give the reader the complete picture of the phrase's use. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Usage by student groups is far better known than usage by Duke or Jew Watch. I would suspect many more people have heard of "Israeli Apartheid Week" on campus than have heard of Duke's comments and, frankly, since Duke et al were pro-apartheid in the 1970s and 1980s they would not coin the term or promote its use - rather this sounds like appropriation of an existing phrase. Also, Duke also uses terms like "Zionist", does that mean we should cite him prominently in the Zionism article? This looks to me like Jay trying to poison the well by suggestiong guilt by association. (ie David Duke used the phrase once, therefore it means it's a neo-nazi phrase)Homey 22:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

David Duke is much more prominent then "Israeli Apartheid Week", besides even if it wasn't it is still cearly notable enought for a mention.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Prominent usage. Just because David Duke uses a word doesn't mean he's a prominent user of the term ie of the citations extant for "Israeli apartheid" how many can be attributed to Duke and neo-nazis versus attribution to non-nazis? I find it odd that Jay puts David Duke in the opening but not Desmond Tutu who is widely attributed with popularising the phrase. Homey 22:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, David Duke has used the term *twice* and his usage of the term has never been reported by major media (unlike, say, Tutu or Aloni's usage or that of student groups at Oxford or University of Toronto). I think Jay's trying to poison the well by putting marginal usage by neo-nazis in the opening. Homey 23:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey, it doesn't matter how many times DD repeated it - once is enough. Both DD and JW are in the mainstream of what they and you carefully call "critics of Israel" or "critics of Zionism" and insist that they work only to educate the public. We cannot ignore the major antisemitic component in this namecalling and one-dimensional POV that you keep pushing onto WP. I can professionally translate some articles published by the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management (often featuring DD), it is much less selective in their "criticism" than English-language press. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They are hardly in the "mainstream" of anything, let alone the Palestinian rights movement or even the anti-Zionist movement. Their use of the term is mentioned under "Usage" but to put it in the lead of the article is misrepresentative and poisons the well. Homey 00:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The neo Nazi connection to "israeli apartheid"
Homey base most of this article on quotes from Mona baker site as well as info that apear on a web site by Wendy campbell - both are associates of Sue Blackwell. Here is some of what was published about this trio:

The Neo Nazi Ties of those UK Academic Boycotting Israeli Universities cannot be ignored

(Ref.: to Jerusalem article: The academic ban - Nazi connection - plus links below article)

Sue Blackwell, the University of Birmingham lecturer who is the intense driving force behind the motion by the British AUT - Association of University Teachers - calling for boycotts of Israeli universities. Her web site features a photo of Blackwell wearing a PLO flag and with the slogan "To the Academic Intifada." Julie Burchill, a columnist for the Times of London, has just dismissed the AUT boycotters as genteel anti-Semites. "They're too respectable to daub swastikas on a synagogue - but it sure feels good to band together and bully them Israeli academics!"

Now it seems that Sistuh Sue Blackwell has her own personal web page, full of anti-Israel propaganda. The Jerusalem Post (article below) has revealed that Blackwell's personal page links directly to the page of a notorious neonazi and Holocaust Denier. [see links as well below] Wendy Campbell, who owns the MarWen Media web site, is a regular on those Indymedia ultra-moonbat web sites, and has long promoted Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of supposed ....unrivaled Jewish power.. Campbell, who has ties to deported Canadian Nazi Ernst Zundel, lives in La Quinta, California, and also maintains a web site entitled ....Exposing Israeli Apartheid....It is also linked by Blackwell.

Blackwell's web site, is reported to be under a House of Commons Committee investigation for a previous link to a web site blaming Jews for the 9/11 attacks. Blackwell also links to quite a lot of other pro-terror and anti-Jewish web sites, including that of Alexander Cockburn, that of Holocaust Denier Norman Finkelstein, and that of British anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon who recently issued a call to progressives to burn down synagogues. As one Internet reader stated: It really doesn't matter if Sue Blackwell links to a Web site owned by an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi activist... because Sue Blackwell herself is a Neo-Nazi antisemitic activist as is every single person who signed that boycott letter.......

Should anyone be surprised that this nonsense finds such great support in the Ivory Tower ? Hitler's early support came from the universities as well. The same with many Communist dictatorships. European Academia has always been the incubator of tyranny.

The Blackwell's of this world repeatedly call their opponents Nazis, and now they are linking to Nazi websites and complain that people are noticing !!

Blackwell should change her web page's slogan to read "To the Academic Dachau!"

In fact Blackwell and her ilk should NOT be teaching, or should one say possibly indoctrinating, vulnerable students. Is this the best that Birmingham has to offer ? Is this the best UK Academia has to offer ?

