Talk:Crime of apartheid/Archive 1

Request for Mediation Filed

{{RFMF}} SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with "ICC disclaimer"

I just removed this paragraph:

"Nations that have not ratified nor acceded to the Rome Statute, and therefore are not subject to its terms, include the United States, Russia, China, India, Israel and every Arab country with the exception of Jordan. (See International Criminal Court#List of states party to the treaty)."

I posit that this statement is (1) inaccurate (the situation is better described here International_Criminal_Court#List_of_states_party_to_the_treaty which deals with the subtlies of signed verses ratification) and (2) the fact that it says "every Arab country with the exception of Jordan" smacks of POV -- why is this group of countries described by ethnicity and not the others?, (3) the list is horribly incomplete -- lots of African nations have not signed it either but those are not mentioned, (4) this isn't the appropriate place to deal with this secondary topic. --Deodar 15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I put it back. This definitely is the place to deal with this topic, because the treaty's relevance is directly related to which nations are, and are not, subject to its terms. If you want to list here all the nations that have not ratified it, be my guest. I just thought a summary would be a bit more readable. If you want to refer to nations in the Middle East rather than Arab nations, fine. As for ratification vs. signing, ratification is more relevant, because those nations that have not ratified it are not subject to it. 6SJ7 15:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And I put it back again. 6SJ7 15:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is poisoning the well in the current form. I'll NPOV it. --Deodar 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wanting to make sure the truth is not suppressed is not "poisoning the well." I will eagerly await seeing what you consider "NPOV." 6SJ7 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I see the change. The change is POV. I figured this was about concealing the fact that Israel is not subject to the treaty that defines the "Crime of apartheid," and I was correct. Secondarily, it is about concealing the fact that only one of Israel's neighbors, indeed only one Middle East nation and only one Arab nation, is a party to the treaty. Looking at all of the "apartheid" articles together, it is clear to me that you (and others) are trying to connect the words "Israel" and "crime" through the word "apartheid", and it needs to be made clear that Israel is not subject to the treaty. 6SJ7 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article makes no reference to Israel in any way. If you want to make the point that Israel has unsigned the treaty in specific reference to the non-applicability of the crime of apartheid in that region, I recommend that the best place to make it is in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. --Deodar 16:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. 6SJ7 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful not to imply that countries that have not signed or ratified the Treaty of Rome oppose the notion that apartheid is a crime. The opposition to the treaty is based on various positions and will undoubtedly lead to the entire treaty being recast in time. But certainly Israel and the United States has principled opposition to apartheid as it's defined in the treaty. --Leifern 21:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that the "disclaimer," even in the inert and nearly useless form into which Bhouston converted it, has been moved down the article, and now there is a new second paragraph to the intro section. I can't help noticing that the two paragraphs in the intro now seem to contradict each other. Is the operative definition the one adopted in the first paragraph, or in the second? 6SJ7 21:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... IANAL, and definitely I Am Not An International Lawyer. I believe the Convention merely defines a legal term of art, and isn't "operative" in the same way the Treaty, by establishing a court to punish apartheid as a criminal offense, is operative. But, perhaps by virtue of this fact, the list of countries which have ratified the convention is much longer than the one of countries that have ratified the treaty, so there's a difference as to which governments have legally accepted one or the other definition, neither, or both. I don't find the definitions terribly contradictory in either case, beyond semantics, depending on how one defines inhumane persecution. And as no one has ever been charged with this crime, as far as I can tell, there's no case law yet to flesh out the ICC definition with specifics. Kendrick7 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7 asked "Is the operative definition the one adopted in the first paragraph, or in the second?" In international law, there tends to be a lot of overlapping laws and jurisdictions -- if the original was not appealed by the UN GA then it is still "operative" in a formal sense. The study of conflicting jurisdictions and laws is known as conflict of laws. I am of the opinion that no disclaimer is needed -- I didn't add it originally. What may be useful is to add a section on how it has not yet been tested and there is no case law -- but this should be done from original reputable sources. --Deodar 05:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an important omission from this article, which raises questions about whether it presents a balanced view. The article fails to discuss the ambiguous history of the UN resolutions and conventions. To quote the historian Hermann Giliomee on this point:

"In 1973 the UN General Assembly declared apartheid a crime against humanity and agreed to drawing up an International Convention on the Suppression of the Crime of Apartheid. The main sponsors were the Soviet Union and Guinea, and the convention came into opertion after twenty countries, all members of the Soviet bloc, ratified it. Aproximately seventy countries subsequently signed on. However, all the major Western countries refused to ratify it. At the outset the US stated: 'We cannot accept that apartheid can be made a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are so grave in nature that they must be meticulously elaborated and strictly constructed under international law'"

