Talk:Hafrada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Hafrada is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Hafrada is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] SEE ALSO

See also Talk:Hafrada (old version) and Talk:Hafrada/archive1. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urthogie - Cease and Desist

I ask that you once again cease trying to prevent other readers from accessing the information in this page by unilaterally replacing it with a redirect to a Hafrada disambig page which you created unilaterally after deleting the same information there. If you feel that this page should not exist, put it up for deletion. I welcome the chance to hear the input of other editors. With respect, Tiamut 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing deletion, I'm proposing a redirect, based on reasons already elaborated.--Urthogie 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What reasons? Who agreed with you? When was that poll taken? Like I said, propose it for deletion because that it the sum outcome of your redirect, and this despite the fact that the article is not a repeat of the others that you have listed at the disambig page at all. Tiamut 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The analysis of sources, in which we showed that hafrada wasn't notable as a to[pic in and of itself.--Urthogie 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You did not show anything. The article text had been changed to accomodate your objections repeatedly. I have been more than patient. You made a unilateral decision to delete the article and create a disambig page instead. I have recreated that article under a new title and linked it to the disambig page where it belongs. Please feel free to add your objections to what is here now but do not attempt to delete this article again, bypassing an Afd, by using redirect. That kind of behaviour without community input or consensus is generally frowned upon. Thanks. Tiamut 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You never completed defending your sources. You left randomly because of personal issues. This is OK, but you'll have to continue where we left off.--Urthogie 17:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did defend my sources extensively in the original entry for Hafrada. You didn't make your case, in my opinion. If you notice, two other editors have since edited this new article for ref formatting only. They don't seem to share your problems with the sources. In other words, it's your sole opinion that there is a problem with the sources (all 35 of them?). That doesn't warrant deleting the article in full as you did after I was on hiatus. Unilateral action on your part can be met with my restoration of the article. As I said, if you have such a strong problem with the article, put it up for AfD and see what happens. The input of other community members would be much appreciated since we seem to have reached a stalemate. 08:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Urthogie's deletion was against wikipedia guidelines since he did not go through an AFD (article for deletion) review. See: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. The additional action of redirecting the page does not change that. The deleted material was not moved to other articles. So it was not a move. There is also a formal process for that too: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Since the article deletion was improper anyone can recreate the page. Optionally, an incident report concerning Urthogie's actions can be filed at WP:ANI.--Timeshifter 17:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Guess what-- Tiamut stopped editing for weeks. We were discussing for weeks up until that.--Urthogie 18:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You deleted the article only a few days after she stopped editing. I think that if sourced material from reliable sources continues to be deleted in whole or in part, then I suggest Tiamut make a report to WP:ANI. I have seen that making a report there (on any guidelines issue) to be very helpful. Even if they do not resolve the problem there, the article will get other very experienced editors and admins to take a look at the article. The added eyes tend to solve many problems, and to moderate the situation. I do not have the time to delve into the particulars of the article, but can help with sorting out the article history, talk pages, etc.. I will also comment at WP:ANI if a report is made. Deleting sourced info from reliable sources is a breach of wikipedia guidelines. People have been blocked for it after an incident report was made at WP:ANI. --Timeshifter 08:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Timeshifter. Your careful review of the complicated history associated with this page is much appreciated, as is your reasoned offer of advice. I should have taken it to WP:ANI earlier when Urthogie was copying and pasting vast amounts of material from other pages in what I now believe was an attempt to sabotage the article and make it seem like a POV fork by duplicating the information in other existing pages. (I fought those inclusions tooth and nail since I found them to be repetitive, and further, in my opinion, they constituted plaigiarism.) A review of the history of the Hafrada page and the archived talk page there thankfully and faithfully records that whole process and the mass deletions of sourced material by Urthogie that both preceded and followed those en masse insertions. While I have tried to WP:AGF, I must be honest - I can no longer muster up such good faith as regards Urthogie's editing at this particular page. He has badly misrepresented both his editing practices and my own throughout my interactions with him at this page and its predecessors, as is evident in the discussion above. Tiamut 15:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. From WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." It goes on... Lots of caveats. :) --Timeshifter 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article links

The link bars below are from this code:

{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}

Hafrada (old version) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hafrada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Separation policy (Israel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hafrada Wall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Israel's unilateral disengagement plan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article link bars are useful for finding the history, logs, talk, etc. of deleted and redirected pages. Also for piecing back together the history and talk.