May. 1, 2005 23:10 | Updated May. 1, 2005 23:29 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1114913918708 The academic ban - Nazi connection By YAAKOV LAPPIN JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT LONDON

The Web site of Sue Blackwell, the Birmingham lecturer who presented motions calling for boycotts of Israeli universities, contains a recommended link to a Web site owned by an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi activist.

Wendy Campbell, who owns the MarWen Media Web site, has promoted Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories discussing "unrivaled Jewish power," and maintains an additional Web site entitled "Exposing Israeli Apartheid," which is also linked by Blackwell.

MarWen Media, which is linked directly from Blackwell's Web site, advocates the views of Kevin Macdonald, an anti-Semitic pro-Nazi author, who has claimed Jews are responsible for a "breeding program" to conquer other "races."

Under the heading "Sue Blackwell's links on Israel and Palestine," Blackwell provides a link to the MarWen site, along with the following description: "MarWen Media offers the latest in groundbreaking documentaries, breaking through barriers and taboos that mainstream media ? and even most alternative media do not venture." Blackwell writes that "the documentaries, mostly about Israel, Zionism, and Palestine, are by Wendy Campbell; see her other site, Exposing Israeli Apartheid."

Combining anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial and vilification of Israel, Campbell writes: "It is no accident that Israeli 'security' is now the centerpiece of US foreign policy. How are the highly placed "friends of Israel" able to bamboozle so much of the world?"

She peddles Holocaust denial, saying, "It's a staggering fact that in numerous 'free, Western democracies' (such as Germany, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, and others) it's a crime to question the official Jewish death toll figures or the gas chamber story in the events now called The Holocaust. Penalties include fines and actual imprisonment! Holocaust heretic Ernst Zundel was deported from the US to Canada where he spent two years in solitary confinement. Now he sits in a German prison. Who's next?"

MarWen Media offers a videotaped interview with Kevin MacDonald, accompanied by the following description: "Prof. Kevin MacDonald is the author of three groundbreaking books on Judaism, the most recent being The Culture of Critique. In it, MacDonald concludes that Jewish intellectual movements including Freudian psychology, Marxism (including other radical, Leftist politics), the Frankfurt School of Social Research, the New York intellectuals and others, including right-wing NeoConservatism, have all been designed to advance specifically Jewish interests ? often at the expense of non-Jewish interests. MacDonald's incisive analyses offer an alternative view of western history and has the potential to change the course of major events still unfolding."

MacDonald is a pseudo-intellectual white supremacist,who claims that Jews have been practicing a "breeding" program "masked" as a Jewish religious code, in a sinister bid to subjugate the world, and holds that Jews are responsible for an impending "race war" in the US.

Blackwell, who was described by columnist David Aaronovitch as a "former Christian fundamentalist," has said on her Web page that "I do not include links to sites which promote either racism or terrorism. This has always been my policy and applies to all my 200+ Web pages, not just this one."

Her Web site is reported to be under a House of Commons Committee investigation for a previous link to a Web site blaming Jews for the 9/11 attacks.

Ronnie Fraser, chairman of the Academic Friends of Israel group, told The Jerusalem Post that he was "shocked but not surprised."

"Sue Blackwell denies being an anti-Semite, but her denial of being anti-Semitic cannot be taken seriously in light of the links she has put on her personal Web site," said Fraser.

"With this revelation, I call upon the executive of the AUT to take a stand and bring the boycott motions to an end," he added.

Susan Blackwell website: It says: Welcome to Sue Blackwell's new Home Page! http://www.sue.be/ Welcome to Sue Blackwell's new site. I have been forced to acquire my own domain because the University of Birmingham, my employer, has censored my web pages on its computers.

Sue Blackwell's links on Palestine and Israel http://www.sue.be/pal/

Sue Blackwell's Palestine Blog Sue Blackwell, Palestinian Links, University of Birmingham, UK. ... I just provide a link to their homepage. If I wanted to I could remove that link - it ... http://www.sue.be/pal/bruce.html

Sue Blackwell's links on Palestine and Israel http://www.sue.be/pal/

Ms Sue Blackwell http://www.english.bham.ac.uk/who/blackwell.htm

Who is Wendy Campell - Susan Blackwell links to her site: Report Back from Syria By Wendy Campbell ... By Wendy Campbell. section. June 12, 2004. DISCOVERING SYRIA FOR MYSELF http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/June/12%20o/Report%20Back%20from%20Syria%20By%20Wendy%20Campbell.htm

http://www.marwenmedia.com/About.html

Her other website is www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com Zeq 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * end of quoted material

"Homey base most of this article on quotes from Mona baker site as well as info that apear on a web site by Wendy campbell - both are associates of Sue Blackwell."


