[WikiEN-l] Second problem re POV on Israel

[Argis Rohat]

>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid
>


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.
>