Talk:Hafrada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice: Zeq is banned from editing this article for a period of March 5, 2007.

The user specified is on probation and has edited this article inappropriately. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. This ban must be registered on the administrators noticeboard. If you disagree with this ban, please discuss it with the administrator who imposed it or on the noticeboard. At the end of the ban, anyone may remove this notice.

_{Posted by ~~~~.}

1 Unless someone can explain
2 The amount of BS in this article
3 Sources used for this article
4 I am not going to edit war on this
5 Hebrew?
6 Merge proposal
- 6.1 New merge tag
7 Reverts of this article by Homey
8 RfM
9 Building up this article to cover details of separation program
10 Synonym critics
11 To Moshe
- 11.1 Outside comments

[edit] Unless someone can explain

Since the edit summary does not make any sense I am going to revert the poor tramslation of this word unless someone can explain why DNE4Sale is reverting all the times. Zeq 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Even among Israelis, the term “Hafrada” – separation or apartheid in Hebrew – has entered the mainstream lexicon, despite strident denials by the Jewish state that it is engaged in any such process."

[edit] The amount of BS in this article

There is no such thing as "Hafrada wall" in Hebrew. Much of this article is BS and as someone who is aware of how this sentnce is used in Hebrew this article is pure lies propaganted by at least two sockpuupets (article 18 and article 19) Zeq 14:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The term has been used in English as per the citation.

Zeq, what does geder ha'hafrada mean?Homey 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Separtion fence Zeq 14:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fence, wall, same difference. The term "Hafrada wall" does return hits on google, there are no hits for "hafrada fence". Homey 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, A wall is not the same thing as a fence, and this distinction is the subject of several sentences in the Israeli West Bank barrier article. 'Hafrada Wall', besides being a clumsy concatenation of words from two different languages, returns all of 49 hits on Google, half of them from a single source - Sabeel - a controversial group that has been accused of anti-semitism. Isarig 14:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

on top of the above I will bring sources that show how "hafrda" is used in Hebrew - as a mean fro creating a border between two states. not all the aparhteid BS that has been propagated so far. Zeq 15:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources used for this article

If I 'll feel like wasting time on this ridiculus article I will start collecting the only possible sources for it: Sources in Hebrew. So this is a notice to anyone who wants to edit this article: Start learning Hebrew. Zeq 14:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am not going to edit war on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafrada&diff=57006482&oldid=57005746 is pure and simple an edit war - a disruptive behaviour that makes it impossibl to coloboratly edit wikipedia.

Homey: A friendly suggestion:

Self revert and try to convince us in the merits of this edit.

Zeq 15:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq are you trying to get yourself banned from this article only or from Wikipedia as a whole? You are on probation for having removed sourced material from an article yet here you've just done it again[1].

The material is sourced, in fact it has three sources, that is its merit. If you haven't learned that yet, after being banned from other articles and put on probation, one has to wonder.Homey 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The matrial is not sources as it has nothing to do with the article itself. You can not inject this "apartheid" BS to any article you want. You have also violated the collective wisdom of this comunity by adding here material about "aprtheid wall" which was decided to be deleted. In fact almost any edit of yours is a policy violation. Zeq 15:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew?

Maybe I am a little slow, and I am not trying to be a language-ist here, but why does a Hebrew word that has not become part of the English language get an article on English Wikipedia at all? If there is a legitimate debate over what Hebrew-speakers call the WB barrier in Hebrew, I can see that being a proper subject for inclusion in the WB barrier article, but how can it have its own article? And besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and en.wikipedia is certainly not a Hebrew dictionary!