 * What does any of that have to do with Mona Baker or Lawrence Davidson or justify you calling his article or her website "neo-nazi" material on my and Fred Bauder's talk page? Also, I based *none* of the article on Maxwell's site. I initially included a link to a site on her documentary on "Israeli apartheid" under "external links" but have since removed it. (I'd never heard of Maxwell or claims that she's sympathetic to Holocuast deniers, saw no evidence of her being a neo-nazi upon glancing her website but, wisely or not, took Zeq's claims about her at face value and removed the link. Given his subsequent dubious accusations about people being neo-nazis I may have ered at taking his comments about Maxwell at face value without investigating myself).


 * Seriously Zeq, can you please stop making things up?Homey 04:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey, the only one using  for wikipedia articles material which comes from sources that do not fit WP:RS is you. Zeq 04:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you answer my question? Where is your evidence that Lawrence Davidson or Mona Baker are neo-nazis.

Davidson is a professor of history specializing in the mid east for heaven's sake. How can you claim he isn't a reliable source?Homey 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, since the section in question is on what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are arguing, and as he is a leader of the movement calling for sanctions and divestment and a leading proponent of the term "Israeli apartheid" how can you possibly say that an article by him titled "Apartheid Israel" is not a reliable source of what proponents of the "Israeli apartheid" phrase are arguing?Homey 04:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey, I answerd your question, the material is posted here(just above, have you read it ?) . You seem to mis the point that this whole article is based on sources which are not WP:RS. What Prof' Davidson publish in his personal cpacity is not a WP:RS - what you need to find is an acdemic publication, which went through the 'peer review' process and then you can use it as source. Surly Prof davidson have submited his work to publications which do comply with WP:RS but none have published it (you know why) . So now Wikipedia became the place to publish this BS ? Zeq 05:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've not been following this discussion in any detail, I only got here via the delete debate, but I don't see the need for academic publications as sources for the existence or not of a political slogan. --Coroebus 10:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So maybe we should move this to a section in political slogans ? Zeq 11:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Awkwardly, it seems to fit better into political epithets, but the article is not unlike Islamofascism, so justifies a short explanation of the term and its use. It seems there is a political battle going on here (and in other places), that is unrelated to compiling an encyclopedia, and I can't say I want to get involved in it --Coroebus 11:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Homey, I answerd your question, the material is posted here(just above, have you read it ?)"

Yes, and it has nothing to do with Davidson or Baker. Homey 11:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it does Homey, and you should know it : Sue balckwall, Mona baker, davidson and Wendy campball all think that the way to get rid of Israel is by a boycott like the one that brought down the Souuth Afarica apartheid hence the boycott hence the effort to connect the two words: "aprtheid" and "israel". Now, Wikipedia is a willing partner in this idea which comes from people with neo-Nazis ties. Zeq 13:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So Baker and Davidson favour a boycott therefore they must be neo-nazis? So anyone who favours sanctions or divestment of Israel is a neo-Nazi? Fascinating to see how your brain works. Can you not see why your reasoning is fallacious? Just because Maxwell is sketchy and advocates a boycott does not mean that everyone who advocates a boycott is a neo-Nazi or has "neo-Nazi ties". Do you have any actual evidence that Baker and Davidson are neo-Nazis? Are they associated with the British National Party or US neo-Nazi groups? Do they praise Hitler anywhere? If not your allegation is pure libel and must be withdrawn.Homey 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey, I suggest you don't put my words in mouth. The ideas for the boycott (some of them you quoted when you started this disruption of wkipedia) come from sources that do not meet WP:RS some of them from sites with Neo-Nazi ties. Zeq 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

1) If that's what you're arguing I don't think you understand what WP:RS actually means.

2) What evidence do you have that Baker or Davison have "neo-Nazi ties"? You've yet to provide one piece of evidence - all you've done is lay out innuendo.

3) I believe you may be in violaion of Libel. Homey 14:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, don't get me to repeat it all. The info about the connection between "israeli apartheid" and Neo Nazis connecetions are posted above. Read what i said exactly and don't put words in my mouth other wise uou maybe violating Libel. Zeq 15:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I am not att all afaraid of aany libel issue you now try to level against me (another false accusation) Why ?
 * because I am quoting from a news paper article. If the people behind the "israeli apartheid" campaign would think it is libelous to identify the connectionof the campaign to Neo-Nazis they could sue the news paper. They did not so guess what : It seems these connection sare indeed true. Zeq 15:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper article does not mention Baker or Davidson who are the two individuals you are smearing. Please focus - your article is about Blackwell and Campbell, your comments are about Davidson and Baker, specifically alleging that the Davidson article is from a neo-nazi source or a site with neo-nazi links (ie Baker's site). The sole scrap of "evidence" you produce has nothing to do with the individuals you are smearing. You are in violation of Libel IMHO. I suggest you retract your statement. In fact, I suggest you delete everything you've written alleging a link between Davidson and Baker and neo-nazis Homey 16:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey, quote me EXACTLY what i wrote about Davidson. I never used the name until now. In fact it is you who mentined his name with this subject. If you deny the connection between Baker and Sue balckwall - good luck, I don't think this connection is a secret or libel. I just wonder if you are threating to take this out of wikipedia ot threating any legal action ? I suggest you first read EXACTLY what I wrote. (see above) Zeq 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not once threatened anyone with legal action (and I could not as I am not one of the people you've smeared). I have said that, IMHO, you are in violation of Libel ie our policy on libel. Please don't invent things. You've done enough of that already. Homey 16:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey, you fail to quote where you think I have smeared Davidson. You know why ? because I never mentioned his name until you accused me of smearing him. How can I smear a person that I did not mention ? As for Baker I say clearly : "If you deny the connection between Baker and Sue balckwall - good luck, I don't think this connection is a secret or libel. " Zeq 16:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Quote me exactly"

