Talk:Israeli Apartheid Week

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need more balance[edit]

I agree that this page is profoundly unbalanced, and I've added a POV tag. CJCurrie (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the article needs work... maybe you should add a new intro and a section describing the week and the sort of events that occur? Removing the critisism would be inappropriate given the amount of upset this week has caused (and that this upset may be the primary reason people look at the article)... but it could be moved to a "controvery" section below a basic description of the week 77.127.14.133 (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at present, the article should be entitled "Criticism of Israeli Apartheid Week," since there is 0 information about the week itself. I will rename it thus if no one adds info about the event.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a massive cleanup with a whole host of support and neutrality and the goals. consequently i removed the tag.
Honestly, a simple google search comes up with enough documents. better than waiting 6 months. Lihaas (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done Lihaas. Very good start. I'll try to do some wikilinking and other stuff. I've rated in it "start" for now (which is the rating I give for every article that covers the bases but still needs more expansion and cleanup). I'm a little tied up today with real life but will try to get back to this soon. Tiamuttalk 11:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I get a israeli-palestinian "barnstar"? ;) Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be changed to promote hate against Jews and Israel. Since there is no apartheid in Israel.American Zionist (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the POV tag.[edit]

This week has grown and changed a lot since it started 10 years ago. As people stated before there needs to be more information about the week. It needs to read like an encyclopedic article, not as a list of quotes by people opposed to the week.BenjaminHold (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add more material from RS sources that speak positively about IAW, then please feel free to do so.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I am quite happy to add more, but there needs to be a fair effort made to turn the criticism section into something that is not just a series of quotes saying "it's anti-semitic" in five different without more substance. BenjaminHold (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism section is based on material from RS sources. This means you cannot remove it simply because you don't approve of their POV. Also, some of your new edits, in addition to being POV themselves, appear to be original research (or are at the very least, unsourced). This section is large because there is a considerable amount of opposition to IAW from most of the mainstream media. Again, if you want to add more material that is supportive of IAW, please feel free too.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I've removed some of the criticism that was taken from non-RS sources or from sources which aren't notable. I've also removed some duplicate information. Further edits will follow.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I agree, criticism should not be haphazardly removed, but much of it was from the same few people, and much of it was not R-S. I re-added some of the material you said was not RS before, and have found what is hopefully now agreeably RS. BenjaminHold (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few more edits. I've done them piecemeal so they are easier to follow in the edit summaries. I realize you may not agree with them (in particular, the wording of the introduction - which I feel will be more POV if we quote IAW) so please feel free to offer alternatives or suggestions. I restored a some material in the criticism section that had been removed but was properly sourced (and was not duplicated). Regarding the removal of Omar Barghouti's comments in the support section, they appear to be sourced solely from a video posted at http://palestinevideo.blogspot.com, which is not a reliable source (blogs rarely are). Have Mr. Barghouti's comments been cited by any mainstream sources that we can cite here? Finally, my decision to restore the section mentioning IAW supporters describing Canada as an Apartheid state as well may be my own bias, so this is certainly open to discussion.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Briefly just focuing on the Unversity reactions section. Most universities give the green light to the organization of IAW. It seems misleading to just include the reaction that are negative without mentioning that most universities really take no issue with it. If it's being held at over 50 schools and only a handful seem to be receiving administrative backlash, that needs to be made more explicit. Don't you think so? BenjaminHold (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most university administrations probably don't take a position one way or the other (i.e. they don't support or condemn IAW, but simply allow its events to be held and hope that the fecal matter doesn't hit the fan). The problem here is that it's the universities that put up a stink about IAW that make the news (reports that nothing bad or exciting happened don't make very good news reports) which is why they are included here. If you have a RS source which points out that most universities treat IAW events just like any other group's events, you can certainly include a citation here.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I see your point, but like you suggested, news site won't report saying "...and the college was completely okay with this." But in a source such as this: http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/pulse/israeli-apartheid-week-stirs-up-controversy-on-campuses where it essentially discusses how these things are happening at universities without mention of the administration doing absolutely anything seems suggestive that they are neutral...or at least very detached. BenjaminHold (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem: interpreting a source, or drawing a conclusion based on your own analysis of a source (i.e. "[it] seems suggestive that they are neutral...") would likely constitute WP:Original Research. That's why a secondary source that points that specifically points this out would be best.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Does something like this count, where it's advertised on a Cambridge University website: www.emma.cam.ac.uk or does it have to be a secondary source? BenjaminHold (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For topics such as Israel/Palestine, secondary sources are always preferred. Taking a look at the website above, it looks like you are referring to this sub-link [1], which provides only a very brief overview of the event and a link to a facebook page, which provides more details (Facebook pages are definitely not RS sources for Wikipedia). The other issue here is significance - does this single 2-hour event, which is only briefly advertised on the University's list of events (and which may be removed from the website once this event has passed) really warrant a citation in Wikipedia? We can't cite every IAW event at every university (that would be one hell of a long list) because this article has to be kept to a manageable size.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I completely agree that we shouldn't create a list of all advertisements, but things like this are evidence towards most universities being willing to hold events without opposition. Again, this is a struggle between RS and original research, but it's one of those things that doesn't seem like it would become a secondary source simply because it's quite boring, right? But it's still happening and true, so can we not cite it with the date it was accessed on the emma website? BenjaminHold (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, advertisements are never a good idea because there may also be an issue with WP:Promotion (at least until this event has passed). But again, you are trying to support your (not unreasonable) position based on an analysis of primary sources, which likely constitutes Original research in the form of WP:Synthesis. Are you sure you can't find a secondary source that points out that most IAW events are uneventful (no pun intended)? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
How is this. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/178039#.UxShLmR_tto This shows that ANC supports the week. BenjaminHold (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Israeli Apartheid Week. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli Apartheid Week. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Expanse" section[edit]

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

I think the "Expanse" section needs much more working on; the locations of the cities are unclear (i.e. we could have a city called "XYZ" in country "ABC" and another city of the same name in country "DEF").

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_Apartheid_Week&oldid=1207676814"