On a related note, and this is the first time I am seeing this article, I just have to ask the assembled multitudes: Is there no end to this madness? Are we going to let Wikipedia become the encyclopedia of name-calling? Is every insult against Israel going to have its own separate article? Where does it all end? And, doesn't WP:POINT kick in at some point, around now? 6SJ7 19:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree this article should be deleted Zeq 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's entering the English language (much like apartheid did in the 1980s). [2]Homey 20:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I looked at a few of those articles and they refer to "Hafrada" as a Hebrew word. Just because it is translated into English (as any non-English word can be) doesn't make it an English word. And besides, if it really is "entering" our language (which I doubt), maybe we should wait until it has finished "entering" and has actually "entered" before we use it as an article name. And I know there has to be a rule, or a policy, or a guideline, or a Strong Suggestion, or something, on WP, about when a word can be considered part of the English language. I am sure you know what, and where, that something is. I can't imagine that this makes the cut. Do we really have to have another AfD? Or maybe some administrator can just take care of this, since it is not and English word! 6SJ7 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think the article shouldn't exist start an AFD. 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't have to if I don't want to. Besides, I was thinking about it until I read a comment that was actually helpful, below, and see my reply. By the way, you forgot to sign your comment. 6SJ7 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete these non-English words just because they're non-English. It's just not civil! Article20 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that I did not know all of these Hebrew words had their own articles. In looking at the list I cannot imagine why most of these articles are in an English-language encyclopedia, as opposed to a Hebrew dictionary. There are obvious exceptions such as matzoh, which I think has succeeded in entering the language; El Al, which is not about a word but about a company; Mossad, which is about an agency; Shekel, about a unit of currency, and so on. All of these are commonly used and heard by speakers of English. Most of the others, I don't get it. But I guess I am not going to do an AfD on the basis of language. I may do a merge request though, to put it in whichever non-South-African apartheid article remains standing. This should not be its own article. 6SJ7 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I do not support a merge. I think the article can stand on its own. I recommend if you feel strongly to take it to an AfD. I feel it is notable though. --Ben Houston 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously oppose a merge. User:6SJ7, should Hasbara be merged into Propaganda or Public relations? Should Manhigut Yehudit be merged into Orthodox Judaism or Jewish philosophy? What should Negiah be merged into? What about Payot? Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Article20 04:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, "Article 20." Since those sound like Hebrew words, I guess you should ask someone who knows Hebrew. I do recognize one of them, it is the name of a faction within Likud, so no it shouln't be merged, it's the name of a notable organization. "Hafrada" is just a word. Since you (it is you, isn't it?) are using it as part of your argument that Israel practices "apartheid," it belongs somewhere in the Israel section of the article on Apartheid (political epithet) -- that is, once all the appropriate merges have taken place. 6SJ7 06:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can call me "you", I don't care much for honorifics. My personal POV on this matter is that "Israel isn't an apartheid state, but do unfortunately share some of the characteristics". "Hafrada" is just a word. "Apartheid" is just a word. If Hafrada is something people (Israeli and non-Israeli) speak about when they speak about the politics of separation - shouldn't an encyclopedia be a place where people not familiar with the term could find out what it means/refers to. And if it is controversial, why it is controversial. Article20 07:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New merge tag

Homey has now placed a new merge tag on this article, to "Israeli apartheid," saying (in the edit summary) that such a merge would make more sense than a merge to "Apartheid outside of South Africa." Of course, "Israeli apartheid" itself has a merge tag to "Apartheid outside of South Africa," which I favor as I have stated several times. So, it is a just a question of accomplishing the same end directly or indirectly. I prefer the direct route, but that is not critical. And then I also believe that "Apartheid outside of South Africa" should either be renamed or have a qualifier, but that is being discussed elsewhere, I think. 6SJ7 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Of course, "Israeli apartheid" itself has a merge tag to "Apartheid outside of South Africa," which I favor as I have stated several times."

Yes, but there's no consensus to merge Israeli apartheid with "Apartheid oustide of South Africa", is there?Homey 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, is there? Who is keeping score? The rules of the game seem to keep changing, and the playing field keeps moving. 6SJ7 22:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts of this article by Homey

While not a 3Rr violation the clear pattern of edit war by homey emrge in this article is well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafrada&diff=57132353&oldid=57006482

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafrada&diff=57006482&oldid=57002546

Zeq 07:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfM

{{RFMF}}-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Building up this article to cover details of separation program