Considering the fact that the human rights record of the Soviet Union and other countries heavily under its influence was nothing but a cruel farce, it's small wonder that the South African government paid little heed to these pronouncements by the UN at the time. HeervanMalpertuis 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, shame on those Western countries! When someone says "1+1=2" you don't say he was wrong there because he is wrong elsewhere e.g. he also says "2+2=3". No. Russia and Guinea were not wrong to say aparteid was a crime because they themselves caused human rights violations. No, on this occasion, the commies were right. The correct response was not to excuse South Africa - which is what Giliomee and Mr van Malpertuis do - but rather to accuse the Russians of hypocrisy. Indeed, the failure of the West to condemn SA was used by the Russians to call the West hypocrites when they criticised Russia. The Russians were wrong about lots of things. Apartheid was wrong. The West was wrong not to call apartheid a crime. The pot can call the kettle black. The pot is a hypocrit but is also correct. Paul Beardsell 10:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, was it a crime against humanity? If it wasn't then only genocide is worse. List the "crimes against humanity" and you cannot leave out apartheid. Or, and this is my strong fall back position, not as practised in South Africa. If you disagree you just don't understand what life under apartheid was like! Paul Beardsell 10:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Shrill propaganda, but wrong on every score. It also reveals a rather cavalier attitude to human rights violations.

Communism (or "the commies" as Paul cutely refers to them), an ideology which has resulted in some of the largest mass exterminations of human beings in history [1], has never been declared a "crime against humanity" by the United Nations. Perhaps this has more to do with the fact that the former Soviet Union and China had a bigger say in that illustrious body, than a puny little state like South Africa.

In Paul Beardsell's topsy-turvy world, the pot can call the kettle black, which is akin to suggesting that Nazis can accuse Jews of genocide. This is not to say that Jews can't commit such misdeed, but simply that, if the accusation comes from Nazis, people aren't going to pay much attention.

No, the pot can't call the kettle black - not if you are concerned about justice and fairness, or a saner world, and especially not if the aim is to persuade people to mend the error of their ways. Then one has to be as squeaky clean as possible, or be prepared to be ignored. But then again, that was never what the UN motion was about, was it? It was all about odious regimes distracting attention from their own misdeeds.

HeervanMalpertuis 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism hasnt been declared a crime against humanity, and its the main cause of poverty, hunger and deaths in the world. And that is because the US is capitalist and they control the UN. Capitalism should be banned, and it isnt Great Khan

---

When the filthy beggar tells you you could do with a bath, I suggest you smell your own armpits, not his. Take comfort that you're cleaner than him, if you like, but t'would be better to take a bath. Paul Beardsell 01:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

crime against humanity

What is a "crime against humanity"? Crime: To take the most apt definition offered here a crime is a grave offense especially against morality. Humanity is, using the same dictionary, the quality or state of being humane or the human race : the totality of human beings. Humane is defined as marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals. Paul Beardsell 10:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So, now, is apartheid a "crime against humanity". It seems, by these definition, that apartheid (as practised in South Africa) was exactly that. And this applies even if you argue (and there were lots of whites who did) that the blacks were no better than animals. Paul Beardsell 10:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, by being flippant, I do not make the best case possible. But if you don't know what it meant to live under the strictures of apartheid then do not argue to the contrary. Paul Beardsell 10:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't tend to make original arguments here. The key is that both declarations say it is a crime against humanity and thus we don't have to debate it, we just report it. --Deodar 04:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose there will ever be a Wikipedia page about 'the crime of segregation' Invmog (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Allegations of apartheid

Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel

Israel is a segregacionist state with relation to Palestinian people?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.79.94 (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

... the US stated: "We cannot accept ...