After I posted links to the Davidson article you posted the following to my talk page: ''"using neo Nazi material to make his WP:Point is a violation of policy."

IE you were referring to Davidson's article as "neo Nazi material"

You then posted the following to User talk:Fred Bauder: ''"Now, after using the biased globalexchange Homey moved to get material from sites with Neo Nazi flavor : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&curid=5329520&diff=56381670&oldid=56380146 . I am sure Jimbo must be very proud in what his encyclopedia has become. He worked so hard to remove the neo-Nazis from here but they come via the backdoor."

Thus, you accused Baker's site of having a "Neo Nazi flavor".

For the last time will you retract these allegations? Homey 16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Which staement do you want me to retarct the one about "Jimbo being proud that neo Nazi arriving via the back door" ? (of course you understand that this is sarcasm and I am sure that Jimbo is not proud of this situation). I will say it very clearly again: The info I posted above show the connection between Neo-Nazis and the campaaign to boycott israel which relay on compering israel to the South Africa partheid. This is a quote from a news source. Don't argue with me argue with them. If you want to deny the connection between Sue Blackwall and Mona Baker - be my guest. Zeq 16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A) you have provided no evidence of a "connection" between Blackwell and Baker.


 * The connection is so clear that I am in no need to prove it to you.

B) I want you to retact your claim that posting the Davidson article is "using Neo Nazi material" and your claim that Baker's website has a "Neo Nazi flavour". These statements smear Davidson and Baker respectively. Homey


 * Homey. Now you are saying things I did not say. I was very clear that i never used the name you are using above. I will say it very clearly again: The info I posted above show the connection between Neo-Nazis and the campaaign to boycott israel which relay on compering israel to the South Africa partheid. This is a quote from a news source. Don't argue with me argue with them. Zeq 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"The connection is so clear that I am in no need to prove it to you. "

Nonsense, if the connection were clear you'd proudly show me the proof. You have none so you should withdraw your claim. Homey 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"I was very clear that i never used the name you are using above."

You made a clear inference. So Zeq, when you accused me of using material from a site that has "a Neo Nazi flavour" whose site were you referring to? When you claimed I was "using Neo Nazi material" whose is the author of that material? Homey 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Calm Down
Can I suggest you two (Homey and Zeq) take half an hour, or an hour, to calm down a bit. Then come back and set out your arguments rationally, unemotionally, and concisely. Don't accuse each other of libel. There is no need for this to degenerate into a war, which I fear it will if you continue the way you are going. --Coroebus 16:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ya right, why don't we live this disgracfull article in wikipedia and we all calm down. You want calm: Apply WP:RS to this article, very little will be left standing. Zeq 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will be glad to see that happen guys. The article is one the most unstable ones in Wikipedia. -- Szvest 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Well at the moment it is up for deletion and you've both voted (I think), so there's no more you can do about that. If it survives deletion then I'll personally go through and check out each reference.  Until then, my advice remains, don't make a needless war out of this, currently it is out of your hands --Coroebus 16:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no need to wait for the vore results to apply WP:RS. In fact after applying this clear policy there will be some much left of this article that most likely we can all support it staying. The question is:
 * Do WP:NPOV and WP:RS still meam anything around here ? Zeq 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the vote for deletion is supposed to be about whether the article should exist at all, not about the quality of the article. Plus I have work to do. --Coroebus 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, quick look at references, and some are certainly A OK, particularlyl things like Desmond Tutu in the Guardian, but links under the analogy section to newspaper articles saying that bulldozing homes is a war crime are irrelevant and should go (along with the associated claim), some of the other links being used as sources will need closer looking into as to whether they are reliable or not - I can't tell at a cursory glance. There is certainly work to do but I don't think the principle is flawed --Coroebus 16:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To: Coroebus, yes, thank you. I think you are in the right direction. Zeq 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)