Is there interest in building up this article to cover the mechanics of the separation program - roadblocks, identity cards, roads, land ownership restrictions, etc.? Most of that stuff is currently at Israeli apartheid, which is becoming more about language than how it works on the ground. Commments? --John Nagle 18:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No. What you are doing is alleging that these elements- identity cards, etc.. - are part of the seperation program. they are nothing of the kind. Isarig 18:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

See related funny story from Jewish Magazine. "Show me your identity card," he snapped. "Today is Shabbat," I answered, "I don't carry it on Shabbat." --John Nagle 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with "Hafrada" ? Zeq 19:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synonym critics

Shouldn't the view of the "critics of the Israeli government" be explained better here? Hafrada means "separation" while apartheid means "apartness". The two terms are obviously synonymouos, but it is a matter of linguistics, not politics. What are the critics actually trying to say? -- Heptor _talk 16:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, this article should be named "Separation program (Israel)", since this is the English-language Wikipedia. But see "Hebrew" above. --John Nagle 05:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Very much ironically, that would be a POV fork for Two-state solution. I didn't get any wiser from the "Hebrew" section either.

To the issue: words "Hafrada" and "Apartheid" obviously have similar meanings. My question is, how can the Israeli Government be criticized for that? -- Heptor _talk 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, if the text is to stay it should be something like "The word hafrada means 'separation' in Hebrew, while the word Apartheid means 'apartness' in Afrikaans. Critics of the Israeli Government suggest that this similarity implies that the Israeli Government's policy towards tha Palestinias and the South African Apartheid policy are equally unethical. Others claim that the two terms describe different things, with Honest Reporting (UK) describing the comparison as "linguistic gymnastics" used by partisan critics to "distort the facts to suit their personal interpretation of Israel and the Mideast". -- Heptor _talk 18:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly better than what is there now. 6SJ7 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Moshe

I'm not saying HR-UK is necessarily or inherently "untruthful", but we should acknowledge that they aren't a neutral party in the Israel-Palestine dispute. CJCurrie 06:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is possible to find reliable sources that state that HR does indeed have a bias then I would support including this information in a npov manner. However, taking a single passage from their website or stating that the organization was founded by an orthodox Jewish outreach program is inappropriate and doesn't prove anything, all it does is poison the well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

HR-UK acknowledges being a pro-Israel advocacy group. We should reference this if we're going to use them as a source.

On another matter, I agree with you that "stating that the organization was founded by an orthodox Jewish outreach program" would be inappropriate, if that were the group's only defining feature. Clarifying that HR-UK was founded by a specific Religious Zionist organization with strong ties to the State of Israel, however, is quite different. CJCurrie 06:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your insertion, as you make clear yourself, is merely an attempt to discredit HR-UK's statement. You haven't bothered to characterize Sabeel as a "virulently anti-Israel group", even though many others have (and rightfully so). In addition, it's not clear that Fred Shlomka's opinion is particularly notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside comments

If people want to know about Honest Reporting, they can click on the link and learn about the group. So this appears to be a classic case of poisoning the well designed to discredit the source without giving the reader the chance to evaluate it in a neutral setting. The best way is to avoid unnecessary descriptions and let the readers decide on their own. Taxico 10:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. Unless CJCurrie is suggesting that every time we mention Honest Reporting (UK) in any article we must refer to it as "pro-Israel Honest Reporting (UK)", I suggest he re-think his position. Next someone will suggest that Honest Reporting (UK) be moved to Pro-Israel advocacy group Honest Reporting (UK). Jayjg ^(talk) 14:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The editors appear to agree that more than one source in this article has its own bias and the neutrality of their point of view may be in question. The comments above also rightly point out that readers can learn about the organizations in question through their respective articles. Wikipedia citations are meant to identify sources, not describe them. However, given the acute nature of the various biases of different sources, perhaps a blanket disclaimer can be made in this article to that effect (prior to the citations). This would alert readers to the issue and give them the option to investigate further if they wish without discriminating against any particular source. Something to the effect of:

In the interest of ensuring the neutrality of this article, readers should note that sources cited in this article may bear significantly biased views. Learn more about each source by clicking on their respective links.

Hope this helps. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/f/Talk%7EHafrada_d7c6.html"