From the article history for Hafrada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

here is the diff where Urthogie deleted the page on March 29, 2007 and redirected it to the disambiguation page:

Still trying to figure out where the article went to next. --Timeshifter 16:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed paragraph from lead

Since this article is disambiguated, it no longer makes sense to include unilateral separation, west bank barrier in the lead. This is already seperated at disambig.--Urthogie 16:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree; particularly since you removed more than just that paragrah in your edit. Further, the sources cited for those sentences provide important background information to the reader. I don't see how deleting them improves the article. Tiamut 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
They're not related to the article, they're related to seperate topics, disambiguated on Hafrada--Urthogie 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Those two sentences and the six sources you deleted with them provide important background information. They are directly related to hafrada and how it is used. Tiamut 07:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] religious sources not reliable

removed em. political commentators please.--Urthogie 16:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think you are misunderstanding what this article is actually about. The use of the term Hafrada by a Palestinian reverend in East Jerusalem is notable and relevant to the section on the use of the term in languages other than Hebrew. Your deletion of this material does not improve the article. Tiamut 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my deletion of an unreliable source does improve the article. A reverend is not a relaible source for politics. Half of your sources are religious.--Urthogie 18:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
We have been over this and Naim Ateek is a reliable source. As head of an ecumenical organization based in Jerusalem and a Palestinian reverend active in organizing against the wall, he may have a strong POV but it is a relevant and notable one, directly related to the subject at hand. The inclusion of his sourced opinion meets WP:ATT or WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Tiamut 07:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of sourced material

Isarig keeps removing this quote:

In Mapping Jewish Identities (2000), Laurence Jay Silberstein argues that support for what he calls "the major element of the apartheid system – the so-called separation (hafrada) between Israelis and Palestinians," among Zionists who speak in favor of human rights is attributable to internal contradictions in Zionist ideology.[1]

How is this not relevant to the article?