I can't find any source, reliable or otherwise, for that quote anywhere. -- 146.115.58.152 05:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't offer this as a RS, but it's quoted here with a date of 1976. [2] Andyvphil 13:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be genuine, though my first few efforts didn't find a real source either. US House and Senate foreign affairs committees hearings starting in 1973, unfortunately only snippet view. - See [3]. John Z 21:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is, the post immediately previously in Andy's PDF, and by the same author, mentions this very article ("van wikipedia"). Our version of the article on that date is here, which could be read as dating this quote to 1976. So this is entirely self-referential! -- 146.115.58.152 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, John Z, that does look promising, though I can't tell the attribution. Why are works of the Federal Government being snipetted by google, anyway? Looks like I'll have to dust off my library card. -- 146.115.58.152 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Crawling a bit, I get "Deplorable as it is, we cannot from a legal point of view accept that apartheid can in this manner be made a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are so grave in nature that they must be meticulously elaborated and strictly construed under existing international law as set ..." [4][5][6]. Note the earlier version was not precisely correct, e.g constructed for construed. My guess is it is State Department testimony.John Z 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for for the legwork. IMHO the "crime of apartheid" was named and created, but not "meticulously elaborated" nor with the intent of being "strictly construed" precisely inorder to capture the emotional tug of the anti-Apartheid struggle for application as an epithet to targets of opportunity. This history of the CoA, as a fraud, has recently been scrubbed from the article. And since I'm going on Wikibreak for three or four weeks I won't be able to attend to this problem for a while. But I'll be back. Andyvphil 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the was a desire for it to be targeted at South Africa, but due to the legal standard forbidding a bill of attainder, it had to be written in international scope. Communist nations supports it first because the African National Congress was a communist organization. That whole discussion is moot since 2002 though. -- 146.115.58.152 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(Actually, communism was created against a sort of "ownership apartheid" to begin with, so it's not so jaded to see the basic ideological alliance here. -- 146.115.58.152 03:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The "crime of apartheid" was created and named in the period when the General Assembly was doing disreputable things like saying that Zionism was racism. Western countries holed up in the Security Council and used the power of the purse to control the Agencies, more or less, but the USSR and the "Non-Aligned Movement" ran riot in the declarations of the UNGA. Which is why Western nations didn't sign onto the ICSPCA and which prompted the pithy and acute comment from the US dismissing the crime of apartheid that was quoted in the article or, as John Z has shown, one very like it. The fact that it is neither well defined nor applied without bias hasn't been mooted -- it's still the main problem with it.[[7]] But the fact that the "crime of apartheid" is widely thought to be a rather disreputable construct has been scrubbed from the article. Andyvphil 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, all that sounds like Cold War propaganda swallowed whole. We still don't know who actually spoke that quote per WP:ATTRIB, and even then we lack a secondary source to suggest including it wouldn't simply be WP:OR, i.e. we could present all kinds of slants by presenting bits and pieces from congressional testimony at will. I will make an effort to continue to expand the history section from reliable sources; perhaps I will stumble upon this point of view. -- 146.115.58.152 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"...sounds like Cold War propaganda swallowed whole." Snarky comment which sounds like unexamined ignorance parading as enlightenment. I'll be on Wikibreak for another week. It'll be interesing to see if 146.115.58.152 stumbles across any actual history. Andyvphil 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are understanding OR rather too broadly. It is almost certainly the official US opinion, as the article had said, and it is not OR to present that. In any case the links I gave demonstrate the quote is found in a secondary source, International Criminal Law edited by Cherif Bassiouni, ISBN 0941320286.John Z 07:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's only a snippet view. We have no idea who is actually saying this per WP:ATTRIB. This is a primary source with little context, and without a secondary source showing its relevance, this borders on WP:SOAP. -- 146.115.58.152 10:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, it was obvious what it was, more or less, but I traced the snippets back to get the full cite, which turns out to be "Statement by Ambassador Clarence Clyde Ferguson Jr. before General Assembly in explanation of vote on Apartheid Convention, November 30, 1973" in the particular case cited as inserted in the record before the "Review of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights: Hearings before the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (1974) p.58". Is the "relevance" of the US statement, explaining its vote, in question? Someone seems to think that noting that "China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Japan" are "many of the world's most populous nations" is "original research", so anything is possible. Andyvphil 12:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've clarified the source from your research. He seemed to have been the former U.S. ambassador to Uganda at the time, and a somewhat low level State Department official at the time of the statement. Anything he said is not close to being a statement from the whole U.S. -- 146.115.58.152 04:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a "statement from the whole U.S."?? What part of "Statement by Ambassador Clarence Clyde Ferguson Jr. before General Assembly in explanation of vote on Apartheid Convention, November 30, 1973" don't you understand? You think he wandered into the General Assembly, saw the microphone was unattended, and extemporized? Andyvphil 12:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you are right; my last edit was perhaps overwrought. Ferguson helped the UN draft an earlier resolution on apartheid circa 1967, to begin with, as mentioned in his obituary in the Harvard Law Review. I initially considered the UN delegation may have simply dragged out the highest ranking African-American they could find to deliver this statement, but sources explicitly say acting as a patsy would have been completely out of character for him (in fact, not being a patsy may have kept him off the Federal bench). He also seems to have been a notable legal scholar on U.S. segregation. Given all that, there's no reason not to WP:ATTRIB WP:CITE the quote directly to him. -- 146.115.58.152 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I keep typing WP:ATTRIB when I mean WP:CITE. Sorry for the confusion. -- 146.115.58.152 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No doubt Ferguson had input, as this was apparently his bailiwick, but there's a limited amount of space that is going to be devoted to this comment, and attributing it to him in the manner you did left the impression (that you apparently had) that it might be merely his opinion. He might not have written it (Statements are generally by committee, with multiple vettings), and the important thing is that it was the official US explanation for voting no or abstaining (I'm not sure which happened). Btw, is the obit online? Andyvphil 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff on JSTOR. I've been putting together something here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-10-19#Clarence_Clyde_Ferguson_Jr. -- 146.115.58.152 22:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns with sources?

A. Rubin: do you have some concerns about the sources in the Israel section? I've looked at them, and they certainly appear to be on-point. --Noleander (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

off topic reparations section

Not sure what article this belongs in...

Not sure why you think it is off topic in this article? It relates to the crime of apartheid. The defendants are accused of being complicit in that crime. There is an important and expensive court case that has gone on for some years and is likely to end up the the US Supreme Court, setting an important precedent. This is just as "on topic" as trying to drag Israel into the topic. pietopper (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Reparations

During 2003, Paul Ngobeni, along with Kweku Hanson, his associate from the Ocwen class action suit, represented three plaintiffs who claimed to represent "all persons who lived in South Africa between 1948 and the present and who suffered damages as a result of apartheid." Punitive and compensatory damages in excess $400 billion were claimed from a "slew" of multinational corporations (including IBM, Citigroup, GE, DuPont and many others) that did business in apartheid South Africa for violations of international law subject to suit in United States federal district court under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (“ATCA”), and other jurisdictional provisions. The Southern District Court of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo found for defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. That finding was partially vacated by the US Court of Appeal (Second Circuit) in an appeal first lodged in January 2006 and decided in October 2007 but by then Messrs Ngobeni and Hanson were no longer representing the claimants.

References

Allegations inappropriately juxtaposed with definition of the crime

It would seem to me that a whole section on allegations regarding Israel (and only Israel) in an article dedicated to discussing the definition of the crime of apartheid is a wholly inappropriate POV coatrack. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The article also discusses South Africa, so Israel isn't singled out, IMO. If other countries have been accused of apartheid, I naturally support discussing them too. --Dailycare (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

POV Pushing

The section about Israel is blatant POV pushing. It reads like an essay on why Israel is an apartheid state, and provides no information about the major flaws that critics have found with the analogy. The POV tag needs to remain until these issues are addressed.Kinetochore (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to add any sources that offer rebuttals to this. However, this article is not about a supposed analogy. This article is about a crime in international law, and the section about Israel here is about that specific issue. Not people comparing it to South Africa under Apartheid, which is what the lead of the article you copied here is about. nableezy - 14:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

'Rebuttals' would hardly help. The section is just list of quotations of notable individuals and partisan organizations accusing Israel of the crime of Apartheid. It needs a full rewrite. Also, the section should not be limited to Israel - many countries have been accused of the crime of Apartheid (i.e. Iran, Sudan, Pakistan). The section should be titled "Allegations of apartheid", with maybe a paragraph summary for each country.Kinetochore (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, fine. I dont think anybody would have a problem with you, or anybody else, expanding the section with relevant material. That isnt what you did initially though. nableezy - 15:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We already have a link to Israel and the apartheid analogy in the "See Also" section. Why are we duplicating cherry picked sentences from that article in this article when the actual article is already linked?

Once again, I propose a deletion of that section unless there is a constructive reason to keep it. Guy Montag (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This section isnt about an "analogy", it is about charges that Israel has committed the actual crime of apartheid. That is the reason to keep the section. nableezy - 03:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well let's include allegations of: Bahraini Apartheid [8], Syrian Apartheid [9], Malaysian Apartheid [10], Myanmar Apartheid [11] Saudi Arabian Apartheid based on religion, which is a part of Article 7 of the Roman Statue [12][13], Jordanian apartheid [14] and Bosnian apartheid [15].

I am sure no one will have any issues with expanding the article, although we will have to make a general section and the nations as sub sections.

Guy Montag (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for demonstrating the problem with just googling a combination of words and randomly throwing out the results. Not one of your links discusses the crime of apartheid. Like I wrote, this page is about the crime of apartheid, a defined and criminalized by the Rome Statute. There have been allegations that Israel is guilty of the actual crime, not simply "analogies" to "A/apartheid". If you can bring sources of comparable quality that accuse any other state of being guilty of the crime of apartheid, that would be great. I would thank you. Do not however simply google apartheid Syria and pretend like you found something that belongs on this page in a misguided attempt at "balancing" an unrelated topic. nableezy - 04:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

An ethnic minority rules Syria and crushes all dissent, a religious minority rules Bahrain and crushes all dissent, the Malays have a system of Malay Supremacy etc. I think that credible sources for this article are doctors, journalists and NGOs and who discuss the crime of apartheid in other countries and in this case, Malaysia should definitely be a subject of interest even if they do not have the same energetic focus on the subject as they do with Israel. Guy Montag (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if they actually discuss the crime of apartheid. None of the links above do. nableezy - 13:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We also need some sources on Saudi apartheid, as well as apartheid in the Sudan, apartheid as practiced by North Korea (i.e., exclusion of outsiders), etc. 198.151.130.37 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I can add in Zilbershatts as a rebuttal. I usually use formal citation in Law articles (the system I know is Bluebook, I am from the US) - there are some problems I can see in the citation section that need cleanup, would Bluebook be a problem for anyone here? European lawyers may use a different system... Seraphim System (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Weird BNP derail

"The British National Party, which was founded in the United Kingdom in 1980 and went on to make substantial gains in local council elections (as well as gaining two Members of the European Parliament, includes an equivalent of apartheid in its election manifestos by vowing to give white Britons priority for housing, education and jobs."

No one is going to defend the BNP but come on, the source links to some obscure web page and the sentence is completely out of place in that sub section. What does it even relate to? Why does it switch from discussing the treaty and its history to describing an obscure political party in Britain? What makes it so special or different than say the Jobbik Party, or the Nationalist Movement Party in Turkey or the United Malays National Organization which supports the Bumiputera policies? And who exactly decides what political party even qualifies for the nebulous "equivalent to apartheid" label?

I believe that the sentence about the BNP is out of place, out of context and is as related to this topic as warfare is to the science of rocketry. I am going to remove it unless someone has a constructive explanation on why it should be kept and how it would fit in this topic. Guy Montag (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"right to leave" links to "Illegal emmigration"

In the "ICSPCA definition of the crime of apartheid" section of the article, in the definition of the crime of apartheid, in paragraph c, "right to leave" links to the "Illegal emigration" article, which seems to discuss restrictions on emigratory rights imposed by various countries rather than the right to leave itself, thus I suggest removing this link. There does not seem to exist an article explicitly discussing the right to leave, altough the "Freedom of movement" article seems to superpose the topic. Since the "Freedom of movement" is mentioned seperatly within paragraph c of the "ICSPCA definition of the crime of apartheid", I am unsure whether "right to move" should be linked to it. Igissa (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crime of apartheid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718122932/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-7&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-7&chapter=4&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030214344/http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm to http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Amended ESCWA report paragraph

This paragraph was flawed in a couple of important ways. First, it relied almost exclusively on al-Jazeera coverage although more primary documentation was available. This sourcing may have contributed to a second problem, misrepresenting the report's recommendations. The original text, which I've amended, said that the report called for support for BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions against Israel). It did not do so. I've fixed that by briefly summarizing the actual recommendation of the report, which was simply that states fulfill their obligations under the convention. I also altered the citations to refer to the original ESCWA press release, a Reuters article that cover the same material and an external link to a stable source of the report.

While I was at it, I added a short paragraph on the HSRC report, while referring readers to the longer version in Israel and the Apartheid Analogy. While this might seem overlap, it seemed to me important to mention this report here because its publication set the stage for Goldstone to write his NYT article, which gets a fat paragraph lower down, in reaction to it. Hope this was appropriate. Tafkira2 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP: I object to my edits being reverted. The reasons are not valid. יניב הורון provided no response on this Talk page for me to respond to. I will try to challenge this in the right place but I'm not clear where that is since the only place to engage is by re-editing and I don't want to start an editing war.

