Talk:Hafrada/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
12 2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message
13 "See also" links
14 Merge
15 rev not a reliable source
16 "Hafrada wall" 2
17 WP:NOR
18 Removal of citation tags, and use of dubious citations
19 unreliable sources:
20 article needs more sections
21 Recent additions
22 rev still not a reliable source
- 22.1 Why have you deleted all of the sources from Schueftan?
23 removed blockquotes
24 From the beginning
- 24.1 Why is this page tagged as Lacking Sources
25 removed sentence #1
26 preemptive explanation of edit
27 removed sentence #2
- 27.1 Major overhaul
28 uses and sources
29 Note this:

[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)

[edit] 2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.

The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)

Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.

Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 01:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "See also" links

I've restored the recently removed Palestinian political violence link, since the purported reason for the geder-hafrada (mentioned in the article) is, of course, Palestinian political violence. It's hard to imagine why it wouldn't be relevant. I've also removed the recently inserted "Second class citizen" link, as Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not citizens of Israel, but rather of the Palestinian Authority, so the link is not relevant to their situation. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I merged a bunch of info from a short-lived article I started. If I upset anyone's edits, please let me know. I got excited and had to jump in with what I had. Tiamut 06:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rev not a reliable source

A reverend is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia article on a political term. This is a fact. No serious encyclopedia would actually try to explain a political subject by quoting Demond Tutu or Pope Benedict or Rabbi Hillel etc, unless the article dealt with the intersection of politics and religion. This is hafrada, not politics and religion. The source provided for this paragraph is from a notable (i think?) author, but not a reliable one in regards to this subject matter. Please remove this paragraph. Thank you, --Urthogie 06:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add this quotation, merely incorporated it into the additions I recently made, having found it imminently relevant. I don't understand your rationale. The author is notable and the quote is directly relevant to the subject at hand. Would others care to chime in on this subject? Tiamut 14:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we quote an Israeli businessman and an Arab leader of an anti-Israel religious advocacy group on the meaning of the word hafrada? Please explain their expertise and relevance in this area. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you not understand my rationale? I made it clear: the source is on subject, and notable, but not reliable because they are not an expert in the field. Encyclopedias cover experts, not religious figures, when they're discussing politics, unless religion is involved, which here it isn't.--Urthogie 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a Palestinian Reverend Canon and Professor who is also the director of the Jerusalem-based Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center. His life experience, position as a religious leader, and knowledge of local politics certainly make him a notable enough figure and reveal a certain knowledge for the subject. The sentence attributes a linguistic fact regarding how both Hafrada and Apartheid translate into English as separation. There are Wiktionary pages for both these terms that note this very same fact. Ateek's opinion that this is one indication of how the apartheid and the hafrada system are similar is the only new idea that actually needs to be sourced there. Is he not entitled to an opinion? Surely, his POV is as improtant and significant as any of the others there; per WP:NPOV I think it merits inclusion and there is no question in my mind that it meets WP:RS. Tiamut 19:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A local minister is not a reliable source. He is entitled to an opinion, but not entitled to having it put on a political article.--Urthogie 20:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a partisan source who may be an expert in his version of Christianity, and perhaps about Arab Christians in Israel, but that doesn't make him an expert or reliable source on anything else, including the meaning of the word "hafrada", or on its relationship to the Afrikaans word "apartheid". Keep in mind he grew up speaking Arabic, not Hebrew. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And that means what exactly? That he's incapable of looking up the meaning of a word in the dictionary? Hafrada means separation. Get over it. It doesn't even need to be sourced to someone. A babel translator will tell you so. Adn his opinion is totally relevant, as it is regarding the name of Hafrada Wall. Tiamut 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS says stuff needs to be sourced to reliable sources. Period. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Hafrada wall" 2

The term "Hafrada wall" is a neologism that gets under 150 Google hits, and even then it seems to be used only by a tiny number of activists. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for promoting activist neologisms. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reposting my comments in this section per Jayjg's comments below)Re: your comments in your latest edit summary regarding the Hafrada Wall being a little known term used mostly by activists, even if that were true, it doesn't mean that its addition in this particular article is not imminently appropriate. After all, it's an example of the term under discussion being used in English to refer to the wall, and it's an interesting factoid that exhibits the linguistic variations used to describe these policies. I don't see how it's not notable or relevant to this article. Please explain. Tiamut 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says we don't quote "extreme minority views". WP:NEO says "avoid neologisms". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you characterize the views of the Catholic World News, [3] the Christian World Service, [4] and the Sabeel Ecumencial Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem [5] as "extreme minority views"? How is the use of the term Hafrada by Christians to describe the "separation fence" not notable to an article on the use of the term Hafrada? Tiamut 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

None of these are mainstream sources. Sabeel is an Christian anti-Zionist activist group trying to popularize the term, and the first two are Christian groups repeating Sabeel's use of the term. The term gets approximately 150 Google hits, most of the either re-printing Sabeel, mirrors of Wikipedia, neo-Nazi message boards, or other message boards. There are no mainstream sources that use the neologism. Please don't insert it again; if we can't get any co-operation from you on even the most obvious of policy and guideline violations, then it will be impossible to work on anything together. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Any version of the article that mentions the "Hafrada Wall" obviously violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NEO, and therefore cannot possibly be correct. If you want to work out other areas of the text, and the version you are working on does not contain that phrase, then I will certainly look at them and consider them on their individual merits, but I will automatically revert any version of the article which contains the phrase "Hafrada Wall"; in the future I won't bother with edit summaries on it either, please just refer to this section. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Huldra was the first to revert your deletion of the sourced and relevant material cited above [6]. I added it again after it was deleted with additional sources. This is my comment from below: And I readded this - * The Geder Ha'hafrada is known in some activist and ecumencial circles as the Hafrada Wall. with these sources [7]] [8] [9] -
because I fully disagree with Jayjg. It’s not WP:UNDUE. The article’s name is hafrada. It discusses the origin of the terms and it’s use both in Israel and abroad. It’s fully relevant, reliably sourced and notable and included in a section offering examples of the term’s use in English. It’s Catholic World News, the Christian World Service and the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center all using the term the Hafrada Wall. The article’s name is Hafrada. It’s not rocket science. It should stay. Tiamut 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Please articulate what exactly in the policies you cite disallows this material from being put in the article. Tiamut 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR

References used in this article must refer to "hafrada"; authors can't use their own original research to mix a whole bunch of things together and claim that they are all part of a "hafrada policy". I'm going to tag all the references that don't refer to "hafrada" for now; please find better references as soon as possible, as I will start removing the original research by tomorrow. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no they don't. This was a Hafrada page defining the term that got picked up by Wiktionary. Hafrada also refers to Israel's separation policy at large as was in the article on the definition of the term. Most of the information just added by me was merged from another article that I created called Separation policy (Israel), before realizing they were the same. I asked editors who were involved in editing here on their talk pages what they thought and then decided to be bold and put the two together. I got mostly positive responses.

I don't appreciate you deleting most of the information here. The reason there are not a lot of English language sources for the term are that it is usually translated into English as "separation policy" or "policy of separation". It is an established government policy and notable phenomenon in Israeli public discourse and most of the sources here bear that out. The book accredited with spaning the policy has Hafrada in its original Hebrew title and it is cited as the source for this policy. Other sources directly make the link between the term and the book and explciitly explain how the policy is not properly translated into English. This is not WP:NOR. I respectfully ask that we get the views of other editors on the material before you began deleting sections or inserting weasal words. Thanks. Tiamut 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Separation policy" in relation to Israel gets just over 500 hits, and even then much of it is related almost exclusively to the separation barriers, and not to the various other items listed in this article that activitists have tried to characterize as a "separation policy". I haven't deleted anything yet, but the whole article appears to be pretty much original research based on the views of an extremely small number of reliable sources. Yes, Israel has separation barriers, and yes, it has settlement policies, and yes, it has various restrictions on entry of Palestinians into Israel for work, etc. But do these, as a whole, constitute a "separation policy", or are they merely a series of reactions to an on-going war? I think that the framing of this as a coherent policy is a pov issue that has not been addressed. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited throughout the article solidly support the proposal that this is a policy. I urge you to look at them more closely and to see the related page on Daniel Schueftan. Further, reviewing the difference between my latest cleaned up copy and edits and those your and Urothogie's, I note that a fully and reliably sourced piece of information referring to the Hafrada Wall from the Catholic News Service was removed after I provided it in response to that section being tagged for a fact citation.

and that one of you changed this :

"He cited the "ever-increasing restrictions on Palestinian movement and employment during the 1990s," "settlement expansion that doubled the number of Jewish settlers," and "the policy of replacing Palestinians with migrant workers from Africa and Asia," as examples of hafrada in its early stages.^[1] was changed

to this,

He claims that "ever-increasing restrictions on Palestinian movement and employment during the 1990s," "settlement expansion that doubled the number of Jewish settlers," and "the policy of replacing Palestinians with migrant workers from Africa and Asia," are examples of hafrada in its early stages.^[1]

The second one constitutes an inaccurate formulation, since it is well-established that restrictions on Palestinian movement and employment increased, settlement expandsion doubled and a policy to replace Palestinian workers with migrant workers as Schlomka describes. My formulation is more precise in that correctly assigns the word claim to Schlomka's belief that these actual events were evidence of an early stage of hafrada as policy. I’m going to change those now and review your other fact needed citations. Tiamut 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Hafrada wall", please see the section above. Regarding Schlomka, he's not even a reliable source, the best you'll get is "claims" on anything by him. Also, you've violated WP:3RR, so please don't revert again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I? How? Where? Re: your comments in your latest edit summary regarding the Hafrada Wall being a little known term used mostly by activists, even if that were true, it doesn't mean that its addition in this particular article is not imminently appropriate. After all, it's an example of the term under discussion being used in English to refer to the wall, and it's an interesting factoid that exhibits the linguistic variations used to describe these policies. I don't see how it's notable or relevant to this article. Please explain. Tiamut 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please respond in the section above dedicated solely to this issue. I'll respond there when you do. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So I didn't violate 3RR and that's you way of deflecting. Very well then. If you're going to be a d-ck about it. Tiamut 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid continued violations of WP:CIVIL; you've promised to stop doing this. I looked it over, and you are correct, you only reverted 3 times. As for wanting items to be in their own sections, we don't need 3 different sections discussing the "Hudna Wall" issue, that's just confusing, yet you've raised it in 2 sections besides the one I started. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of citation tags, and use of dubious citations

Tiamut, you keep removing my request for citations and adding citation which, from what I can tell, rarely actually cite what you're claiming. Please quote, in the citation, the words you believe actually provide proper citation. Some of them quite clearly do not, and I won't play a game where I ask for sources, and you quote something that's not a real source; I'll eventually just start deleting unsourced stuff, regardless of the number of irrelevant references beside it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review my changes. Everything should be in order (if its not all deleted already.) Tiamut 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unreliable sources:

Qumsiyeh has no credentials. He is merely a political activist, and a former genetics professor: http://www.qumsiyeh.org/curriculumvitae/. He has no credentials for this subject. Not a reliable source.