The heading should have read more than just "Origins" anyway, since it also discusses public discourse. Accordingly I made made the change, and re-added the material. Could Isarig please explain his objections here? Thanks. Tiamat 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It i snot relevant to the section you were trying to add it to. Isarig 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate. That is an insufficient explanation. In what way exactly is it not relevant as judged against the content of the section? Do not use the heading title as an excuse either: it should clearly be retitled from "Origins" to "Origins and public discourse" or "Origins in public discourse" or another such title more reflective of the contents. Tiamat 14:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The section you want to add does not discuss the origins of the term, nor its usage in public discourse. In fact it does not discuss the term at all, other than as a one-word parenthetical reference> It does not belong in that section, nor does it add any value to the article. Isarig 15:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Silberstein's book discusses Jewish identity, Zionism, and its relationship to public policy and discourse in Israel. The material in question explains the author's belief that support for Hafrada is related to what he sees as inherent contradictions in Zionism. I do not see how this is not relevant to an article that discusses Hafrada. Tiamat 15:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to quote relevant materials from Silberstein's book in the articles about Zionism and Jewish identity. His book does not discuss Hafrada, and the cherry picked sentence you insist on inserting here, which off-handedly uses the word, certainly does not. Isarig 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy that precludes the use of this source. If there is, please cite it. Until then, you are cherry-picking arguments to block the inclusion of a legitimate viewpoint on why Hafrada has met with popular support. Accordingly, I am restoring the quote. 17:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiamut (talk • contribs).
I agree with Tiamut that this is a relevant and well-sourced comment, but the author is Adi Ophir and the reference should be Ophir, Adi (2000). The Identity of the Victims and the Victims of Identity: A Critique of Zionist Ideology for a Post-Zionist Age. In Laurence Jay Silberstein (Ed.), Mapping Jewish Identities (pp. 174-200). NYU Press. ISBN 0814797695 --Ian Pitchford 17:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
How is this relevant? It does not discuss the origins of the term or its use in public discourse at all. Isarig 17:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Terminology discussions go in Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. This article is about implementation. --John Nagle 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The section I removed does not talk about implementation at all. Isarig 02:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent)I hope this flareup is settling. Isarig, please be more careful about accusations of "wikistalking" – we have, you may have noticed, some overlapping interests. I've watched this page since its creation, at which time I was invited to contribute by its creator. You may also have noticed that I cited this very edit-war the other day, after you reported Tiamut for participating in an edit war you initiated with her on another page. Don't now use flimsy accusations of wikistalking as cover for edit-warring against the will of consensus.--G-Dett 18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not use the term lightly, and I have documented a very clear case of wikistalking against you, which I will bring up to ArbComm if you do not desist. I am giving you a very stern warning to cease this partice, or face the consequences. Editors have been prema-banned for much less. Your participation in the 3RR case brough against Tiamut is merely one instance of your stalking behavior. Again, you have been warned. Isarig 18:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote to your on your talk page here, you shouldn't make such accusations. And particularly not in an edit summary for this page where G-Dett's first edits predate yours by several months. Discussions of this kind ideally takes place on talk pages, unless the behavior in question is directly related to article content. But having deleted my comment to that effect on your talk page and repeated your accusations again here, it sadly seems to need repeating. Tiamat 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop this blatantly dishonest nonsense. This page was created June 1, 2006, and I was the 3rd editor on the page, and one of the primary contributors to it for its first couple of weeks of existance. My particpation here predates yours and G-Dett's. More to the point, G-Dett has not been actively editing this page for nearly 4 months, and now suddenly, immediately after a previous edit war (instigated by her on another page that she has followed me to) seems to be dying down, she's here to start a new one. This page is not the only case - I have a documented history ready to go to ArbComm if this continues. Isarig
My bad. I forgot the page history here has included a number of moves and mistook the history listed here as the complete one. Still, accusations of wikistalking should not be made in edit summaries for articles. I could, for example, point out that you haven't edited this page for months and made your first edit two days after I first added the material you are now trying to delete, but what would that prove? We all edit the same articles in a shared area of interest. I suggest we all cool down a bit. Tiamat 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig, your accusation is frivolous, and if you've "documented" something I sure can't find it. The way you talk about "Arbcomm" [sic], I can't figure out if you're imagining it as a sort of Thunderdome where adversaries meet and fight noisily to the death for the amusement of rowdy onlookers, or rather as a sort of secretive star chamber whose mysterious members are all in your pocket. Either way, you sound pretty confident about the whole thing. I am for my part doubtful that the harried and put-upon members of that august body will be moved much to accept a case about two bickering Middle-East-focussed editors whose paths have crossed three times in the last month, convincing one of them he's been tailed. I think they'll tell you to close the door behind you on your way out, is what I think. But if you're feeling lucky hey go for it.
For now, if you have anything further could I ask that it be posted on my talk page? I'd have posted this at yours, but I can see that you're deleting any reference to the matter there as "trolling." Very well, so bring it to my page, where no one stands on ceremony and no schoolmarm's rules apply, where we can untuck our shirts and let our hair down and smoke cigars and talk like sailors if we feel like it.--G-Dett 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of sourced material - part two

Isarig. You are now removing this section of the article:

In October 2000, Ha’aretz journalist Gideon Levy argued in the Courrier International that public support by an overwhelming majority for "hafrada" was an outgrowth of the average Israeli's inability to acknowledge Palestinian grievances - which he contrasted with Israel's encouragement of study and acknowledgement of the impact of the Holocaust on Jewish motivations. [2]

in addition to this one:

In Mapping Jewish Identities (2000), Laurence Jay Silberstein argues that support for what he calls "the major element of the apartheid system – the so-called separation (hafrada) between Israelis and Palestinians," among Zionists who speak in favor of human rights is attributable to internal contradictions in Zionist ideology.[1]

Both of these quotes offer opinions as to why hafrada has taken root in Israeli and Zionist discourse. The authors are well-known: Gideon Levy, a journalist at Ha'aretz newspaper, and Adi Ophir, a professor at Tel Aviv university. You have deleted one or both of these quotes 11 times in since August 13th, the day of his first edit to this article: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].