  (1) My edits to the ESCWA paragraph aimed at three goals. (a). Correcting the incorrect statement that the report was issued by Rima Khalaf. Khalaf was the ESCWA Director at the time, and chaired the press conference where the report was released, but the document was commissioned and released by ESCWA, not her personally. (b) Correcting the reference to boycott, divestment and sanctions. The original entry, which I amended, said that the report itself called for BDS. This is a flat mistake as the report did not do this, as anyone can see by reading it. (c) Sources for this were al-Jazeera and The Blaze: it's obviously far better to cite the UN official statement and provide a link to the report rather than send readers to second-hand journalist coverage, especially if the latter makes substantive mistakes.
  (2) Addition of the HSRC report. I can't see reverting this for the reason given. This section on Israel does not pretend to be a "comprehensive list of all those accusing Israel of apartheid." The section offers a few select events that the authors apparently considered important to the legal question of "crime against humanity" due to their source - the Special Rapporteurs, who are both legal scholars, and Adalah, run by lawyers. In this sense of focusing on international law, the HSRC report, which was a dense legal study composed by legal scholars, was pivotal. It was arguably far more important than the Goldstone NYT editorial, which is not a legal study but an opinion piece, somehow has been included here. I didn't suggest deleting this, but since Goldstone wrote his editorial in reaction to the HSRC study it added weight to including it. Perhaps this whole section should be removed. But I don't see removing the HSRC report, which is the longest and most important legal analysis of apartheid in Israel ever done, and leaving the other items. 

Tafkira2 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Tafkira2 (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You got your answer here. Have a good day.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not actually a satisfactory answer (it very much misrepresents the situation and source). Also, is there any reason why you're choosing to let another user speak for you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now undone Yaniv's reversion of my original edit. The reasons for my original edit were that the previous version was (a) factually incorrect and (b) used secondary journalistic sources where primary citations (al-Jazeera) from the organizations involved were available. Yaniv, who reverted it, addresses neither of these issues raised in my challenge above. Instead, Yaniv presents irrelevant and actually incomprehensible reasons for rejecting my corrections. I've given time for a sensible response to my clarification on these points and received none. As the existing article presented factually incorrect information (such as ESCWA director Rima Khalaf organizing the report) it should not be permitted on Wikipedia when accurate information is available. Tafkira2 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

[16] - this rationale and edit summary are misleading and false. This is well sourced info. Yes, it uses the report, but that's because this is about the report. This is no more primary then linking an academic study is using a primary source. Now, if we were using the underlying data, then THAT would be a violation of WP:PRIMARY. Additionally the revert also removes two other paragraphs which are based on obviously secondary sources such as the New York Times. The editor fails to explain why this is suppose to be "POV". I can just as easily say that the continuous and repeated removal of this info is "POV".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Besides part of the text being unsourced, Rima Khalaf's unauthorized report which led to her resignation from ESCWA (in itself a rather minor political sub-organization) is simply UNDUE. A Jordanian politican's private document (and the UN retraction) is fit perhaps for inclusion elsewhere, but there is nothing DUE in this report beyond it being retracted almost immediately and the author leaving/being removed from her post.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A few questions and points. First, is there any reason for why you and יניב הורון keep answering questions directed at the other? When Yan is asked a question, often you answer. When you are asked a question, Yan answers. What gives?

Second, in addition to the text on the ESCWA report being removed, you and Yan are also removing a paragraph on a report by the HSRC. It seems you are using whatever rationale you've cooked up for removing ESCWA to also remove HSRC for no reason except WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Third, it's not actually true that this is a "rather minor political sub-organization". That's your own original research. Likewise, it's not actually true that it was a private document, which is obvious from the nature of the document. Third, it's not actually true that it was "retracted". Yes, there was controversy over whether it should be posted on the UN website, but that's a different issue altogether. Fourth, it's not actually true that the controversy makes this "UNDUE" or unnotable. Quite the opposite. And the text dutifully explains the relevant controversy.

There appears to be no policy based reason for your edit warring and removals, and the invoking of "WP:UNDUE", one of Wikipedia's most ambiguous and WP:GAMEable policies, seems to be just an arbitrary excuse for removal of relevant content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I have this article watchlisted - this is a public page for a particular article - not Yaniv's talk page and is not a place to direct private questions to a particular user. Furthermore your stmt above was not directed at any user - you did mention an edit summary, you did not mention anyone by name. As for the merits of your argument - ESCWA is a minor organization composed entirely of Arab states (and no - this is not OR, and WP:ONUS on you to show that ESCWA carries any weight regardless). The UN rejected the document, and Khalaf resigned shortly thereafter. The rather dubious provenance of this retracted/rejected document (which is no longer on the ESCWA website) by a Jordanian politician mainly notable for this document makes it quite UNDUE. There are also possibly BLPCRIME implications here.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The question was obviously directed at Yanniv, not you and the reason for my inquiry is because this is actually a frequent occurrence. When an editor engages in discussion with Yanniv, you pop up and answer in his place not infrequently. When you are engaged in a discussion with someone, Yanniv pops up, and, well, maybe not so much "discusses" on your behalf, but does make edits that mimic or mirror yours. If we hope to have genuine consensus building and resolution of the relevant disputes, it would help, if the people addressed would answer for themselves. It's also confusing, because you never know who you'll be talking to, you or Yanniv. It's also a bit curious, and I was simply wondering if you could provide a reasonable explanation for this repeated phenomenon.

Regarding the ESCWA. Let me repeat:

1. " in addition to the text on the ESCWA report being removed, you and Yan are also removing a paragraph on a report by the HSRC" <--- you have completely failed to address this question.

2. Whether ESCWA is a "minor organization" has nothing to do with whether it's "composed entirely of Arab states". In fact, the implication of your statement is sort of problematic. At any rate, the claim that is a "minor organization" is indeed pure original research. Please present a source to that effect. As for ONUS, it's clear that this report received quite extensive coverage in reliable sources, hence whatever "WP:ONUS" applies here, has been met. Now the ball is in your court. Please provide ONUS sources to show that it's NOT notable.

3. Likewise the fact that the author is a "Jordanian politician" is irrelevant. Not sure why this would be a bad thing. Can you articulate why being a "Jordanian politician" would automatically disqualify someone from being discussed in a Wikipedia article on this topic? Like your statement about "Arab states", this claim is also problematic.

4. Regardless of what the nationality of the author is (which is irrelevant) at the end of the day, what matters is the coverage that this report - and the associated controversy, which is covered in the text - received in reliable sources.

5. The claim that this report was "retracted/rejected" is also original research. It was removed from UN's website and a disclaimer was issued. This is all described in the relevant text. The fact that Khalaf resigned after this report is actually a good reason for inclusion. It's part of what makes this document so significant; the controversy it caused.

6. I also see that you're trying to utilize the faux-shield of BLPCRIME again. I think you've been told previously to avoid trying to misuse this policy. If there is a BLPCRIME issue here then please articulate what it is and explain why it applies. You can't just run around yelling "BLPCRIME! BLPCRIME!" and hope to convince anyone. WHO, like, what living person, is being accused of a crime here?

7. In the same vein, an edit summary which just claims "no consensus!" is not constructive. Yes, we are aware that you dislike this text. Reflexive knee-jerk disagreement and edit warring however is not "no consensus", it's just obstruction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

HSRC was sourced to a primary source (itself) and the other half of the paragraph was un-referenced. That ESCWA is a regional commission, composed entirely of Arab states, under the United Nations Economic and Social Council is a fact, as is Khalaf being a Jordanian politician. The report itself received very little coverage EXCEPT for the controversy behind it being issued by this minor regional commission (which itself is underneath the United Nations Economic and Social Council) - most of the coverage of this was due to Khalef resigning, and its rejection by the UN Secretary General - who explicitly stated it only reflected its Authors' views - or Khalaf's. The sole importance of the report is its rejection by the UN - the coverage being focused on the issuance of this report with the UN moniker counter to the UN's position.[17] As for BLPCRIME, the text was accusing the state of Israel, and its leaders and functionaries (who are living people), of committing a crime.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"That ESCWA is a regional commission, composed entirely of Arab states, under the United Nations Economic and Social Council is a fact, as is Khalaf being a Jordanian politician. " - yes, nobody is disputing that. So what? The question is why does that matter? Why are you judging sources based on their ethnicity/nationality? Why do you insist that sources of a certain ethnicity are unacceptable - apparently BECAUSE of their ethnicity - but others, again, based on their ethnicity/nationality, are just fine? Why are you constantly seeking to exclude sources of nationalities/ethnicity which you... have some kind of problem with (I don't know how else to describe it, but you certainly indicate in your comments that you disagree with use of sources based on their ethnic or national provenance)? Is there some Wikipedia policy that I'm unaware of which says "sources of these ethnicities/nationalities are ok, sources of these ethnicities/nationalities should be discounted? Where do you get this approach from? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've restored this content. This removal is completely unjustified, this was widely covered in the media and an undue weight argument falls short here. The report itself received very little coverage EXCEPT for the controversy behind it being issued by this minor regional commission seems to be a strawman argument - the content in the article is based on how it was covered in WP:RS. The content that was removed was sourced to Reuters, NY Times, and Al Jazeera. Some of the content is already tagged and will either be modified or removed eventually.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