An Israeli businessman who is politically active in part of a political organization, and wrote one opinion article is not reliable for this subject either. No credentials, not a reliable source.

Lastly, the Ha'aretz article linked to is in French. I removed the English translation because that's original research to translate.

The article said that critics "[they] call it "apartheid"". The source provided is this New York Times op-ed, which said:

The closure policy has instead solidified an apartheid-like system of separate rights and privileges for Jews and Palestinians.

First off, "they" is a weasel-word as this is the only used source. It shouldn't be "they", it should be specified that it's just this one writer.
"Apartheid-like system" does not translate to "apartheid"

Thank you for considering these points. Remember, just because a source is mainstream and on the subject doesn't mean it's reliable for that subject. Enyclcopedia Brittanica and other respectable encyclopedia's don't comb random authors of spare opinions articles to quote for words like "apartheid". It's amateurish, and frankly way to POV for a good encyclopedia. Since we're trying to make Wikipedia good, let's avoid the unrelaible sourcing, OK?-Urthogie 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points, or close enough, with the exception of one: Mazin Qumsiyeh is an expert, otherwise he wouldn't be invited to forum on finding peace solutions. He's a well-known writer on Middle Eastern politics besides his scientific expertise. Tiamut 02:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Which forum was he invited to? All details available or especially a link would be useful. As a sidepoint, your edits still haven't acknowledged the weasel-word problem of saying "they". Thanks, --Urthogie 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The link for the source is there. Or did you not read it? It's in the References so you don't even have to open the link "Mazin B. Qumsiyeh (28 June 2006). Discussion on: Searching for Peace in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Institute of Strategic and Development Studies, Andreas Papandreou, University of Athens." But I actually do recommend reading it.

Plus I agreed to Schlomka removal not because your argument is correct, but I just don't feel like fighting. Schlomka is also relevant to the debate as an activist in an Israeli organization the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. But I can find yet more more reliable sources to meet your quite exacting standards. (and to back up what you claim is a dubious "they" as though allegra pacheco is the only woman in the world to have described this policy as apartheid-like - there are some above that you've already disqualified) I'm quite sure there are other articles here whose sourcing is much more dubious than this one's (with 17 sources and practically every single sentence noted and qualified). It would be nice too if you could try adding material instead of just deleting things you don't think make the grade. But then, to each his own. Tiamut 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand the policy on Weasel Words. Several people agreeing makes it still a weasel word. By saying "they" it allows whoever is sourced to speak for all critics or those with similar views to them. Please adjust it, or I will. I'd prefer the former.

Being a member of a political organization is an easy feat. These organizations are begging for members. It adds nothing to someones credibility or reliability.

I'm removing you so much because it's such a controversial subject. The last thing we need is a combing of google for "apartheid" so you can work on other articles through this. It's how I edit, to keep things in check on controversy. Respect that.

I'll look into that forum, and I'll see if it qualifies him as a reliable source. It depends largely on how many were on it, and who else was on it.

UPDATE: Ok, I've looked at it, and this forum got no press coverage whatsoever. It was just him and a poly sci professor. He may be seen as an expert by the people who held this forum, but not by the majority of the public... to most he is just a former genetics professor who is now into politics.

UPDATE #2: I'm not even sure about the Ha'aretz article now... Check out the source:

[04/11/00] Israël-Palestine, revue de presse « Pour la plupart des Israéliens, les Palestiniens sont irréels et aussi légers que l’air. Le chef du Likoud, Ariel Sharon, ne s’est pas rendu sur le mont du Temple pour provoquer les Palestiniens, mais pour les ignorer. Il a fait cela uniquement pour des raisons de politique intérieure, sans prêter attention à ce que cela susciterait chez eux. Pour beaucoup de Palestiniens, cette indifférence est pire que la provocation ou l’humiliation. Israël exige qu’ils étudient la Shoah et comprennent les motivations des Juifs, mais le sort et l’histoire des Palestiniens n’ont aucun intérêt pour l’Israélien moyen. Pour une écrasante majorité d’Israéliens, de gauche comme de droite, la solution idéale est la hafrada [séparation, ségrégation], afin que les Palestiniens ne leur empoisonnent plus l’existence. Outre ses relents racistes, cette solution est impraticable.

L’indifférence quant au sort des Palestiniens vient du sommet de l’Etat. Indifférent aux besoins de l’autre partie, Barak a offert à Arafat le choix entre une paix aux conditions israéliennes et la guerre. » Gideon Lévy, Ha’aretz (Tel Aviv)/Courrier International, 19 octobre 2000

How can a story of 19th of octobre be posted on a press review listed on 04/11 of 2000? I can't read french but it seems to be two different articles? Am I wrong? Explain... And if you can't, find the actual article as a source. thank you. I'm removing this until this issue is resolved. --Urthogie 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to be trying to eliminate each source in this article, one by one until it is totally worthless. You latest edits stripped away more the entire critique section [10] and on the most spurious of bases. These are not NPOV edits. I view them as harassment and vandalism of my contributions and I ask that you stop. Now. Tiamut 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As to your question on the dates, the original article in The Courrier International was published on the 19 October 2000, and it is being quoted in the 4 November 2000 edition of this "Review of World Press at the Peripheries" website. This is not a reason to delete the information. Tag it. Ask me a question. But stop throwing my hours of editing work in the garbage. Tiamut 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I further ask you that self-revert these deletions: [11]. Tiamut 02:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like you to use the english addition as the source. I'll bring it back for now, though.--Urthogie 02:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an English version. It was published in the Courrier International [www.courrierinternational.com], but I believe that we can also get a third editor to verify the translation and that should suffice.

I would further point out that I would like you to restore Allegra Pacheco's comment and allow me to attribute it to her as part of the National Layer's Guild delegation. And Qumsiyeh, since his remarks were made in a forum sponsored by an international strategic institute on peace and are directly relevant. I further point you to WP:ATT regarding the difference between:

Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source.
Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source.

All the material you are removing is sourced. None of it is original research.

Further it states:

"If an article has no or very few references, but you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the template

This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing ^{[citation needed]} after the sentence or removing the claim. Consider the following in deciding which action to take: 1 If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the ^{[citation needed]} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. 2 If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. Don't be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material; it is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on an issue than to present false or misleading material."

Have you really progressed through these stages here? I keep running to catch up with your deletions. Please. Take it easy. Tiamut 03:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I will take it easy... it's just I felt you were using this to affect the allegations of apartheid article. as long as you're not rushing to do that, i'll slow down, ok?--Urthogie 03:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed:

After visiting a Palestinian outside of Bethlehem as part of a National Lawyer's Guild delegation to the Middle East, Allegra Pacheco commented that, "Separation leading to Palestinian statehood is a myth. The closure policy has instead solidified an apartheid-like system of separate rights and privileges for Jews and Palestinians.

Article does not explicitly say "hafrada". It's OR to assume that all seperation = hafrada and all hafrada = seperation. And even if hafrada was always translated the same way, it's still OR to make the connection. Also, I'm still a bit uneasy about using Qumsiyeh, I don't see how being invited to a non-notable forum makes him suddenly an expert. Non-experts are invited to forums all the time, just because they're articulate and opinionated.--Urthogie 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In my view, using the word "Hafrada" here is political. Trying to use an "exotic" word, like "apartheid", to make it seem more threatening. Much like the Americans were distressed to learn Barak Obama attended a "Madrassa", being oblivious to the fact that it's just the Arabic word for school.

Calling the Israeli Gaza Strip barrier a part of the "separation policy" is quite silly. Is every international border part of a separation policy? Are borders between A zones (region under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, according to the Oslo agreements, like most of the Gaza Strip) and the rest part of a "separation policy"? Why doesn't anyone mention that separation between areas are an integral part of the peace process, and that it is an obvious requirement for any future Palestinian state?

Interestingly, a Google search for Hafrada: [12], reveals only 580 results, some from wikipedia itself or mirrors, many referring to "Geder Ha-hafrada", and many not even in English (I saw mostly French). How is this a common term, notable enough to be the name of such an article? okedem 14:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, another thing. The article states that according to Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, "the "realignment plan" or "convergence plan" is actually a mistranslation of hafrada". He claims: "Now, Israel today uses a new word. You probably have heard it mistranslated. In Hebrew it’s called hafrada. Hafrada means literally segregation or separation ... Convergence doesn’t mean anything..."

This proves he's a lier, or ignorant, or both. That stillborn plan was called, in Hebrew, "תוכנית ההתכנסות", exactly translated as "convergence plan". The word "התכנסות" means "convergence", as is often used for math. No one called it Hafrada in Hebrew. Can we try not to use liars as sources? okedem 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut insists he's an expert because he said it at a forum on the Middle East he was invited to speak at. He's a former genetics professor.--Urthogie 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I saw. Very impressive. Still a liar, though. okedem 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether he's a liar or not is not really the issue though. We are allowed to quote liars. The question is if he's an expert, a reliable source...--Urthogie 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Expertise, of course, is important. But we are not to quote outright lies. He's using the public's lack of knowledge of Hebrew (and of reality) to sell them lies. The simple fact is that the plan's name in Hebrew was accurately translated, and that it was not called "Hafrada" at any stage. Simple. He can claim whatever he want, but there's no reason to quote him, when he's so obviously lying (or he's clueless, either way). okedem 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy valueing truth over falsehood at Wikipedia. Attribution to reliable sources is all that matters. If these sources lie, we still quote them. we can also quote people who have responded to them and accused them of lies.--Urthogie 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, however, the professor's claim shows he's definitely not a reliable/respectable source. I don't think I can find someone responding to him specifically, but that's beside the point (or perhaps shows he's not notable). Obvious lies should not be quoted, regardless of who says them. I'm sorry, but even if some professor of astronomy says the sun didn't shine yesterday, we still shouldn't quote him - it's just obviously not true. It's not a matter for debate. okedem 16:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you source your definition to a dictionary, then?--Urthogie 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I can, but I don't see what good that'll do. His claim is that the plan was referred to, in Hebrew, as "Hafrada" (הפרדה), and that the media is incorrectly translating "Hafrada" as "Convergence" or "realignment". Now, Hafrada indeed means "separation", and not "convergence", but that's not the problem - the problem is that the plan was never called "Hafrada" in Hebrew, it was always called "תכנית ההתכנסות" ("Tochnit HaHitkansut"), and "Hitkansut" means "convergence" (you can, if you wish, search for it here - just type "convergence", and see that the result is "התכנסות", and another word, "התלכדות"). In english it had two translations, "Realignment plan", and the more accurate "convergence plan".

