How about "Allegations of Israeli discrimination" ?
If the word "apartheid" is used in the title because some famous politician
called it that, then that should be referenced within the article text.
On 12/23/06, Argis Rohat <argis.rohat(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The introduction to the article is also very POV:
"The term *apartheid* commonly refers to South African apartheid , a
former
official policy of political, legal, and economic racial
discrimination against nonwhites.
The application of the term to situations other than apartheid in South
Africa is controversial and disputed, and is regarded as a political
epithet."
1) The intro suggests that any use of the term apartheid to
describe situations outside of South Africa is a "political epithet" when
3
of 4 sources provided only refer to the use of the term apartheid to
describe Israel
and the fourth says "cultural apartheid" is an epithet.
2) the intro seems to assert as a fact that the term is a "politcial
epithet" when in fact that's a POV.
Does any objective person consider it to be
NPOV?
*Israel* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>
*Main article: Allegations of Israeli apartheid
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid><
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>
*
The phrase "Israeli apartheid" (or the terming of Israel<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel>an "apartheid state") is a
controversial phrase used by some critics of
Israel, who compare Israel's treatment of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>Palestinians<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians>with the treatment of blacks in
apartheid-era South Africa.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>[82]<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Pilger>The
majority of academics and journalists who have commented on the term are
reported to deplore its use
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>[83]<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Adam>on the
grounds that it is historically inaccurate,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>antisemitic<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>[84]<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Pulzer
propaganda,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>[83]<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Adam>and a
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>political
epithet<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_epithet>used to justify
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>terrorist attacks
against Israel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism> .
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>[85]<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Phillips>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>
-------
For one thing the sentence states as fact that the term "Israeli
apartheid" is "*historically inaccurate, *antisemitic<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>, propaganda, <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>and a
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>political
epithet<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_epithet>used to justify
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>terrorist attacks
against Israel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism>.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid>" something a
wikipedia article should not be asserting. Secondly the paragaraph is
not
neutral and strongly weighted with the view that
Israeli apartheid is
not an
acceptable term.
Several editors have attempted to correct this paragraph's bias but they
have been blocked by a larger number of determined editors pushing a POV
against the term.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l