Talk:Israeli Apartheid Week/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV revert

This edit was called POV. Not sure if the source was read, but the source said he was exiled. What POV came into this? And also, the new addition itself says something of his self-exile, if that was read to. But more importantly, this disputed information on his status is more suited to his own wikipage (which exists) than on here. The original exiled part came directly out of the [original] source. Lihaas (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The source currently in the article calls him a Fugitive - right in the headline, as a descriptor. To replace this relevant, well sourced description with the descriptor "exiled", which contrary to your claim, does not appear in the source, is POV. There is nothing disputed about his status - he fled, the country while under police investigation, ergo, he is a fugitive. NoCal100 (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the original source: "Exiled Palestinian member of the Israeli Knesset." For disputes on his status add to his own wikipage at Azmi Bishara. Details on his status can go there. This is right out of the source pertaining to the matter at hand.

Additionally, exiled doesn't exclude self-exiled, rather than staying in the country and facing those charges. Needless to say, it is now under quote. Lihaas (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No clear which source this is coming from. If this is from [1] - this is not a reliable source. By contrast, my source, which calls him a fugitive, is a well known Arab newspaper - which is a WP:RS. If there is a reliabel source that says he is self-exiled, let's see it. NoCal100 (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not a reliable source? because it doesn't suit an agenda and opinion? This article is about the proper noun "apartheid week," no week in reference. therefore it is run by a person/group. now go figure who runs this. If you want to put information on the infividual then list on his page (as was said above and conventiently ignored). for the sake of debate it helps to answer the question first posed.

Furthermore, it is a QUOTE, verbatim of the text. It is not synthesis or an opinion.

It is not a reliable source because it does not meet Wiki requirements - it is a partisan organization which is not known for editorial oversight or a record of fact checking, unlike the mainstream media sources I've provided. NoCal100 (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[unnamed section]

Should all specific dates for IAW be listed (month, day, year) for each annual event, or is it sufficient to say that the event was held annually beginning in year 'x'? (Replies welcome below - Section: Problem with dates?) Soosim (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with dates?

Soosin: what WP policy is causing you to object to inclusion of the dates? --Noleander (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

it is just not necessary, not good writing or editing. enough to say "IAW started in 1875 and has been held annually since" or some sort of language like that. no need to list every date. as i said earlier, that would be like giving the exact dates of every olympics, world series, etc. Soosim (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

some relevant wiki policies: WP:TRIV, WP:TRIVIA, WP:LAUNDRY. Soosim (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP articles on the olympics and World Series do include the exact dates. WP:Laundry is not a policy, it is an inactive project. The dates of the events are important so readers can correlate them with news articles when doing research on the topic. --14:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

here is the [world series page] - maybe i missed it (again), but i do not see the dates. only general info, years certain things happened. same for [the olympics page] - so, i ask you to self-revert the list in question, please. thank you. Soosim (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The dates of all the individual olympics are in the respective articles on the individual olympics. The Olympics article itself contains dozens of dates. Your suggestion that dates of the IAW events should not be in this article is unreasonable. If you want to solicit more input, follow the WP:RFC process. --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Noleander - what is unreasonable about my suggestion? it follows every similar wiki article. i have asked for the comments as well. but please, other than saying 'it is important', what is the reason you think it is important? you had said that it helps "correlate them with news articles when doing research on the topic." but wikipedia is like an encyclopedia, and not like google or any other search engine. a quick search in google or elsewhere will help them more. thanks. and if you could, please help by explaining. thanks. Soosim (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP does include the specific dates of comparable annual events, such as the world series and olympics. It is sensible and reasonable to include the dates of the IAW, precisely because it is annual event. Basic facts about events are the Who, What, Where, and When. "When" means dates. Specifically, the dates may provide significant help to future readers to help them perform research and cross-correlate with other contemporary events. Forcing readers to go to Google for such a basic fact as the date of an annual event is not sensible. Your repeated deletion of this material is bizarre. --Noleander (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks. "bizarre" is a new one. but in any case, it is indeed bizarre that you use the world series and the olympics as examples for what you want when they don't list the dates. i linked to those pages above, and there is no mention of the dates. none. in the overall scheme of things it is irrelevant if the world series was sept 27 or oct 3, and irrelevant if iaw was feb 3 or feb 10. i had asked you to do a self-revert, and you did not. so i reverted. you asked me to post for comments. i did. i guess that is bizarre. Soosim (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP does include the specific dates of all world series and olympics. They are just not in the articles you looked at. Look some more. --Noleander (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello guys. Soosim asked me to check this thread and provide a third opinion. I have no objections to keeping the exact dates, as while they're not the most critical bit of information, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and we can afford the luxury of some less important facts as well. This doesn't mean that keeping them is necessary. The main problem with the dates is that the formatting is a bit awkward. Table formatting would be better than the current system (would do it myself but I'm not good with Wiki markup). That's about all I have to say. I hope you reach some sort of consensus. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks zakhalesh for your advice. Soosim (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

I don't have a problem with this article having a criticism section - it's obviously a highly controversial event. But I do find it a bit odd that the criticism section is written in reverse chronological order, so the newest events are at the top and the oldest at the bottom. Normally, timeline sections are written from oldest to most recent, with the oldest events first and the most recent listed last, for logical reasons. Is there any good reason why this one's the wrong way around, or should I change it myself? Robofish (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

NGO Monitor graphic

thumb|right|Screenshot of BDS Sewer System Poster Do other contributors think that NGO Monitor's "BDS Sewer System Poster" should be included on the Israeli Apartheid Week page?