You can also see the name of the article in the hebrew wiki - [13], and in the german wiki [14]. okedem 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I agree it's important we don't mislead our readers. What do you think, Tiamut?--Urthogie 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So why did you delete the dictionary definition, citing WP:NOR below?

I totally disagree and object strongly to Okedem calling Qumsiyeh a liar (I think that violates WP:BLP policy, even on the talk pages, and should be removed). Besides, as you pointed out Urthogie, we are not here to judge the veracity of claims made, only to represent significant viewpoints, and Qumsiyeh's viewpoint certainly is significant, notable and relevant to this article. (On a side note, living in Israel, I can affirm that Okedem is correct when he claims there is a separate word used fo the convergence plan. What Qumisyeh's point is that these names "convergence", "disengagement", etc., are all sub-policies of "hafrada" or nice "spin words, if you like to make it more palatable to the Israeli and foreign public's. I could go on, but then this debate isn't really relevant.) Qumsiyeh's a reliable source and that's what he says and we should represent it. Tiamut 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a biography, and it's a talk page. What he is saying is patently false, and you seem to agree with me on that one. What you are guessing he meant isn't relevant, what he said is untrue. I see no reason to quote an obviously false statement, and such a statement, in issues where it's all about the fine details, and the gray areas, make me doubt this person as a reliable source. In this case I can tell he's wrong - but what about others? How can we trust him? okedem 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with your removal of Allegra Pacheco's work. The sources in the the introduction, including that of Gideon Levy, clearly make a direct translation of hafrada as separation. Separation is hafrada is separation. And when we quote English sources, often they will be using the word separation, rather than hafrada, but it's the same thing as established by the sources in the introduction. Tiamut 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Pacheco, but no one is doubting the word Hafrada can be translated, among others, as separation. What is being doubted is the notability of the term "Hafrada" in the English language (it's not even really used in Hebrew, except for "Geder Hahafrada", but forget that now), and I've written my objections to it above. okedem 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See the section on the term's usage outside Israel and the at least 15 sources in the introduction that use the word Hafrada specifically. Tiamut 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article needs more sections

Write now the article fails to discuss the actual policies, like the security wall or the unilateral disengagement. Let's make these sections and leave discussion of the discussion of the policy second to actual discussion of the policy and its effect.--Urthogie 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent additions

In response to Urthogies' tagging of the "Support" section for more info, I have changed the subsection name to "Policy components" and two new subsections: "Isreli West Bank barrier" and "Israel's unilateral disengagement plan" in which I have outlined some of the major arguments for the policy components. I would ask that Urthogies and Okedem cease deleting sources in the criticism section as you have here [15]. These sources specifically use the word hafrada in their critique. They are notable and their views should be included per WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. It is totally unfair to on the one hand try and insist that the sources used be only those that use the word "hafrada", and then to work assiduously to disqualify sources who do use the term from having their views represented in the article. Frankly, it seems like an attempt at sabotage. Please try adding to the article to introduce balance, if you feel it is lacking. Do not continue deleting relevant sourced material. Note that I will take the matter to an article RfC if this continues. Tiamut 12:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, you are reinserting a comment which you know to be false, and is highly misleading. In essence, you are lying to the reader (and I don't like using such harsh words, especially against you). This person is saying things that aren't true, and using the public's lack of knowledge to deceive them. You agreed with me that the word used in Israel for the convergence plan was "Hitkansut", not "Hafrada", and we can agree that Hitkansut is accurately translated to "Convergence". So, this person's claim is obviously false, thus, he is not a reliable source, and we should not use him.

Would you like me to start adding lies to the article? I'm sure I can come up with some.

I will not stand for such additions. Find some truthful sources. okedem 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If the "lies" you want to add are properly sourced and attributed, I have no problem with that. Please stop deleting material which in your opinion is false. Your opinion does not consittute wikipedia policy. Please find a reliable source that represents the alleged inaccuracies you claim are in Qumsiyeh's quote, or something that represents what you believe to be true about Olmert's plan. As I mentioned above, it would be nice if you would actually add something to the article, rather than merely deleting things you don't liek or don't feel are true. Thank you. Tiamut 12:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So, if I can't find a source that refutes this guy, because he's just not important enough, his fallacious claims remain? I don't think so.

And it's not just in my opinion, Tiamut, you agreed with me about the veracity of his claim. So why are you adding things you know are false?

Now, what source do you want? Here's something real simple - a google search for "תכנית ההתכנסות" finds 2,320 results, here are a few: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] and many others, proving that the common name for the plan in Hebrew is "תכנית ההתכנסות", aptly translated "Convergence Plan". These are all of the major media outlets, and several other sources. Is that enough for you? okedem 12:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple more - MidEastWeb, and Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. The first is a neutral organization, the second - a left-wing, pro-palestinian rights organization. They both use the word "convergence", and never mention "Hafrada". Are they, too, a part of the "zionist propaganda machine"? okedem 13:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not concede that Qumsiyeh was totally wrong in his statements. I merely conceded that it is true that there is a separate word for "convergence" in Hebrew ("hitkansut" - which actually means "ingathering" more so than "convergence" or "realignment" as it has been translated in English media). I further explained that I don't think Qumisyeh is saying that there is no word for convergence (which is why I went back to the original text and included the entire section of what he said, so as to let the comment stand on its own without my WP:OR interpretation). By the way, IMHO, he's expressing his opinion that "convergence" should actually be called "hafrada" or "separation" since these words more accurately reflect the plans that Israel is implementing. This is a valid position. In any case, it's frankly irrelevant as to whether you think he is wrong or right to express such thoughts. What is relevant to this article, is that a former Yale professor and advocate for a one-state solution has participated in a discussion on peace sponsored by an international NGO, and in that discussion, he specifically referred to Israel's "hafrada" policy and further made a critique of it, that is notable, reliably sourced, and verifiable. You have no argument based on policy here. I encourage you to add material that you believe counters Qumsiyeh's argument, and I ask once again that you cease trying to remove an important viewpoint that should be included to ensure this article's compliance with [WP:NPOV]] and WP:ATT. Tiamut 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As you have often to me, I don't care how you interpret his meaning - what counts is the quote. In the quote he claims that the plan is called "Hafrada" in hebrew, and that the media is incorrectly translating it as "Convergence" ("You probably have heard it mistranslated. In Hebrew it’s called hafrada. Hafrada means literally segregation or separation. But in the worst Israeli propaganda machine at CNN and other news outlets, they use the word 'convergence' - you heard about [Olmert Ehud], Olmert’s convergence. Convergence doesn’t mean anything. What is convergence? It’s not a translation of hafrada.")

By the way, "Hitkansut" is the Hebrew term for the word "Convergence", as used for mathematics and physics ("We can see that the progression converges to a finite sum" = "ניתן לראות כי הטור מתכנס לסכום סופי").

It's not a viewpoint, it's a lie. I'm sorry, if he were to say that he thinks it should be called "segregation", or that Israel is using a misleading name, then fine, it's a legitimate viewpoint, and I don't mind it. But he's making a factual claim, about the name in Hebrew, which I have proven is false. This disqualifies this quote, and means he's not a very reliable source, making such a gross error. okedem 13:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The terminological claim is only one part of the quotation. The first part of the quotation alleges that separation constitutes apartheid. It is followed by the terminological explanation (that you view as making an unfounded claim). But this remains a relevant POV. Perhaps a quote where he expresses this view more clearly can be found, but for the time being, I don't see how the quotation is irrelevant and would ask that you leave where it is. By the way, thanks for adding those sources to the alternate definitions. Tiamut 14:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you wanted to write that here? Because you posted the exact same comment below. okedem 14:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rev still not a reliable source

This has been fleshed out. A religious figure is not a reliable source for this article, just because he is politically active. This is an unwritten rule at all respected encyclopedia's, and in accordance with a written guideline here at wikipedia (Wikipedia:Reliable sources).--Urthogie 13:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, that claim was one of silliest I've seen in a long time. Because the words used have somewhat similar literal meaning, that Hafrada is like Apartheid? Ridicules. Can't any of these people make factual claims? Discuss the actual points of the matter, instead of yelling "Apartheid"? okedem 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, Palestinians think its apartheid because they think the whole land is theirs and is occupied by a "zionist entity". From this perspective, "apartheid" would seem to make sense as an accusation. (of course there's no basis to calling this "apartheid" racist, even if one holds the one-state view. carter acknowledges this) But for those of us who believe in a two-state solution, or that Jewish self-determination and statehood in our ancestral homeland is a valid cause, and support Zionism, this is ridiculous. I just want to point out where they're coming from here, and that they actually have a reason behind their words, even if they are an appeal to ethos and pathos instead of logos.--Urthogie 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I know why they make their claims, but the whole "Apartheid" claim is bogus, and they seem to know it. That's why all the claims remain skin-deep, never going into details. It can be seen by the fact that many can't seem to decide whether they're talking about Arabs in the west bank or in Israel, and seem to refuse to go into details (where details would reveal that the claim is 100% baseless in Israel proper, and is very weak when it comes to the west bank). okedem 14:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you both confusing the issue. Whether or not you agree with the Reverend's characterization is irrelevant. Urthogie, you invocation of WP:ATT here is misapplied. The Reverend is not being cited as an expert in Israeli policy. His POV on the policy however is imminently relevant. He's a Palestinian Christian living in Jerusalem and the leader of the Sabeel Ecumenical Libertaion Theology Center. My inclusion of his opinion does not present it as fact. It is appropriately qualified as a claim. He is enetitled to make such claims and they are definitely notable and worthy of inclusion per WP:NPOV. Tiamut 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If he claimed anything about the actual steps taken, or the goals of the policy, so be it. But his claim is that the words have similar meaning! That is, I'm afraid, a very silly claim, unworthy of mention here. I'm sure you can find a serious claim by him. okedem 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut is correct, however, to observer that a minister is a good representative of a Palestinian Christian view of Hafrada. Perhaps the issue here is not the quote itself, but rather how it is framed as a political "critique", when its more of a notable view. How do you think we could make this more clear in the article?--Urthogie 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The terminological claim is only one part of the quotation. The first part of the quotation alleges that separation constitutes apartheid, which is a political critique. It is followed by the terminological explanation. This is a relevant POV. Perhaps a quote where he expresses this view more clearly can be found, but for the time being, I don't see how the quotation is irrelevant and would ask that you leave where it is. By the way, thanks for adding those sources to the alternate definitions. Tiamut 14:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've renamed the section opposition. Critique aims to adjust a policy, opposition aims to counter it as "racist" "apartheid" etc. I agree the quotation should be kept, but only in its current form as I've edited it, as an example of mass opinion among Arab-Israelis and Palestinians.--Urthogie 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why have you deleted all of the sources from Schueftan?

Urthogie, please explain why you deleted [25] all of the information from Schueftan that is directly relevant to each of the sections I had created on the policy components. I certainly appreciate your recent additions, but they should not replace the information I had added that you deleted.Tiamut 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Accident.--Urthogie 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed blockquotes

Excessive quoting takes away the voice from the article. I've removed a anti-Hafrada and anti-Hamas blockquote each. This is good style.--Urthogie 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Schueftan's blockquotes are too long. We shouldn't be his mouthpiece. Could you summarize him, perhaps, Tiamut?--Urthogie 15:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I will. But I would ask you to stop inserting material you are directly copying from other pages here at Wikipedia. While some material is relevant to the specific sub-plans of the overall separation policy, you cannot cite sources criticising just one aspect of that policy in the opposition section of this paticular article. I would submit that you have to use a source that speaks of "unilateral disenagement", "unilateral separation", "separation policy" or "hafrada" as per the definition in the introduction. Otherwise, this will just become a POV fork. For the record, this is my version before your edits adding material:[26]. I want to note too I added these sections on your suggestion. If they are going to be mere copies of other articles and not relate to the definition articulated and supported by 23 different sources int eh introduction alone, would propose that we delete them so as to avoid unnecessary duplication. I prefer however, that we keep them disciplined, short and on topic. Thanks. Tiamut 15:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[Forgot to mention: you're right about shortening them. We'll do that once the edit conflicts are over, and we've cleared up the issue about keeping stuff that talks about only one of the policies. Soon, I hope.]--Urthogie 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You can add sources criticizing one aspect of the policy. There are two main implementations of this policy, so criticizing one is relevant to the article. Hafrada policy includes Gaza and West Bank operations. Also, your edits to the Palestinian opinion section are incredibly POV. When we quote someone at Wikipedia we try to use "claim" "held" or "argued", not "pointed out". "Pointed out" is not neutral language.--Urthogie 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that over your bombarment on information into this article (after trying to delete much of what was already there) that you deleted the long quotes for Qumsiyeh and Ateek. If I reinsert the material, I will violate 3RR. I very seriously object to the way you've approached editing at this article. I have nonetheless restored the additions you made until we can discuss further. I would would the you would return the gesture by restoring the Ateek and Qumsiyeh quotes in a way that gives them space for proper representation of their views until we agree how to summarize it. Thanks. [27] Specifically, I propose the section be restored with this minor change: Reverend Naim Ateek of Palestinian Christian Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, Sabeel, based in Jerusalem has pointed out that both hafrada and apartheid can be translated as separation; ^[2] though Sabeel and Ateek insist on using the word hafrada itself, rather than apartheid to describe the policy. ^[3] This properly represents the sources. It is incorrect to use "claim" since it is true that separation is one possible meaning of both apartheid and hafrada in English. Thoughts? Tiamut 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

and there is the issue of the qumsiyeh quote which you deleted again. Please restore it so that we can deal with it as per your comments above about Scheuftan. Tiamut 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I'm talking about this: In a discussion on the prospects for peaceful resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict sponsored by The Institute of Strategic and Development Studies, Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, a former Yale professor and geneticist and advocate for a one-state solution, critiqued the hafrada policy as follows:

"If apartheid was the problem in South Africa, why do we think apartheid will be the solution in Israel/Palestine, separation, segregation? Now, Israel today uses a new word. You probably have heard it mistranslated. In Hebrew it’s called hafrada. Hafrada means literally segregation or separation. But in the worst Israeli propaganda machine at CNN and other news outlets, they use the word 'convergence' - you heard about [Olmert Ehud], Olmert’s convergence. Convergence doesn’t mean anything. What is convergence? It’s not a translation of hafrada. Hafrada means segregation, separation; that’s what it means."^[4]

Tiamut 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Read your own comments. You said "I will" in response to my request about blockquotes. This seemed to suggest you supported my clear reasoning.
You say: "It is incorrect to use "claim" since it is true that separation is one possible meaning of both apartheid and hafrada in English." Sorry, but this doesn't cut it. Your argument amounts to the assertion that he's not claiming anything, he's just "pointing out". No, that's not true at all. I disagree with you that he's pointing anything out, and Okedem, and most pro-Israel people would agree with me in this respect. He's not "pointing out" anything. And I'm sticking to this, because this is a guideline here at wikipedia in how we quote things. You may convince me on other points but not this. Noone will be quoted as "pointing out" something. I'll revert any edit that does.--Urthogie 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't shorten the Qumsiyeh quote. It was deleted altogether. And you've deleted huge sections of original material I worked hours to research to include here to plaigarize from another page. Spare me. Tiamut 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the beginning

This article is about a policy called hafrada. The introduction (sourced with 23 separate sources) establishes what that is and what the article is about. I am not in support of duplicating the material in existing articles on the subjects under discussion. This should be a brief overview of the definition of the term hafrada, how it is used in Israel, the origins of the term and policy in Israeli politics, what sub-plans and policies have been established to a form a part of it with a brief summary and links to the relevant articles for more information, how and by whom the term is is used in English, and support and critique directly related to the hafrada policy or separation policy as an overall policy (i.e. noit duplicating arugments for and against in articles on the sub-policies and plans). 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you until your point about critique being limited to the policy as a whole only. If we cover the actual implementation, is it not reasonable to include opposition and criticism of those two implementations in Gaza and West Bank? I agree with you the article should be more in Wikipedia:Summary style, but first I think we need to sort out this disagreement before we got to summarizing the large sections. You could help by fixing that blockquote you said you'd get to, by the way... that would greatly shorten the section it's in.--Urthogie 17:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I’ve fixed the Schueftan quote as per your request and I’ve deleted the foreign governments section which a copy from the Israel’s unilateral disengagement plan (as is most of the stuff you inserted in massive dosages today). The disengagement plan article is already linked to in the body of this article. We don’t need to cut and paste material from there into here. As I explained, this has a more restricted focus so as to avoid becoming a POV fork, we should patrol those lines very vigilantly. I’n going to remove a lot of what you just added (with forethought and consideration). Whatever is plaigarised from other pages is out though. Tiamut 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove it. Copying material is not plagarism, it's all Wikipedia and its allowed.--Urthogie 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I shortened the section on the West Bank barrier. No need to give a summary of the controversy or even include Sschueftan's quote here, because we already flesh that out in seperate public opinion section.--Urthogie 18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need to repeat your insertion of exactly the same material that is at that page Israel's unilateral disengagement here? You've practically copied the entire three sections you added word for word from there when we already like to that article from here. What sense does that make in light of your agreement with the comment I opened this section with? How is this brief in any way? More and more I am beginning to view your edits as "sneaky vandalism". You keep removing new reliably sourced information that you cannot find a policy reason to disallow and bringing in information existent in other articles and littering this one up with redundant garbage. I am asking you again to stop before I request not only an article RfC, but a user RfC. Tiamut 18:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll find that I'm willing to discuss any of my edits based on policy. For example, my most recent one (a removal from the lead) was based on WP:NOR.--Urthogie 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the aplication of WP:NOR in this case. I reinserted the material you deleted on the dictionary definition of hafrada (which was inserted by Okedem) as a footnote and rephrased it. It's not WP:NOR in any way now. It's reliably sourced and attributed and adds to the reader's comprehension of the concept and policy under discussion here.

As for your question here, [28] it's clear to me that you still don't understand what this article is about. You're confusing it as the equivalent of other issues and names. You also ignore that is existed as a concept before being adopted as policy as borne out by the sources cited throughout this article. So there is no contradication. Tiamut 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I meant to put that it was more confusing I guess. Could we clarify how one of them formalized the policy, while the other sort of practiced it before it was formalized?--Urthogie 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear. Are you reading what I'm reading? Could you please remove the "confusing" tag? I'm here and I'm working on this. It's not that this reuqires someone's attention. Tiamut 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The support & criticism section as you have made it after inserting all that reptitive material from the Israel's unilateral disengagement page is totally useless. I deleted it. Instead, I suggest we focus on a section representing the term's usage in English, until we can agree on what would go into a criticism section. There are rationales for the planh provided throughout the text so an additional support section at this juncture in unecessary. Focusing on the English usage of the term is new information that this article can add to Wikipedia's discussion of these issues. Tiamut 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, you (and possibly a small number of activists) appear to have invented the entire "policy of hafrada"; as far as I can tell the Israeli government talks about something else, a policy of disengagement, and doesn't use the term "hafrada". Can you please provide some links to the Israeli government talking about a "policy of hafrada"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been proposed below that Hafrada/archive1 be renamed and moved to Israel's unilateral disengagement plan.

The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.
Maintenance Use Only: {{subst:WP:RM|Hafrada/archive1|Israel's unilateral disengagement plan|}}

Hafrada/archive1

Strange, the press never heard of Hafrada as a "policy":

[29]
[30]
[31] (one notable result, perhaps... that reverend, if he counts?)

Hafrada, to mainstream sources, refers to unilateral disengagement, or sometimes the idea behind it. Schuefman's essay establishes this, the fact that the only examples of Hafrada are disengagement establish this, and lastly, from the article itself, check the sources:

"Other names for this policy when discussed in English include unilateral separation[8][16] or unilateral disengagement.[19][20][21][10][22]"

Notice how this has 7 sources, while the only source for Hafrada as is in a "paradigm of seperation" is based on a Jaffa art display dealing with "Hafrada.":

These profound and uncompromising claims are the focus of the "Hafrada" ("Separation") exhibition, which opens today in the gallery of the Architects Association in Jaffa.[haaretz ]

Throughout the article, hafrada appears in quotes, rather than italics (as accepted translations are printed according to Ha'aretz style guidelines). Note how there is no reference to any policy in of Hafrada in this article. In addition, note what the source is used to reference:

In Israel, the term is used to refer to both the concept or paradigm of separation

One source-- an art show-- is used to make a claim about All of Israel-- politically?! Wow. Weasel away, people!

Now let's look at the sources for "seperation policy" as a definition:

Barak explained hafrada — separation — this way in 1998: “We should separate ourselves from the Palestinians physically, following the recommendation of the American poet Robert Frost, who once wrote that good fences make good neighbors. Leave them behind [outside] the borders that will be agreed upon, and build Israel.”[32]

Ok, so this source gives the hebrew word for separation. Does that make the word notable enough to deserve an article of its own outside of Unilateral disengagement and Israeli West Bank barrier?

The next source does not even contain the word hafrada. It does however have a footnote mentioning the title of Schueftan's book, but I don't see how this means anything more than two shits in regards to sourcing this sentence.

A source from the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions claims that:

Hafrada (Apartheid in Afrikaans) is the official Hebrew term for Israel’s vision and policy towards the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories.

The funny thing is that he never describes this policy whatsoever, and only attempts to contrast and compare it with south African apartheid. He goes on to say it should actually be called nishul-- displacement. That's strange, because everyone else--including pro-Palestinian source-- never use such a broad definition. They never use it to refer to all Israeli policies towards Palestinians. This source is utter bullshit in regards to reliability and clarity, and cannot even take part in deciding the notability of an article on this subject.