VM - in this case we do not have a "source" - as no one published this. We do have media sources covering the retraction of the report and the reisgnation of the author. That the author is a politician, heading a political regional organization composed entirely of states opposed to Israel is clearly relevant as to the severe BIAS of this non-source.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course we have a source. What are you talking about? There's three in the first paragraph and three in the second paragraph. And our text covers BOTH the report and the resignation, so what exactly is the problem?

The fact that the author is a politician may be relevant ... but not for whether this should be included or not. And we have secondary sources here. Or are you saying that we should never use any politician who has anything to say about Israel or Palestine or the Middle East in any article? That makes no sense. So what if she's a politician.

And even more irrelevant is the fact that she's Jordanian. We don't exclude Jordanians from Wikipedia articles just because Icewhiz thinks we should. That's actually sort of messed up.

Along similar lines, claim that these are states "opposed to Israel" is false. Both Egypt and Jordan (where this author is from) recognize Israel, have normal diplomatic relations with Israel and on many issue have common goals and interests. You appear to be equating "Arab" automatically with "anti-Israel", which is not true and is... sort of messed up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

We have sources on an unpublished and retracted document (which is not a source). You are mistaken regarding discourse in Jordanian and Egyptian politics on Israel - however this is also irrelevant. Please avoid making unfounded assertions on what other editors wrote - all I wrote is that Khalaf is a Jordanian who headed a minor, political, regional sub-group (which excludes Israel, and despite being "West Asia" includes North-West African states as well) composed of states opposed to Israel. Coverage of this was limited to the political stunt.Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

1.It was obviously published. Your claim is false.

2. It wasn't "retracted". It was taken down from a website. Your claim is false - or let's see some sources which say it was retracted. This is your own idiosyncratic original research.

3. Neither points 1 or 2 actually matter - what matters is whether the report was discussed in reliable secondary sources. It was.

4. Are you denying that Jordan and Egypt have regular diplomatic relations with Israel? Your statement above does seem to imply "Arab" = "Automatically Anti-Israel", there's really no other way to understand it. If you meant something else, please explain.

5. Regardless of 4, you do seem to jump from your erroneous claim about Arabs, to "Arab" = "cannot be reliable". I.e. you are trying to determine the reliability of sources based on their ethnicity. I find that deeply troubling. Is there some Wikipedia policy you are basing this behavior on? I can't think of why we would have one, and if we do, it needs to be changed immediately.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Crime of apartheid

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Crime of apartheid's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Guardian":

• From Xenophobia: 68% of Italians want Roma expelled – poll, The Guardian, Tom Kington, Rome, 17 May 2008
• From Human rights in Eritrea: Associated Press (25 October 2013). "Eritrea's human rights record comes under fire at United Nations". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
• From Genocides in history: "Ríos Montt genocide case collapses". The Guardian. London. 20 May 2013.
• From Rohingya genocide: "'Hallmarks of genocide': ICC prosecutor seeks justice for Rohingya". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 10 April 2018. Retrieved 10 April 2018.
• From Racism: Stephen Vines (2009-11-01). "China's black pop idol exposes her nation's racism". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2009-11-03.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nelson Mandela statue.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

United States Section

I'm removing this section because I get the vibe it's slightly anti-American (I'll get to that point), much racial discrimination in the US predates the establishment of apartheid in South Africa in 1948, and because this will inevitably snowball to whether we can include other countries. Should we include Canada, a country that pretty much engineered apartheid with its treatment of indigenous peoples? Australia and the White Australia policy? Mexico and other Latin American countries had the casta system, as well as missions and reductions, should this be considered apartheid? Bolivia has a history of intense racial segregation, should they be considered an apartheid state? Ireland? The Balkans? Turkey? India? The Arabic speaking countries? All of those countries have had histories of ethnic/racial/religious tensions, need we all consider these apartheid? There are so many countries where one can see "apartheid", it's certainly not limited or unique to the USA; we need to limit the scope of the article.

The only country that would make sense adding here would be Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Otherwise, just limit the scope of the article to countries with current hard legislature that seeks to create an apartheid-like system. --2601:642:4204:B30:E07F:D08C:B711:C215 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)