Four separate editors have restored the material and asked you to provide a valid rationale for these deletions. There seems to be consensus that your deletions are unwarranted. Could you cease the disruptive editing? Tiamat 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither one of these quotes belongs in the section, or the article, for that matter. This article is about a Hebrew term - Hafrada - and it's usage in public discourse. The section in which these disputed quotes appear discusses the origins of the term - and neither one of these quotes discusses the origins of the term, nor even the term itself. They make a passing, parenthetical reference to the term. This artcile is not a dumping ground for every occurce of the word 'hafrada' in the media. The Levy cite, furthremore, does not support the claim being made in that section. Levy does not claim anything about hafrada being an "outgrowth of the average Israeli's inability to acknowledge Palestinian grievances" - that is POV editorialzing add by whoever inserted that quote. What Levy actually says is that a majority of Israelis embraced the separtion policy because they do not want the palestinians to mingle with them, or metaphorically "poison the Israeli existance". Isarig 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig please. The source says in French:

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.

A pretty fair translation would be:

For the majority of Israelis, the Palestinians are unreal and also as light as air [as of little weight or consideration]. The head of the Likud party, Ariel Sharon did not go to the Temple Mount to provoke the Palestinians, but to ignore them. He did this specifically for reasons of domestic politics, without paying notice to what this would mean to them. For many Palestinians, this indifference is worse than provocation or humiliation. Israel demands that they study the Holocaust and understand Jewish motivations, but the history and the lot of the Palestinians is of no interest to the average Israeli. For an overwhelming majority of Israelis, left and right alike, the ideal solution is hafrada (separation, segregation) so that the Palestinians do not so that the Palestinians no longer taint/bother/contaminate/poison their existence. Outside of its racist implications, this solution is impractical.

Note that empoisonnent can mean any one of those words. I noticed it used in a google search to describe the effects of Jewish settlements on Palestinian agriculture. I don't think it's meant in its literal sense here. It's more metaphoric. Tiamat 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know what it says, and nowhere does it say that hafrada is an "outgrowth of the average Israeli's inability to acknowledge Palestinian grievances" - that's pure editorializing. This is but a secondary issue, My main point is that neither of the quotes discusses the origins of the term in public discourse, or even discuss the term at all. They do not belong here. Isarig 19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig is making the same point G-Dett does in arguing for the deletion of the "Allegations of XXX apartheid" articles -- the two examples Isarig wants to delete are primary sources (uses of the term Hafrada) rather than secondary sources (commentary on the use of the term Hafrada). Is this intended to be about the term, the phenomenon, or both? Andyvphil 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This puckishness in connecting my Isarig's argument here to mine on the "allegations" articles is an example of why I'm devoted to Andyvphil, much as we may disagree about things, but.... two tiny clarifications are in order. (A) I didn't see and still don't see the term-concept-phenomenon distinctions operating here the way they do in the "allegations of apartheid" articles. This article is about a concept that has become prominent in Israeli political life, shaping policy proposals and public debate and so on; that concept may be controversial but the term for it isn't. As I read it, these aren't primary-source examples of writers saying or alleging or invoking "hafrada"; they're secondary-source examples of writers analyzing the place of hafrada in Israeli public discourse. (B) My objection to many of the "allegations" articles was not that they used primary-source but rather that they relied totally upon them. One needn't accept point (A) to see that point (B) is a matter of policy: the distinction is spelled out in WP:NOR and WP:N.--G-Dett 22:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that I'm emulating Puck, but I do think it is worth paying attention to whatever G-Dett says. (A) Seems wrong as applied to Levy, right as to Ophir. I can't read Levy (I took four-and-a-half tries to get through two semesters of French) but he seems in Tiamut's translation merely to be using the term "hafrada", not commenting on it. (Ophir can be taken as saying "so-called hafrada" is just another term for "apartheid" -- i.e. a secondary source.) (B) My position is that the series was justified as an example of the "summary style" of article spinout from the true main article (AoIa), with some lacunae in justification that I assumed could be cured. Andyvphil 23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's primarily about the term and its usage. There are sources that define the term and there are some that explain its relationship to Israeli policy and public discourse. I think you are also mixing apples and oranges here since this article is about Hafrada, not "Allegations of apartheid in XXX". In the case of the former, the mere mention of apartheid and a country in the same article constituted a primary source and was considered insufficient on its own in linking that country to apartheid. In this case, there is no such bar to meet. Hafrada is a clearly defined stand alone concept and the article established that it is in wide use. Initial objections raised to the article were that the term was not notable, but that was belied by the number of reliable sources cited that use, define, and reflect upon the term and its meaning and its significance to Israeli public life and discourse. Tiamat 20:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree - It's primarily about the term and its usage. neither of the quotes I removed discuss the term nor it's usage. Isarig 20:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig, what is your deal? Did you not read the sentence immediately after that? Also, please keep in mind I am describing what is in the article in its current state. That does not preclude it going in other directions. I don't understand why you are so adamant to remove this material, over the objections of four other editors. Using semantics to artificially limit the article's scope to result in their exclusion isn't going to work here. Please try and work towards improving the article. How do you suggest we organize the article to better reflect the sources we have, all of which are reliable and verifiable? Tiamat 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The other editors have not made any attempt to justify the inclusion, beyond asserting that "it belongs", or suggesting that the section title be changed so that the force-fitted quotes might appear relevant in some contrived-for-this-purpose title. There could be a hundred of these editors and it would still not matter - becuase WP is not a democracy, and we go by the quality of arguments used to forge a consensus, not by canvassing friendly editors to mindlessly support your position. My deal is that I don't think thiese qutes belong. They do not discuss the term, nor its origin, nor its usage in public discourse- which is , as you concede, what this article is about. They are two quotes that happed to use the term, in an almost off-hand, paranthetical way, in order to make a POV politcal statement - that has no place in an encyclopedia. Isarig 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of sourced material - part three

Let's try this again. First we have this paragraph:

In October 2000, Ha’aretz journalist Gideon Levy argued in the Courrier International that public support by an overwhelming majority for "hafrada" was an outgrowth of the average Israeli's indifference to the history and lot of the Palestinians - which he contrasted with Israel's demand that Palestinians study the Holocaust to understand Jewish motivations. [2]

This information is useful to the article in that it establishes that hafrada is is common use, is supported by an overwhelming majority of the Israeli public and offers an explanation as to why. In other words, it offers context for the term and its use.

Then, this paragraph:

In Mapping Jewish Identities (2000), Adi Ophir argues that support for what he calls "the major element of the apartheid system – the so-called separation (hafrada) between Israelis and Palestinians," among Zionists who speak in favor of human rights is attributable to internal contradictions in Zionist ideology.[3]

This information contrasts nicely against the information provided Levy, providing context to the term's use and offering the opinion of a respected Israeli philosopher that support for Hafrada is related to Zionism.

In discussing a term and its use, one also tends to discuss its relationship to other political currents in the place the term is in use. There is nothing inappropriate about exploring the relationship between Hafrada and Zionism when this is done by reliable sources. Indeed, it seems rather logical that such discussions would take place. Tiamat 21:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, the Levy quote does not say what you claim it does. Specifically, it does not say anything about how hafrada is an outgrowth or a result of anything. He simply says Hafrada is the solution embraced by a majority of Israelis. He does not discuss the term, its origins or its use in public discourse. Same goes for Ophir - he does not discuss the term at all, or even use the term, other than as a parenthetical alternative term for the separation process. Neither of these quotes belong in an article that discusses the term hafrada, and the only purpose they serve is to allow the speaker to vent against imagined ills of the Israeli society - a political POV that has no place in an encyclopedia. Isarig 01:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Levy quote says (in translation):

For many Palestinians, this indifference is worse than provocation or humiliation. Israel demands that they study the Holocaust and understand Jewish motivations, but the history and the lot of the Palestinians is of no interest to the average Israeli. For an overwhelming majority of Israelis, left and right alike, the ideal solution is hafrada (separation, segregation) so that the Palestinians no longer taint/bother/contaminate/poison their existence. Outside of its racist implications, this solution is impractical.

I think the text as written paraphrases that idea quite accurately:

Gideon Levy argued in the Courrier International that public support by an overwhelming majority for "hafrada" was an outgrowth of the average Israeli's indifference to the history and lot of the Palestinians - which he contrasted with Israel's demand that Palestinians study the Holocaust to understand Jewish motivations. [2]

It's a little awkward perhaps after having been edited by me and Andyvphil, but it's quite fair.

As for your claims that these quotes only serve "to allow the speaker to vent against imagined ills of the Israeli society - a political POV that has no place in an encyclopedia", I think your words speak clearly as to your motivations in seeking the deletion of this material. I also fully disagree. As I explained above, they provide context for the term and its use and relationship to public discourse in Israel. Further, NPOV does not mean excluding POVs you don't like, but rather presenting all significant POVs to achieve balance. Peace. Tiamat 02:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

the text you describe as "paraphrase" is nothing of the kind, it is pure editorializing which attributes a causal relationship between a term used by Levy (Separation) and a situation he described earlier, pretending this is an argument levy advances, while he did not make that connection in the quote. My motivations are indeed clear: I want to keep this encyclopedia free of the kind of POV-pushing political diatribe you insist on inserting. Isarig 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Isarig. Don't engage in revisionist history. You began by deleting the Adi Ophir/Silberstein material one week ago. Only in the last couple of days did you add Levy to your deletions, and you only focused on my alleged editorializing in the paraphrasing of his quote today. Don't dress yourself up in honorable intentions while attacking me for POV pushing. Now how would you improve the Levy information to make it better match the quote, if that is indeed the issue here. Tiamat 02:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism? what history have I revised? What relevance does the date of my objection have to do with its validity? I have no intention of improving your editorializing of the Levy quote, becuase even if it were presented verbatim, with no editorializing or paraphrasing, IT WOULD NOT BELONG. Isarig 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
FOUR EDITORS WOULD AND HAVE DISAGREED WITH YOU ON THIS. Now you can either work to improve the article and its representation of these and other sources, or you can continue trying to convince people that this information does not belong. But I strongly advise you to not try deleting it again until you can gain some consensus for such edits. We do not need another edit-war here. Tiamat 02:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
i have already addressed this - the other editors have not made any attempt to justify the inclusion, beyond asserting that "it belongs", or suggesting that the section title be changed so that the force-fitted quotes might appear relevant in some contrived-for-this-purpose title. There could be a hundred of these editors and it would still not matter - because WP is not a democracy, and we go by the quality of arguments used to forge a consensus, not by canvassing friendly editors to mindlessly support your position. Do you have an answer for my question? what history have I supposedly revised? What relevance does the date of my objection have to do with its validity? Isarig 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Obfuscation and false accusations will get you nowhere here Isarig. I did not canvass anyone to come to this page and for you to ignore the opinions of other editors as irrelevant, deeming the quality of your own random, scattered arguments as of more "quality" than those of four other editors is frankly uncompelling. My comments speak for themselves and answer your questions. My previous also advice stands. If you delete this material against consensus again, I will consider reporting you. Removing sourced material against consensus is considered vandalism. I'm not getting into another edit war with you so that you can file your fourth 3RR report against me. Don't drag me into these silly games. Tiamat 11:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please ton edown your style. You have accused me of "historical revisionism" without bein gbale to point to asingle thing I'v erevised, and you are now adding yet another bogus attack alleging "Obfuscation and false accusations". One of teh editors who came here to assert that th ematerial belnogs has explcitly named you as someone who asked her to come and edit here. If you don't want to be reproted for 3RR, don't violate it, and please, learn a little about vadlaism beofre making yet more bogus threats. Removal of material is not vandalism when a non-frivolous explantion is given. I have provided a very detailed, non-friovolous explantion why this material does not belong, and you (and the other editors) have not addressed my objection. Isarig 17:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind restating your non-frivolous objection? I believe I missed it, if it hasn't already been addressed? Tiamat 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is about a Hebrew term, it's origins and its use in public discourse. You yourself have conceded this (see above, quoting you: "It's primarily about the term and its usage."). the two quotes are not about the term, nor its origins, nor its usgae. One of them use the term, the other only mentions it, parentheticaly. Neither one of them discuss the term, its origins or its usage. They simply do not belong. This article is not a quote farm for every instance when the word was used by some journalist. Isarig 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