And now, my favorite source of all. From the McLaughlin Group:

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue one: Israeli unilateral disengagement. Jews call it hafrada, "separation," in Hebrew. Critics call it apartheid. The more technical neo-nomenclature is, quote, unquote, "unilateral disengagement." It's an idea that has gained ground in Israel.[33]

Nuff said. The more technical nomenclature is "unilateral disengagement". What a lovely source you've added, Tiamut.

The only notable mainstream person (aside from the Christian reverend) to assert a "policy of Hafrada" is Alain Epp Weaver. [34] However, even though he is no proof that there is such a policy, and its merely his POV (which the mainstream press refuses to accept as an accurate definition), its worthy to note that all of his examples deal with various disengagements, which all full under the umbrella of unilateral disengagement and Israeli West Bank barrier which is something to keep in mind as I soon make my suggestion for this page.

Even Mazin B. Qumsiyeh never refers to a policy of Hafrada. He discusses it as a "word used by Israel" and that it is a more accurate description of Olmert's convergence plan:

Now, Israel today uses a new word. You probably have heard it mistranslated. In Hebrew it’s called hafrada. Hafrada means literally segregation or separation. But in the worst Israeli propaganda machine at CNN and other news outlets, they use the word ‘convergence' -- you know heard about Olmert Ehud, Olmert’s convergence.[35]

My suggestion is we make this a disambiguation to unilateral disengagement and Israeli West Bank barrier. The term itself may be notable if it has a significant place in Palestinian or Israeli culture. Perhaps it does. I don't know. But my intuitions tell me based on what I've seen so far that the case for an article of "hafrada" is very shaky. Wikipedia:Notability requires several mainstream news sources covering it to establish notability. What happens when we look at the coverage of "hafrada" when its not used as a synonym for unilateral disengagement and/or Israeli West Bank barrier? It fails this test of notability! It fails it! How about it then, then?-- a disambiguation to unilateral disengagement and Israeli West Bank barrier. I feel like a dunce for putting several good hours into this article, but as you can see I put in a good deal of time into making this point to make up for it. Thank you, --Urthogie 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[36] These latest changes I have made should make clear why a page move is not wise. Jayjg's assertions above that there is no hafrada policy are frankly, bunk. Besides the English language soruces provided throughout the article, I am willing to provide Hebrew sources for those who can read them that prove that hafrada (separation) is distinct from hipardut (disengagement), though they are related and there has been an attempt to conflate them for reasons of spin and semantics. The use of the word Hafrada in English is a notable phenomenon as exhibited in the sources I have provided. I think the article provides a service to the reader in identifying a term that they have and will be coming across in news and reports and making the links between this term and existing Israeli policy and practices. And Urthogie, forgive me, but if you mean by working hard you added a map and vast amounts of material that you copied from existing Wiki articles into this one, deleted and challenged sources for reliability or notability and when that failed, cutting the beef out of their statements, then I agree, you must have worked up a sweat. but as to developing or understanding the article and its contents, I don't think so. Tiamut 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed your recent definitions by editing my post. Please respond now.--Urthogie 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is basically about unilateral disengagement, which is a government policy, and the West Bank barrier, which is called geder hafrada in Hebrew. The combination of the two into a "goverment policy" is basically a creation by you and a very small number of mostly activist sources. If you can't find any actual government references to a "hafrada policy", I'm afraid this mass of WP:UNDUE violating WP:NOR will have to be incorporated into the actual articles on the subjects. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at this, Jayjg:

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue one: Israeli unilateral disengagement. Jews call it hafrada, "separation," in Hebrew. Critics call it apartheid. The more technical neo-nomenclature is, quote, unquote, "unilateral disengagement." It's an idea that has gained ground in Israel.[37]

Tiamut added this in response to my argument that this should be disambiguated to unilateral disengagement.--Urthogie 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I googled "scholar google" a few days ago about "Hafrada": http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hafrada&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search As you can see, there are not that many references, but one of the easely available is...the Ateek article. I just don´t understand why that article is seen as un-notable...can we say that Bishop Tutus viewes on apartheid are not notable...becouse he is a religious person, and not an academic scolar of the subject "apartheid"? What on earth is going on?

Also: has anybody checked the article by Edward Kaufman, Ibrahim Bisharat: "Introducing human rights into conflict resolution: the relevance for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process", in Journal of Human Rights, Volume 1, Number 1/March 01, 2002? ..it says "something" about "hafrada", but I have no idea about whether it is relevant or not. Can somebody check? Regards, Huldra 01:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of the phrase "Hudna Wall", which Tiamut continues to try to promote, is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NEO, among other things; it gets almost no Google hits. On the other hand, Google scholar is not a judge of what is "scholarly"; for example, it also includes the works of David Duke. I'll just ignore the fact that you actually compared Ateek to Tutu, as if they were in any way comparable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the term is used, or that Palestinians view it as "apartheid". This source explains my view. (Tiamut added this source):

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue one: Israeli unilateral disengagement. Jews call it hafrada, "separation," in Hebrew. Critics call it apartheid. The more technical neo-nomenclature is, quote, unquote, "unilateral disengagement." It's an idea that has gained ground in Israel.[38]

We already have a page for this, you see: unilateral disengagement. Criticisms of it as "apartheid" can be added there.

Keep in mind that if you criticize this source you're not criticizing something I added, but something Tiamut added.--Urthogie 01:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie. Your argument is a combination of sophistry and misrepesentation of the sources. From the beginning, you have opposed most of the information I tried to include in this article, despite it's being reliably sourced, notable, and relevant to the topic at hand. Anyone can review this talk page and history of these pages and it will be clear that once you realized you could not disqualify the sources for inclusion that you chose to confuse the issue being discussed in the article by pasting masses of text from the Israel's unilateral disengagement plan article into this one.

Let's begin with your straw man argument about the McLaughlin Group source being proof that this article is actually discussing the unilateral disengagement from Gaza, the fallacies you have put forward will become clear. Did you notice the date of the source? It's May-June 2002. Sharon did not propose his disengagement plan from Gaza until December 2003, (A fact that was once noted in the article before that section was deleted in one of your edits - though you can read it in the Zawya article).

In other words, the source proves that "unilateral disengagement" in the sense it is being used here (and in the other sources I have added, particularly those of Schueftan) is the equivalent of hafrada, and not Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza (which was a one-time plan or sub-policy of the broader hafrada policy/paradigm. This is further borne out by the very title of Schueftan's book (or did you not notice?). "Korah Ha'hafrada" in the title is translated as "Disengagement" by some sources, and "The Need for Separation" by others. (A fact also noted in the article)

In sum, your proposal to merge this information with Israel's unilateral disengagement plan completely ignores the material in the sources cited and conflates a sub-policy/plan with the meta-policy/paradigm.

On a personal note, I certainly don't know what you've being doing all these hours you claim to have been working on improving this article. You certainly haven't been reading. There have been too many "accidents" and "misunderstandings" to chalk up to mere oversight or incompetency. I don't like to make accusations of bad faith, but I don't think this proposal for a move is motivated by "encyclopedic" considerations.

The term hafrada is in use and refers to a major Israeli government policy. It is certainly notable. The article is much better sourced than most at Wikipedia - 22 sources for six sentences in the introduction alone as a result of you and Jayjg constantly tagging things and deleting them if I didn't jump to provide a source. And if I may say so, I'm quite proud of the results so far. There's always room for improvement and I look forward to working with serious editors on further developing it.Tiamut 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of what you just said is a combination of describing my arguments in terms of bad adjectives("sophistry","straw man"), criticizing my editing style ("you claim to have been working on improving this article"), and assumptions of bad faith ("I don't think this proposal for a move is motivated by encyclopedic considerations").

Your only actual point related to this argument, and not dealing with criticizing my editing style or motvations, is this:

In other words, the source proves that "unilateral disengagement" in the sense it is being used here (and in the other sources I have added, particularly those of Schueftan) is the equivalent of hafrada, and not Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza (which was a one-time plan or sub-policy of the broader hafrada policy/paradigm. This is further borne out by the very title of Schueftan's book (or did you not notice?). "Korah Ha'hafrada" in the title is translated as "Disengagement" by some sources, and "The Need for Separation" by others. (A fact also noted in the article)

You argument amounts to the idea that "Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2003/2004/2005 doesn't equal Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2002." This, even if it is true, is original research on your part. Who are you to say that a plan's ideological precursor is somehow seperate from its execution, even though they have same exact name and are seperated by only a year or two? Oh, supposedly, you have the authority to say "this unilateral disengagement" is different from this one despite all of the similarities. Nope. At best, the original info in this article should be incorporated into an "ideological precursors" or something like that section of unilateral disengagement. Clearly, though, it doesn't deserve it's own article anymore than the next POV fork that overlaps 99%.

In short, your only actual point here is false. You have no honest argument left, and you've debunked yourself with your own source. All that really remains is clarifications like the one I'm doing here to explain to you. By the way, please avoid commenting on my editing style and assuming bad faith. I'd like to move the discussion forward, rather than stall it by focusing on editors rather than edits. If you continue to do so I'll just stop responding to criticisms of my editing style and only respond to your points, as I've attempted to do (somewhat) here. Is there any other logical point you'd like to raise, either in response or seperate from this? If so, I eagerly await it, and I won't edit the page itself for now because I'm quite sure my points here will gain consensus.--Urthogie 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding, Urthogie? Do you think people are really so stupid that they don't understand the difference between "unilateral disengagement" or "unilateral separation" as proposed in Schueftan's (Korah Ha'hafrada:Disengagement) book and adopted as government policy (as borne out by mutliple sources in the article), and a one-time plan to pull-out from Gaza that was also named "unilateral disengagement plan"? I agree that the language can get confusing. But the section you quoted from the article only again proves my point. That article is about a one-time event, not an overall policy of hafrada as proposed by Schueftan and adopted by the government. You either have no clue what the distinction is because you have read the sources, or you do not seriously want to consider the point. Tiamut 02:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I now see you other comment and apologize for the harsh comments. But my point stands, this page is not about Israel's unilateral disenagement plan. It is about Hafrada, a larger policy of unilateral disengagement or unilateral separation. The sources bear it out. I welcome a review too. Tiamut 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Which government source discusses a "hafrada policy"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In the sources I have provided, Daniel Schueftan (the title of his book Korah ha'hafrada), Ehud Barak (who campaigned on the separation slogan as early as 1998). Gershon & Baskin note that the policy outlined in Schueftan's book was adopted by Israel's National Security Council where Schueftan served as an advisor. He served as an advisor to Sharon as well. If you want sources directly from the government (as in official statements, laws, etc), give me a couple of days to locate and translate Hebrew-language sources. The Israeli government doesn't use the word separation or hafrada in English anymore: it has PR packing for the policy now, as noted by Qumsiyeh. But it is used by some journalists and activists nonetheless. Tiamut 03:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree that a policy of separation has definitely existed, although I think you're still missing my main point. The Unilateral disengagement plan -- based on its usage by sources-- refers not only to the actions taken, but also the ideological build up since 1998. It is actually relatively easy to make an article about both; unilateral disengagement is the place to do this.