I would argue against its inclusion. The poster is an attack against the BDS movement, not against IAW specifically. Somewhat against my better judgement, I have refrained from removing the poster image from Boycotts of Israel and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. On those pages, it makes some degree of sense. Here, it doesn't.

I recognize that NGO Monitor introduced the poster to coincide with IAW, but that's not really the issue. The actual content of the poster doesn't justify its inclusion here. CJCurrie (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Further to my previous remarks, I should add another reason for deleting the image: this page shouldn't be a coatrack for any and all opposition to Israeli Apartheid Week. I've removed a reference to Michael Lucas's opposition, for the simple reason that his public statements aren't important enough to be encyclopedic (and a single Jerusalem Post article covering them doesn't change this). I would argue that the NGO Monitor graphic falls into the same category, and that its inclusion here is in some ways even more dubious: it was provoked by Israeli Apartheid Week, but it isn't about Israeli Apartheid Week and there's not much to suggest that the graphic has any real notability in this discussion. Again, a reference in a Jerusalem Post article doesn't automatically confirm encyclopedic notability across the board.

Btw, I've noticed that WP discussions on the I-P dispute often tend to be venomous and verbose. I worry that this could be tilting too far in the other direction, at least on the latter point. CJCurrie (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the image text is unreadable, and based on consensus here, I've removed image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettColdwell (talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

everettcoldwell - i have restored the image since it is relevant, mentioned in the article, and the size of the small text is not relevant. also, i am a bit surprised that you said 'the consensus' was to remove. only one editor made a comment (cjcurrie) - not sure that a consensus of one is 'accurate'. anyway, since cjcurrie's remarks above, many things have changed - for example, cj says that only one article refer's to the lucas affair and the source is a bit weak or questionable. (my reading of his remarks). but within days, it was picked up by dozens of news outlets, etc. - so, the same thing here - since march, it has been covered by many and has more significance. Soosim (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CJCurrie. First of all, the graph says "BDS" not "Apartheid". So there is no connection between these two. Then, the graph is published by NGO Monitor, which is a campaign group but not a RS. Third, the source mentioned that would connect it all is just describing the poster and quoting (reproducing) the same campaigning organisation. And even within the quote(s) no connection is made that the poster and IAW are connected. The source's connection is: "some words are on the same page". Delete, with its paragraph. -DePiep (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No talking added. Countdown to removal. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

i think you need more than one opinion, once a year, to say that there is consensus. why not put it out for others to see? Soosim (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Since one year, CJCurrie, EverettColdwel nd DePiep have expressed: "opposed" (you the one "keep"). So far for the numbers you asked for. Now what is your argument to Keep? -DePiep (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So, all together: three argumented "Delete" !votes, and one argumented !keep vote by Soosism. (And even keeper Soosism says: the size of the small text is not relevant). I will delete. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Off topic blogger

I removed a blogger quote that is off-totopic [2]. It was reinstalled omitting my "off-topic" point and with an argument oblivious of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasoning. I still have seen no motive to include the quote. -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Explain please how an article about Israeli Apartheid Week is off topic in an article about Israeli Apartheid Week. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Simply: the quote introduces unrelaterd topics. It does so without even mentioning any correspondence itself. In fact, the quote says: why not change the topic of this article? It is not criticism in itself, as the section is. Now please explain why "but there are bloggers" (your es) is an argument to add one? Why not apply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Material being deleted and restored endlessly

Now I know people have a problem with IPs removing nominally sourced content, but the IP is right. The paragraph on what is according to many others, and ironically at that, is sourced to an op-ed in a firggin college newspaper. The other paragraph, with a rather lengthy quote, is from an op-ed in the National Post. Neither of those are sources that should be used for anything other than the opinion of the writer, and a set of students at the University of North Carolina has no business being quoted in the lead of an encyclopedia article, nor does Jonathan Kay. Cmon people, this isnt The People of Wikipedia vs the Bad Men trying to destroy the Jewish State. Its an encyclopedia article, try to remember that. nableezy - 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've moved the deleted material sourced from Jonathan Kay to the criticism section. It belongs here and not at the lead of the article. In addition, I've clarified that these comments and opinions are those of Mr. Kay alone.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC))