Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Namibia relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plane crash

[edit]

is the plane crash relevant for inclusion? people of different nationalities die all the time in plane crashes, I don't see why we have to report instances here, unless it's some big number like 100. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Israel sent police and rescue staff to Namibia to help identify the bodies and identify the cause of the crash.--TM 08:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They sent a team to identify the bodies- how is this relevant to the relationship between the two countries? HupHollandHup (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It further establishes that they have a cordial relationship and it demonstrates the economic interdependence of each country's diamond economy.--TM 05:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a dozen people working and killed in a crash does not demonstrate an economic interdependence. This is a piece of trivia which is not really related to the article's topic. Please find a reliable source that discusses the crash in the context of Israel–Namibia relations if you want to include it. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. This paragraph does not describe the impact of the plane crash on I-N relations; in its current form it should not stay. --Pgallert (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation ?

[edit]

SA was holding Namibia under a League of Nations mandate - calling it "occupation" seems a bot POV-ish, not to mention the fact that that word does not appear in the source being cited for that statement. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The League of Nations mandate was revoked in 1966. See talk:Namibia#Occupation? for about 10 sources which all call it an occupation.--TM 05:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure there are sources that call it that, just as there are sources that don't call it that - like the one you are using here. Adding it to the source you are using seems like a violation of WP:SYNTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HupHollandHup (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the sources? Multiple United Nations resolutions would disagree with you. Simply because the source doesn't explicitly say "occupation" doesn't make calling it so a synthesis. Like it or not, it is a well-established fact that South Africa illegally occupied Namibia for decades after the League of Nations mandate was revoked. Prove that it wasn't considered as such?--TM 17:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did look at the sources. They are a combination of personal opinions, and UN general assembly resolutions. The resolutions themselves repeatedly call South Africa "the racist Pretoria regime" - does that mean we can use that term in the wiki article about SA? There are numerous UN GA resolutions that equate Zionism with racism - can we use those in the wiki article about Zionism to say Zionism is racism? It is not up to me to disprove an unsourced claim you are making - it is up you to prove it, using sources, with out violating WP:SYNTH. You are pushing for a conclusion 'C' (Israel supported SA's occupation of Namibia) using one source (of dubious quality) that says SA occupied Namibia, and another source B, that says Israel supported SA - that's a pretty clear violation of WP:SYNTH. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing no such thing. There are a number of scholarly sources, UN resolutions, government sources, international media sources. Where are the personal opinion sources? When discussing the UN and South Africa, it is perfectly acceptable to include such information. Have you seen the Zionism is racism article? Ariel Sharon visited Namibia in 1981 (during the height of the occupation of Namibia) and pledged support for South Africa's military. What sources are of dubious quality? Be specific.--TM 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are doing that. In your previous edit (which I have rewritten) , you added to the article the sentence "As part of Israel's support for the South African occupation, Israeli instructors helped train Angolan rebels" - that is an opinion which is not in the sources you cite. The sources of dubious quality are op-eds and other personal opinions, as well as UNGA resolutions. Yes, I've seen the Zionism is racism - which discusses the resolution itself, but does not use the resolution to support the POV claim that Zionism is racism. Similarly, we can have an article about UNGA A/RES/S-14/1 (if it is notable enough), discuss its implications and background, but we can't use it as a source in order to start describing South Africa as "the racist Pretoria regime" in the article about South Africa. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't say anything about the "racist Pretoria regime". Since the United Nations, scholarly articles and the international media are not wp:reliable sources in your book, what are reliable sources? The discussion is regarding whether or not to call South Africa's control over Namibia an occupation or not. What was it then? A tea-party? I really don't understand your argument here. I've provided many, many reliable sources which call South Africa's control an occupation.--TM 20:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking about this article. Your argument seems to be that 'since a UNGA resolution used term X in order to describe something, it is OK for wikipedia to do so". That argument is incorrect. I was hoping the the rhetorical device of showing you how that very same UNGA resolution you were using to support the term 'occupation' was using other POV hyperbole ('racist Pretoria regime') which would have been inappropriate in wiki articles. It seems you understand that point with regards to SA and "racist Pretoria regime", but refuse to accept the implication for using that kind of sourcing for 'occupation' and 'Namibia'. My argument is that you are engaging in unneeded violations of WP:SYNTH. There are other ways to describe SA's situation in Namibia - for example as South African Administration, the result of a legally structured international mandate, subsequently withdrawn and followed by a transitional period, during which SA had different opinions and schedules than other stake holders. I am not saying this is a better way to describe it, I am just saying there are other descriptions, and the one you chose is a POV one, which is not needed. We are describing Israels' relations with Namibia - the sources describing that relationship do so without refereeing to Namibia is 'occupied' - why do we need to add that descriptor here? HupHollandHup (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, calling it anything other than an occupation would be POV. It was recognized by the world over and over again and then later by many international scholars as an illegal occupation after the mandate was revoked. The word occupation oftentimes includes the idea of the guerrilla war, such as that which SWAPO fought against SA during this time period. A "neutral" word like administration implies no such guerrilla movement and no illegitimacy.--TM 04:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources regarding Israel-Namibia relations are obviously somewhat limited. As such, it is unfair to say "well the academic source which has written about the sources doesn't use the word occupation, therefore it is POV and a synthesis. The preponderance of evidence from third-party reliable sources agrees that it was in fact an illegal occupation.--TM 04:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources regarding Israel-Namibia relations are somewhat limited, we are correspondingly limited to saying what they say. We can't embellish and add to them what we wish they said, or what we think they would have said if there were more of them. I agree that calling it "South African Administration" is every bit as POV as calling it an occupation - which is why I'll repeat the question you haven't answered - why do we need to add any descriptor here? Why not say exactly what the sources say - that in year xxxx Israeli official X visited Namibia? Why the insistence on adding a POV descriptor?