This approach I'm suggesting is not based on original research, but rather on sources which make clear the connection between the "unilateral disengagement" of 2002 and that of the years 2003/2004/2005. Several such sources can be found and I'll quickly find them for you if you request them. The unilateral disengagement and its ideological developments (which are also refered to as the "unilateral disengagement plan", and alternatively as "Hafrada") all fit pretty seamlessly into a neat timeline. Ideologies develop, changing as practical concerns arise.

In light of the Wikipedia policies, we need to keep in mind what matters here. What matters is that in the mainstream both the policy and the plan's execution have been referred to primarily as "unilateral disengagement", not Hafrada. Sources confirm this-- it's an undeniable fact. The split-off of a Hafrada article is therefore extremely artificial for this reason as well, as okedem observed earlier as well. To summarize, both because of the emphasis on unilateral disengagement in describing "hafrada" in the mainstream media, and the fact that there is a neat timeline between both uses of "unilateral disengagement", I highly suggest you consider entertaining the benefits of a single unilateral disengagement article.

[Update: I notice you've pasted the article in response. I must remind you that most of this article is here because I foolishly thought this wasn't a POV fork. Remove the copied text I added, taken from other articles, and everything that remains is fair game for the unilateral disengagement article.] --Urthogie 03:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I object to you removing my last comments directly addressing the points you raised. [39] I am also quite flabbergasted by the attempts to deny that hafrada is a notable term that exists and that this article is well-sourced, brief and fairly discusses the phenomenon of the word's use and its relationship to current Israeli policies and practices. This article was purposely conflated by you with Israel's unilateral disengagement plan and then when you realized it was not the same thing, you tried to claim that it this should actually be called "unilateral disengagement" and that all of this material should be moved into an article under theat title- even though the phenomenon never seemed notable to you before, nor did you even seem to be aware of it. If the sources I have provided, over half of which use the term Hafrada, are insufficient in making the case for its existence as a government policy, how can you claim that such a policy exists as "unilateral disengagement"? Further, this article doesn't only discuss "unilateral disengagement" (another straw man argument. It discusses the use of the term Hafrada in Israel and outside Israel. It is a notable phenomenon and it deserves representation in its own article. I would further note that this article existed as a Wiktionary stub, a good one at that, and it had a notice on it to expand it. Here it is! and I don't think it any way merits deletion. If you want to write an article on "unilateral disengagement and add a link to Hafrada or move to incorporate it as a section there later, that would be fine. But considering the massive effort we have put into editing this article and the level of quality it has achieved, I think it should to be left to stand on its own for a while, and be reviewed after the "unilateral disengagement" article you now want to create gets written. Tiamut 03:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, you've misread me. When I say "unilateral disengagement" I'm referring to an article Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. It's just a short way of saying it. No new article should be created. I'm not suggesting that.

Ok, so let's examine if there really is a significant enough distinction between:

A)"Israel's unilateral disengagement plan" (or specific elements thereof, such as Gaza and West Bank [see current article for what goes under this point "A]")
B)The developments of a policy of unilateral disengagement, ie, ideas/policies leading up to the implementation of "Israel's unilateral disengagement plan". ("Hafrada", you would say)

..to warrant seperate articles.

Now, your sources use "Israel's unilateral disengagement plan" in reference to both A and B. In addition, one of your sources makes explicitly clear that "Hafrada" means B. So clearly, if A and B are connected-- one subject, then B is just part of A.

So this begs the question-- is A connected to B?--Are they a single cohesive subject when connected together?

Well, I would say that the answer is yes, for two reasons:

The 2002 vs 2003/4/5 distinction is your original research, attempting to prove that the same exact phrase has a new meaning over the course of a single year or maybe two or three. Could you attribute this argument to anyone-- that the phrase means something new after a year or two or three? Nope. That's why it's original research.
Established sources which treat the development of "Israel's unilateral disengagement plan" as a history that dates back to 1998 and even earlier than that without ever mentioning Hafrada.

My suggestion is to move the original content of this article, which deals with B, to the Israel's unilateral disengagement plan article, which already deals with and contains A. This will be a seamless operation, obviously, because they're so clearly connected. You are yet to issue a rejoinder to my points in defense of this proposition, instead your argument relies on the idea that this page's existence is justified by being well sourced, being on Wiktionary, etc-- as if a page that shouldn't exist couldn't be all of those things.

Please respond to these specific points I've raised here, in a logically progressive fashion. I promise I'll read you in full, even 3 times, but please please just focus on the points I'm raising in this here reply, rather than rehashing the old ones. Thank you, --Urthogie 05:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are making a false equation between a specific plan put forward by Sharon (Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza) and the larger policy of "hafrada", "unilateral separation" or "unilateral disengagement". Merging this article into that one, would not be "a seamless operation" at all. Over half the sources listed in this article discuss a policy/paradigm of hafrada and its use in English. The hafrada article in its current state includes some information of Israel's unilateral disengagment plan (clearly outlining its relationship to the larger policy of hafrada or "unilateral separation/disenagement"), but it does not discuss only this, nor does it discuss this in any significant detail (leaving that issue to the page that discuss this sub-policy/plan). The article hafrada also discusses the origins of the hafrada policy and the use of the word in non-Hebrew languages today. I do not understand how this information does not warrant ana article of its own. Finally, you have acknowledged that these sources are reliable. You claim it is original research for me to speculate that the "unilateral disengagement from gaza" and "unilateral disengagement as an overall policy" are two different things. Yet you have not provided a source that support your interpretation that Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza and the overall policy of "unilateral disengagement" are equivalents. You have also ignored the sources currently cited in the article like Weaver's from 2007, which clearly state that Sharon's unilateral disenagement was simply one part of the overall hafrada policy:

Us here, them there." That was the blunt election slogan of Ehud Barak, the former Labor Party leader, in his successful bid to be Israel's Prime Minister back in 1999, and it was the banner he raised during peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Barak's subsequent failure in his re-election campaign against Ariel Sharon did not mean the defeat of his separationist policies. They continued in the form of Sharon's "unilateral separation," or "disengagement," plan, which, when Sharon lapsed into a coma, morphed into Ehud Olmert's "convergence" plan. Regardless of the policy name or the political party in power, the strategic goal has been fundamentally the same, a goal summed up by Olmert in 2003 when he was serving as deputy Prime Minister as "Maximum Jews, minimum Arabs." (1) This demographic imperative has a territorial corollary: seize as much land and as many aquifers as possible while absorbing a minimal number of Palestinians. These strategic demographic and territorial goals give birth to a policy of hafrada, Hebrew for separation. Israel's concrete walls and electrified fences, its networks of checkpoints, its roadblocks, its settlement expansion and connecting settlement roads--all separate Palestinian from Israeli, while also severing Palestinians from each other and from land and natural resources, leaving them circumscribed by what historian Rashid Khalidi has aptly termed an "iron cage." (2)

How can this information be put "seamlessly" into an article of one sub-plan (Israel's unilateral disengagement plan). How is this at all logical? Tiamut 13:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel's unilateral disengagement plan does not just deal with Gaza. Hafrada is another word for the policy leading up to this unilateral disengagement plan. What is your reasoning as to why this merge would not be seamless? By the way, no source is required for the view that a phrase means the same thing two years later, rather , a source is required to explicitly counter this assumption-- something you've failed to provide. The information in the blockquote above can be put in a section on how the idea developed-- from barak to sharon to olmert. --Urthogie 14:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but now you're just bs-ing people. This is an article about the use of the term Hafrada, both in Israel and in English. The vast majority of the sources use the term Hafrada itself, and not "unilateral disengagement". The article explains that Hafrada is the name of the wider separation policy of the Israeli government (fully sourced, though you keep ignoring or misrepresenting the contents of those sources). It also outlines how this term is used in English. I recently also added a Hebrew-language source that definitively confirms that there is a Hafrada policy (the word Hafrada, "separation", is used - as distinct from "Hiknatkut" or "Hipardut" which are the words for "disenagement" in Hebrew). [40] Notice that the dictionary definition of hafrada (which you tried to delete) does not translate "hafrada" as "disengagement". You are mixing apples with oranges, my friend. I've made my case in the extensive sourcing in the article. Feel free to write an article on "unilateral disengagement" that includes a link to this page. This article is about Hafrada, the term, its use in Israel and here. It's notable, relevant, well-sourced with reliable sources and you have no reason to move it, other than to deny people information to this concept/policy and its use. Tiamut 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think this in an article about "the use of the term of hafrada"? If so, why does it instead delve into a lengthy discussion of some imaginary "hafrada" policy. Why would Wikipedia have an article on the use of a foreign term anyway? It hardly seems a notable or well-known term. Please keep in mind as well that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If this article is about "the use of the term hafrada", then it's a strong candidate for deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no point trying to gain consensus with you at this point, you're accusing me of BS'ing. Back to pure edits then.--Urthogie 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this page tagged as Lacking Sources

when there are over 30 sources listed and practically every sentence has a footnote? Tiamut 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Because none of them seem to point to an official "hafrada policy", which is what this article is theoretically about. Most of them instead discuss the official disengagement policy, or mention the "separation fence". A very small number of activist sources claim some sort of idea, or policy, or mastermind. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed sentence #1

Now let's look at the sources for "seperation policy" as a definition:

Barak explained hafrada — separation — this way in 1998: “We should separate ourselves from the Palestinians physically, following the recommendation of the American poet Robert Frost, who once wrote that good fences make good neighbors. Leave them behind [outside] the borders that will be agreed upon, and build Israel.”[41]

Ok, so this source gives the hebrew word for separation, but never says it's a formal policy.

From the McLaughlin Group, no mention of a "policy", except in regards to a seperate issue,

expulsion -- or, euphemistically, "transfer."

which is not used to mean hafrada. therefore, this source does not confirm a "seperation policy".