And as I explained to you before, attempts to artifically delimit what the page can and cannot cover using needlessly narrow interpretations is not necessary here. "In discussing a term and its use, one also tends to discuss its relationship to other political currents in the place the term is in use. There is nothing inappropriate about exploring the relationship between Hafrada and Zionism when this is done by reliable sources. Indeed, it seems rather logical that such discussions would take place." So your objection (not policy-related based) does not seem substantive to me, and others. Tiamat 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Your arguemnt would have merit if, in discussing the term and its use, these quots would also discuss its relationship to other political in the place the term is in use. But the quotes do not do this. They do not discuss the term at all. In fact, they use other terms (and don't discuss them either), and mention the topic of this article only parentheticaly. Isarig 18:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
And your argument might make sense if the authors in question were not Gideon Levy and Adi Ophir, two prominent figures in Israeli media, academic, and public life whose usage of the term and explanation of its relationship to the Israeli political scene remains highly relevant to this article. It does not matter in these two sources are not devoted to an in-depth study of Hafrada. It is certainly a notable example of its salience and importance in Israeli society when it is discussed in relation to primordial existential issues and the ideology of Zionism. Why deny the reader such context? Tiamat 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The word hafrada has been used by far more prominent individuals than these two. I daresay there is not a prominent figure in Israel today who has not used the word at one time or another. This article, however, and this encyclopedia in general, are not here to document every instance of the usage of the word, but to discuss the term and its orgins . Your quotes do not do this. Isarig 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(a) I was not asked to edit this article. (b) I did not merely suggest changing the title of the section to reflect its content. I changed the title of the section to reflect its content. (c) Ophir comments on the term. He says its another word for apartheid. Clearly this is also a comment on the policy. (d) (1)The Levy quote is purely a comment on the policy. That's OK. Some material on what is meant by the term is necessary. (2)The distinction between meaning and language isn't fully clarified in the article treatment. That's ok too. The inspiration and opportunity (time, interest) to rewrite the article to tease out this distinction apparently hasn't arisen yet. So what? Wikipedia is always a draft, always a work in progress. (3)The material may be relevant elsewhere. Maybe even more relevant. Again, that's ok. Organic systems tend to be massively redundant -- it's a workable paradigm. The question is whether the material will be relevant to a reader drawn to this page by the title or search or other link. (e) The Levy quote is now an accurate paraphrase of the source. It wasn't, but is is now. Andyvphil 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(a) I didn't say you did
(b)That you actually did something inappropriate is even worse than merley suggesting it. An encyclopedia is edited by writing content to fit subject matter, not by force-fitting titles to irrelvant content; And even after you changed the title, the quotes still don't fit the new title
(c)No, he doesn't say that. He uses a different term, and off-hadedly, in a parenthetical remark, implies that the other term is also termed Hafrada.
(d)(1) I'm glad you concede that the Levy quote is not about the term or its usage. Time to get rid of it, rather than inventing further rationalizations for including this non-notable comment which is off-topic. If it's relevant somewhere else - find a better home for it - but this is not it. Isarig 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(a)"The other editors have not made any attempt to justify the inclusion...[W]e go by the quality of arguments ... not by canvassing friendly editors to mindlessly support your position".(Isarig, on two occasions) (b)The revised title is perfectly appropriate to this article, and there is nothing inappropriate about so revising it. (c)Ophir says the Hebrew (it's in italics) "hafrada" is "the major element of the [Israeli] apartheid system." The assertion that such a statement is not relevant here is eccentric. (d)(1)If you choose to dismiss my arguments as rationalizations unworthy of a reply I certainly won't need to put much thought into reverting you or justifying it. Andyvphil 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History merges