(od) Indeed, [if] UNGA resolution used term X in order to describe something, it is OK for wikipedia to do so. We are not compelled to do so but we may. By the way, what is wrong with the term 'racist Pretoria regime'? Which of the three words do you want to contest? --Pgallert (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? so, in the article about Zionism, we may state, in Wikipedia's neutral voice, that "Zionism is a form of racism", and source it to UNGA 3379? HupHollandHup (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we may. It is by no means a fringe theory, and it can be properly referenced. To avoid undue bias, one would then also take a source that states that Zionism and racism have nothing to do with each other, and juxtapose the two opinions. --Pgallert (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you spend some time reading WP:NPOV. You clearly do not understand it. we may not write, in Wikipedia's neutral voice, any opinion or theory, without attribution. 24.23.193.232 (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you write these contributions while being logged in. Apart from that, "source it to UNGA 3379" is an attribution. My suggestion does not violate NPOV. --Pgallert (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources

[edit]

I just wanted to point out that some of the sources are highly questionable, not only the one that was recently edit-warred about:

  • AT Kaure is not a journalist. He only writes opinion pieces. As such, not only the op-ed piece in New Era is a bit fishy but also this contribution: Kaure, Alexactus (23 July 2004). "How Namibia Supports Israel's Palestine Occupation". The Namibian. It is not flagged as "opinion" but if you look at the flow of arguments it becomes clear it is not "news" in the classic sense.
  • Hannes Smith has created an astonishing pile of propaganda in his life time in his position as editor of the the Windhoek Observer (Thanks to HHH to create a stub about it). He used his paper at every opportunity to discredit SWAPO, Sam Nujoma, and the liberation movement. Many of his allegations have turned out to be false, particularly the ones he made towards politicians.

I am sure I don't need to lecture anyone about the difficulties of finding reliable sources when writing about Israel and its politics. In Namibia this is particularly tough with quite a few business tycoons being of Jewish descent. --Pgallert (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may want to rethink that last line. Perhaps reading this, or this might help you. What you just wrote is no different, and equally appalling. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who started this section? I think it was HupHollandHup but could you please sign your name? Also, rather than just write that the Observer and Kaure are not reliable sources (though the New Era op-ed is explicitly introduced as such), can you provide some sources or examples proving they don't belong?--TM 14:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't start this section. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry about that.--TM 18:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started this section (sorry for not explicitly signing every paragraph), and I re-thought that last line of mine. Call it what you want at the risk of me calling you naive. I cannot say how financially dependent Namibian newspapers are from those businesses, and neither can you. Kobi Alexander pretty openly bribed Government with FDI, and so did Lev Leviev. Government owns some newspapers directly, and additionally some of the printing works for all newspapers. Of course coverage could still be neutral but you cannot guarantee "independence of the sources" in such case. --Pgallert (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And before another comment about perceived anti-semitism comes my way: I did not say they control the media, just that they have such economic power that they could try. The same applies to the Germans in Namibia and to all other parties that openly bribe, or actively support, the current ruling party. That alone is reason enough to be doubly careful in such cases, and I would rather collect information from sources abroad. --Pgallert (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said there is a problem finding reliable Namibian sources about Israel-Namibia, because in Namibia there are "quite a few business tycoons being of Jewish descent". That sounds very much like the age-old anti-Semitic canard that Jewish money and control is suppressing news, and nearly identical to the recent Oliver Stone incident, which was correctly described as anti-Semitic, and for which he has apologized. If you won't strike it out, I'll take it to a notice board and see what other editors think about it. 24.23.193.232 (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. --Pgallert (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my actual claim: Without going into detail, Smith has for instance claimed that Nujoma promised an independent Caprivi, that Nujoma was connected to the CIA, to the Mafia, that he facilitated the Cassinga slaughter, and that he betrayed the UN. All that on the cover page of his "newspaper". Kaure is not as problematic, just that he is not a journalist. He writes opinion pieces, some of which are borderline in many respects. --Pgallert (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know Smith's history, but where is the Observer cited?--TM 04:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't look properly, sorry. The Observer is only used as indirect source of information, by the book. Case closed. --Pgallert (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israel–Namibia relations. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Namibia_relations&oldid=1207608084"