Even Mazin B. Qumsiyeh never refers to a policy of Hafrada. He discusses it as a "word used by Israel" and that it is a more accurate description of Olmert's convergence plan:

Now, Israel today uses a new word. You probably have heard it mistranslated. In Hebrew it’s called hafrada. Hafrada means literally segregation or separation. But in the worst Israeli propaganda machine at CNN and other news outlets, they use the word ‘convergence' -- you know heard about Olmert Ehud, Olmert’s convergence.[42]

In the end, only two sources ever refer to a seperation policy, and only one of them is mainstream.[43]

This is not enough to source this part of the sentence..:

...the separation policy the Israeli government has adopted and implemented

One mainstream opinion + one fringe opinion does not equal "adopted and implemented" government policy. Sentence removed.--Urthogie 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew source I provided you with today does, as does the Weaver source, as does the Baskin source, the Rozenman source, and on and on. Nevertheless, I realized that the English language sources and Hebrew sources I have so far provided do not link the Israeli Gaza Strip barrier directly to the hafrada policy. I believe they are related, but that's my WP:OR opinion, (at least until I can find a source). So, I've removed it from the listing of policy components. I've also clarified the language in the introduction a little better per the sources provided. Tiamut 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but can you please show me the blockquotes aside from the two I mentioned (one mainstream, one not) that mention a policy of separation? Please do this before editing the sentence. Good point about Israeli Gaza Strip barrier, by the way. --Urthogie 17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to restore my last version of the introduction here: [44] You deleted two reliable sources, one of which directly establishes the hafrada policy; i.e. Ben Shani's article with the headline is "The Result of the Hafrada Policy is Quiet in Hebron, But All Await the Storm" or (in Hebrew: מדיניות ההפרדה הביאה שקט לחברון, אך כולם מחכים לסערה) from the Nana.co.il Magazine [url=http://www.nana.co.il/article/?articleID=423192&sid=126]. Please self-revert. Tiamut 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is "Ben Shani", what is the "nana" website, and what makes either a reliable source regarding Israeli government policy? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nana.co.il is one of the most popular online news sources in Israel. The words "hafrada policy" are in the headline on an article on closure in Hebron. What's so difficult to understand here? Tiamut 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the headline says "hafrada policy". Now, who is "Ben Shani", and what makes this particular website reliable? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, it is a notable website per "Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets", considering its popularity in light of its google page rank and links inward etc, and press coverage in Israel's mainstream press. However, it's original research for Tiamut to translate Hafrada as "seperation" here. A hebrew dictionary source provided by Tiamut gives the following translations of "Hafrada":

separation, parting, severance, segregation, intervenience, maceration, scission, sunder, dialysis, disarticulation, disassociation, disintegration, disjointedness, divorce; resolution; analysis.[45]

It therefore cannot be a source for "separation policy", which is what this whole talk page section is about-- a specific sentence which talks about Hafrada being "separation policy."

Now, let's move onto the second question beyond the relatively minor question of this section-- i.e: Does this source support the idea of Hafrada as a seperate policy from Israel's unilateral disengagement policy/plan? The answer is no, because of the several sources that disagree with such a sentiment. Here's one of them, added by Tiamut:

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue one: Israeli unilateral disengagement. Jews call it hafrada, "separation," in Hebrew. Critics call it apartheid. The more technical neo-nomenclature is, quote, unquote, "unilateral disengagement." It's an idea that has gained ground in Israel.

The argument issued by Tiamut earlier, that the meaning somehow changed from 2002 to 2007 is unsourced, and for a good reason, too-- no one makes this argument except her. Every reliable source available regards this policy as a timeline of ideological development of unilateral disengagement policy early on to the actual unilateral disengagement in effect today.--Urthogie 18:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] preemptive explanation of edit

My edit here [46] was done because this sentence is redundant with the sentence on "components". Mainly a style issue, to be concise.--Urthogie 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed sentence #2

"Other names for this policy when discussed in English include unilateral separation."

First reference:Jonathan Cook (May 11, 2006). Israel's Road to "Convergence" Began with Rabin: A Short History of Unilateral Separation. Counterpunch.

Aside from aruably not being a reliable source for definitions, this source does not have the word Hafrada in it.

Second reference: Neil Sandler (11 March 2002). Israel: A Saudi Peace Proposal Puts Sharon in a Bind. Business Week Online.

Does not contain the word Hafrada.

Third reference: [47]

Refers to Hafrada as "seperation", but never as "unilateral seperation". The former is the "paradigm"/"word"/"idea", while the latter is the action, as far as usage in this article would go. When it uses the phrase "unilateral seperation" it does not call it Hafrada. Only the word "Separation" gets that.--Urthogie 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing sources. I have asked you to stop many times now. Removing a source like the third example you cited that contains the word hafrada and is from a policy institute constitutes vandalism. Thank you. Tiamut 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not enough to contain the word "hafrada"; it also has to be about an official "hafrada policy". You've built a house of cards here with your original research, and it's all starting to collapse under closer examination; false accusations of "vandalism" hold no water here either. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to leave editing right now because I have a dinner date. But I am asking you to stop making false accusations yourself and to review the edit that I have asked Urthogie to restore. We need mediation here. You and Urthogie have opposed all evidence provided and changes made to accomodate your concerns. The viewpoint of other editors would be appreciated. Tiamut 18:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is that everything a policy institute talks about must be a policy? I'm not trying to argue against a straw man but I don't see what other point you could have here in defense of source 3. Remember, it's not considered vandalism to remove an inadequately sourced statement. My simple analysis of these sources shows that they do nothing to source the sentence in question. --Urthogie 18:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major overhaul

I've added some new sources and made some other organizational and terminological changes. Please review throughly before readding WP:OR tag. Also, please do not delete any sourced statements without asking me about them here first. I can work on reformulations, but I do not appreciate having completely valid sources relevant to the topic being discussed removed altogether just because you disagree about how I have paraphrased their contents. Please be discerning in you comments and respectful of the work of others. Thank you. Tiamut 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I oppose any major overhaul unless it addresses our concerns, which show how your sources completely don't backup the current sentences. If you can fix that problem you don't have to worry about being reverted. In fact, I suggest you discuss your new changes here first.--Urthogie 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For those with eyes that see, I urge them to review my edits in this diff: [48]
For those whose ears that might hear, let me spell it out for you step-by-step:
1) In the first paragraph, I fixed a spelling mistake, which Urthogie has reverted back into existence everytime he has rejected my edits.
2) In the second paragraph, I reintroduced the policy reference but qualified it as follows since some refuse to acknowledge that it is policy despite the many sources provided both in this paragraph and throughout the text. So here is my compromise offer:
In Israel, the term is used to refer to concept of separation,[49] and to the general policy or paradigm of separation the Israeli government has adopted and implemented vis-a-vis the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.With these sources to back it up:

[50] (Barak ran on campaign of “hafrada” and distributed Schueftan’s book Korah Ha’”hafrada” to his ministers – 2001)
[51] (“policy” of “hafrada” as “apartheid”)
*[52] ("hafrada" as "policy" – 2007)
[53] Olmert’s policy of “convergence”, actually “policy” of “hafrada”
[54] (“hafrada” as “idea” with neotehnical nomenclature of “unilateral disengagement – 2002
[55] (“hafrada” as “policy” – 2006 Hebrew news site)

3) Then I took some of the items that were already listed in the “Usage of the term” section that had managed to survive removals by Urthogie and Jayjg and moved them into the body of the article under the section Origins.

4) I also added this paragraph based on a new source: In February 2001, Meir Indor, Lieutenant Colonel in the Israeli army exaplined how "hafrada (separation) – they are there and we are here)" had become the "new ideology" and "new word for those who fantastize about peace." [56] Indor was highly critical of Sharon’s proposed peace agreement put forward during his campaigning for the 2001 elections in which Sharon claimed he would provide "peace and security" by making "a hafrada the length and breadth of the land." [57] Indor stated that in his opinion, "If it were possible to make a hafrada, it would have been done a long time ago." Indor also noted that, "Binyamin Ben Eliezer himself said hafrada is impossible to implement." [58]
5) I took out some repetitive material.
6) And I readded this - * The Geder Ha'hafrada is known in some activist and ecumencial circles as the Hafrada Wall. with these sources [59]] [60] [61] -
because I fully disagree with Jayjg. It’s not WP:UNDUE. The article’s name is hafrada. It discusses the origin of the terms and it’s use both in Israel and abroad. It’s fully relevant, reliably sourced and notable and included in a section offering examples of the term’s use in English. It’s Catholic World News, the Christian World Service and the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center all using the term the Hafrada Wall. The article’s name is Hafrada. It’s not rocket science. It should stay. Tiamut 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I also added a paragraph on Rabin's building of the Gaza fence based on info and source I found at the Israeli West Bank barrier article. I don't have Schueftan's book Korah Hafrada, but from the reviews and articles on the subject provided as sources, he had a favourable opinion of Rabin's separation stance. Rabin also used the word separation in the quote provided. I will find a Hebrew language quote for that that has the original hafrada, if it's inclusion without it poses a problem. Tiamut 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know you've amassed a huge list of sources with the word Hafrada in them. The fact that you've completely ignored my criticisms of these sources, and just attempted to bombard the talk page with them, rather than logically progressing from my analyses, shows that you're ignoring what I'm saying.

For one example of how you ignore even the most apparent flaws in your use of sources, take the example of how you still use an article on an art fair as a source for what an entire nation regards as a policy.[62] For another example, how about the source you have kept which doesn't even have "hafrada" in its text.[63] For yet another example, you continue to use sources which use Hafrada synonymously with Israel's unilateral disengagement plan or Olmert similar convergence plan. One would think that such sources are actually strong arguments against the notability of Hafrada, as it would appear in those cases to be merely a synonym of other subjects for which we already have pages on Wikipedia.

The question here isn't whether you have sources but whether those sources are adequate for the sentences. They're not, as I've shown, and as you are yet to show otherwise. Feel free to making spelling fixes, but if that vast majority of your edit doesn't logically progress from this discussion, expect to get reverted, as such edits have nothing even resembling consensus.

One would think that if you wanted consensus you would acknowledge at least one of my criticisms of your sources. Nope. Your tactic seems to be to find as many sources with the word hafrada in them as possible, and drown out users who point out that 90% of them aren't adequate. If you realy want your edits to stay, try to actually show you're taking criticisms by other users into consideration, rather than describing their motives as sinister. Please finish this discussion before making further big changes to the article.--Urthogie 23:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Said the goose to the gander. I have been more than patient here. I would point out that between the time I posted my explanation of my edits above, and the time it took you to post your rejection of them and my edits, lapsed a total of four minutes. That's really rather amazing. You managed to read my comment, explore the over 10 hyperlinks provided, dismiss the sources as the same ones and unreliable, and compose your response - all in four minutes! One would think if you were really interested in dialogue you would spend a little more time considering comments that I take the time to put some thought into and the edits I make. Tiamut 23:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't need to explore the majority of the hyperlinks, almost all of them are old. I looked at the new ones. It doesn't take very long to address mainly old, slightly added to arguments.--Urthogie 23:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's your arguments that are old. Nothing I provide you with makes the grade and you use the same recycled propaganda over and over.

A lieutenant colonel in the Israeli army explaining how Sharon was promising hafrada as peace to the voters in 2001 is not relevant to you? Or Barak campaigning on a platform of hafrada before him?

The title of Schueftan's book with the word hafrada in it? That the book inspired the paradigm/policy as cited by mutliple sources in the article?

Further:

[64] This source which you've raised no real issue against which describes "hafrada" as "policy" – 2007
[65] (and this is the Israeli newspaper source from 2006 that has the words "Hafrada policy" 2006 Hebrew news site)
How can your explain your opposition to my latest edit? Tiamut 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, I notice you now, "partially reverted" my edits. But you re-introduced the same spelling mistake again which leads me to believe you're not reading at all. This has now seriously crossed theline into vandalism. I ask that you self-revert and discuss the lead with me as it is in my edit here: [66]Tiamut 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you wanted your argument to be stronger you'd focus on your strongest sources. But you're not doing that. How about you stop using the sources that I have shown to be weak (or even ridiculous) for the sentences they were used for, and keep the stronger ones, instead, like the thefreelibrary source. We can work from there and gain consensus. This is a chance for you to show that you don't think your sources are perfect, and I have an even 1% correct argument. It's your chance to show you are working for consensus, and not assuming bad faith. Sorry about removing your spelling fix. How does this sound for a compromise?--Urthogie 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, with all due respect, you haven't shown those other sources to be weak. I just didn't bring them up again, because I'm trying to focus on the the things we have in common and the two which you seem to be conceding are reliable enough. But I'm not ready to agree for the others (espcially things like the Policy Review article [67] which uses the term) to be deleted from the article just because you claim that they're not authoritative subjects on the matter. Further, this article is also about the usage of the term hafrada in English, so some people quoted may not be reliable sources for establishing that this is Israeli policy, but they certainly are notable and relevant in illustrating the term's use. Tiamut 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we "delete them from the article" and don't use them whatsoever in it. Most of them, are in fact from notable media outlets. That's why I'm only suggesting we remove them from sentences which I have shown they don't adequately source, not from the entire article.--Urthogie 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose then, that you restore my edit, but remove the sources you think do not belong where they are and paste them with their code here so that it's clear what they are and we can work to find the place they do belong. Tiamut 00:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that when I remove the sources I don't think source those sentences, there are no sources left for Hafrada as "unilateral separation" or as a "seperation policy", and only one or two mainstream sources ever referring to it as a policy at all.

So before we continue, can you add any sources under the following types/categories:

Hafarada as "unilateral separation"

Hafrada as "separation policy"

Hafrada as a "policy" (But not as a synonym for unilateral disengagement policy which already has its page, or convergence plan which already has its page too)

This seems like the best way to approach it before we continue. Once we gain consensus over what falls under these categories, we'll agree on which of the sentences in the lead should stay. I'll comment under them if I disagree with you adding them to a certain one of these lists.--Urthogie 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is good to start. But I'd like you to acknowledge that my edit speaks of a policy/paradigm, because there seems to be disagreement surrounding whether to characterize it as one policy, or a set of policies that fall under the rubrick of hafrada. And I'd still like you to restore me edit until we sort this all out for I can see all the sources. Also, please consider this new source[68] from the Executive Legal Director of The Society of St Yves, Catholic Legal Resource and Human Rights Center in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, in an alert on conditions for Christians in the West Bank which states: "The confinement of Christians and all Arabs to Palestinian micro-areas – ghettos or "palestans" - is the implementation of the new political and economic dispensation of Oslo: hafrada in Hebrew and apartheid in Afrikaans. This is part of the continuing Zionist policies of all Israeli government to make the Jewish state as free of non-Jews as possible. For all governments this covers "Greater Israel" which means all of Palestine west of the Jordan river." IT's certainly partisan, but she is the Executive Legal Dreictor of a center in the area these events are occurring in. What do you think? Should we add a new category to your list above under "hafrada is used to refer to a set of policies"? Or would you prefer that such partisan sources be left to the exampls for usage section? Tiamut 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be towards the latter, in the examples section. Something to consider though, perhaps not now, but eventually, is that the examples section may eventually becom too large, forcing us to select the most notable uses.--Urthogie 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So you agree the term's usage is an established phenomena now? Tiamut 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know if I'd call it a "phenomena", but it surely is used by notable sources. In regards to notability, though, I still have some issues with it because I think it is only notable in regards to Israel's unilateral disengagement plan and the ideas and developments leading up to it. So, I think this page should deal mainly with the various ways its used as a term... to me, the sources seem to suggest it's used in a variety of ways -- too wide to deal with it in any other way than showing how its used by examples and summarizing what these people to have to say about it. Otherwise, we're basically having people give opinions on completely different things. Some are talking about specific plan, some aren't.--Urthogie 01:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As per your comments above, I italicized the sentences most relevant to policy, and propose that our job is to represent the term's use by notable sources, how they use it and what it means - which is what I have been trying to do from the beginning. I ask that you withdraw your request to move this page to Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, remove the original research tag (which is totally misplaced), and preferably, as I have asked many times now, restore my last edit [69] so that we can use it as a starting point for further changes as the discussion develops below. I would consider this a good faith gesture that would be much appreciated after everything we've been through. Thank you. Tiamut 02:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To save space I've removed the quotes as we can all read the links, of course. Also, I won't be making any major changes to the page until the discussion of those sources below is complete.--Urthogie 04:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] uses and sources

Note: Striked-out sources have been discarded.

Hafarada as "unilateral separation"

~~[70]~~ This article says Hafrada is the Hebrew word for "separation", not "unilateral separation". It talks about the latter, but never says its "Hafrada". Also, as Jayjg noted, this never talks about a policy, and its original research for us to call it a "political platform" or "political meme", too. Crossed out.--Urthogie 03:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Does not indicate it is a policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
When combined with the usage of the term hafrada in the soruce below to refer to charon's electoral campaign platform it sets of hafrada as a political platform upon two which successive Israeli prime ministers ran. If you want to be picky and call it a political platform or politicl meme, as regards these two soruces judged alone, that's fine. There are others below. Tiamut 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(2001) ~~[71]~~ I have to disagree with Jayjg on it being a reliable source, as it is a reliable source being interviewed and this can thus be acceptable per Wikipedia's reliable sources rules. However, if you actually look at the interview there is no mention of "unilateral separation" anywhere, hell the word "unilateral" is not even in there (nor is the word "policy", by the way). It's original research to say he's "really" talking about it when there's no such quote. Original research, I remind you, goes against Wikipedia's policies. It's just an article that has the hebrew word hafrada translated to one of its many english equivelants, in this case, separation. I'm crossing it out because the phrase has to actually appear in a source to be used for the claim that sentence makes, and it doesn't do that here in the least.--Urthogie 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

beismoshiach.org? A reliable source? You must be joking. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hafrada as set of separation policies

(2007)[72]

What is "thefreelibrary.com"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you joking? It's an archival source. The article was published in the Crosscurrents journal (as noted on the web page). This source meets current guidelines and policies regarding reliability. Do you have an argument regarding its content, or is this it?Tiamut 02:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut is right here about archives not disqualifying a source. However, one might ask how much a religion magazine should be treated as a reliable source for politics. The article, by the way is written by a man whose only credentials appear to be that he is a representative of the Mennonite Central Committee, a Mennonite religious organization. "MCC strives for peace, justice and the dignity of all people by sharing our experiences, resources and faith in Jesus Christ."[73] It might be a reliable source for a religion article, but upon further research I don't think it's a reliable source for politics in the least bit, but rather a well sourced opinion article by a pro-Palestinian religious representative. --Urthogie 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(2006) [74]

Schlomka? We've been through this before. This Israeli businessman/activist, allegedly re-printed in the non-reliable source "Common Dreams", is not an expert on government policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
He doesn't have to be. He's an ISraeli citizen and familiar with his government's policies through his life as a citizen and as an activist. I don't agree with your arugment. Tiamut 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? One becomes an expert on government policy by virtue of being a "citizen"? We might as well throw WP:ATT out entirely, if you insist on that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jayjg -- it's not a reliable source or person in regards to this subject. According to Tiamut's logic, Brad Pitt, as a notable American citizen, can offer a reliable opinion on the Cold War if he writes a detailed enough article on it and gets it published in a small magazine or journal.--Urthogie 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hafrada as a "policy" (But not as a synonym for unilateral disengagement policy which already has its page, or convergence plan which already has its page too)

[75]

Real sources please, not Google caches. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Where in Wiki policy does it say that "google chaches" are not a "real source". It's a Microsoft Word document in its Itnernet onlne version. A google chace is just fine. Again, do you have an argument, or is this it? Tiamut 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I must agree with Tiamut that an archive doesn't disqualify a source. However, this source doesn't cut it whatsoever -- it's an opinion article by a far-left Israeli activist organization. Since when do such organizations, from their opinion articles alone, have the power to act as a source for the nature and description of "Israel’s vision and policy towards the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories"? And since when do such organizations, from their opinion articles alone, have the ability to act as a source for how Israeli's use the word "Hafrada". The answer to both questions is never. One small NGO can speak for neither the Israel government, nor Israelis. I oppose the use of this source for this given sentence.--Urthogie

(2006) [76]

An unknown on a website. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, you don't seem to have an argument. This is a mainstream Israeli online news source that speaks of a "hafrada policy" in its headline. As I said above, this is Ben Shani's article with the headline "The Result of the Hafrada Policy is Quiet in Hebron, But All Await the Storm" or (in Hebrew: מדיניות ההפרדה הביאה שקט לחברון, אך כולם מחכים לסערה) from the Nana.co.il Magazine [77]. Tiamut 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Stop denying reality. Tiamut 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Jayjg-- this news site is definitely notable[78], and therefore this source is notable. However, does this article distinguish Hafrada whatsoever from the realignment policy or "convergence policy" of Olmert? If not, this is further evidence for a disambiguation to that page.--Urthogie 04:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(2006) [79]

A blog??? Please, stop using Google to comb the internet for any link that uses both the words "hafrada" and "separation". Start from official policy, outlined in reliable sources, don't try to create a policy using original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a blog entry by Jeff Halper on the Tikkun website. He's a well-known Israeli activist with the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions. What's not relevant, notable or reliable about this source? Tiamut 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't it Jeff Halper above on the Google cache as well? What have you got, a couple of pro-Palestinian Christian groups, and a couple of far-left Israeli activists? Come on, let's get some serious sources here, please, academic ones, not activists. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
This organization was used earlier, and as was said before, a far-left Israeli activist (on a blog, no less) is not a reliable source for what is and what isn't an Israeli policy. This does nothing to establish Hafrada as a policy.--Urthogie 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Which of these do you consider to be reliable sources that meet the requirements of WP:ATT? I count one, at most. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comments in between. We still have a lot to discuss. There is way one than one and there are many different nuances. I think it would be best to represent as many as possible.Tiamut 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note this:

Tiamut had added this "policy" of Hafrada business to Daniel Schueftan's article. Whatever decision is made here, we'll try and apply there too as soon as possible.--Urthogie 10:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Transwikied to Wiktionary