Art by John You. Contact X Amount Records. Streaming and Download help. Report this album or account. I see the lines connecting the stars by Oliver Divone. A whimsical and carefree home recording project explores the outer fringes of math rock, psych, and alternative pop. Tim Burgess follows up this year's lauded full-length with an EP containing two new pop maximalist tracks and a few rare live sessions. Quickies by The Magnetic Fields. The band's latest project includes twenty-eight new short songs that clock-in at no longer than just under three minutes.
Twenty-three delightful indiepop and bedroom folk tracks that emphasize small arrangement and huge hooks, benefitting Feeding America. A track comp to benefit artists with cancelled tours, including raucous indie, buoyant pop, and sweet Cyndi Lauper covers.
The self-proclaimed "Latnix Future" artist blends Latin jazz, synthpop, and spoken word to emotional, transcendental effect. Explore music. Camryn Marquez. Camryn Marquez The work really transforms upon exhaustion of the body. Weighted flesh may be the key to vacant eyes. Found my skull submerged in grains. Favorite track: Wish I Knew U ft. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus agreement is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
This is clearly an attempt by a POV pushing group to take a second bite of the apple. Consensus in the mediation was quite clear. There is a vested political interest in having Israel compared to apartheid South Africa.
As such, the key issue is discussion of the analogy and whether it is applicable, not a de facto statement that said conditions exist. Therefore, the current title is both more neutral, more accurate, more appropriate, and should be maintained as opposed to the suggested title. A number of significant sources in the article, including a United Nations representative, a body of the South African government and others are not making an analogy, they are discussing whether Israel is committing the crime of apartheid.
That's why the mediation started, that's what was agreed in it, and that's why the "analogy" title is too flawed to stay.
By continuing to ignore this fundamental point, those opposed to the move are refusing to engage in rational discussion of the title. This omission in the lead does not reflect NPOV nor the consensus of multitudes of editors that have discussed this over the last 5 years.
The suggestion that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid which the "analogy" title fails to include in its scope is also controversial. Almost every editor here agrees this is a controversial topic. Just like Race and intelligence is a controversial subject. Is there a relationship between race and intelligence?
Is Israel committing the crime of apartheid? Both are controversial, the significant sources on these topics are in disagreement.
That is part of what makes Israel and apartheid and Race and intelligence such appropriate titles, because those titles do not imply the existence of any specific connection between their subjects. They describe a discourse about whether a connection exists and if so what the connection is, without prejudging the subject in any way.
And unlike the current "analogy" title, Israel and apartheid describes the entire content of the article, rather than only describing one aspect of the article. Ryan Paddy talk , 22 August UTC The analogy to "Race and intelligence" doesn't work because 1 no specific race is named to be judged and 2 'intelligence' is not a pejorative; it is neutral in this context.
A fairer analogy to "Israel and apartheid" would be the hypothetical title "Negroids and stupidity", which would ostensibly discuss the disagreements between significant sources on the connection that the title implies. Both the proposed title for this article and the hypothetical title from my example are obviously not neutral. Quigley talk , 22 August UTC The content of Race and intelligence doesn't solely address whites and blacks, it also discusses hispanics, east asians, etc. Therefore the use of a general term like "race" or "ethnicity" is required in the title to describe the content.
Therefore "Israel" must be in the title of the article in order to describe its content, it cannot be "Nations and apartheid". Apartheid does indeed have negative connotations, because racial segregation is widely despised in the modern world.
Similarly, intelligence has positive connotations, to be "smart" is usually considered a good thing. However, Wikipedia cannot shy away from describing a subject accurately in article titles just because many terms in common use are value-laden, that would be self-censorship.
For another appropriate comparison, see United States and state terrorism. There is no doubt that terrorism has negative connotations. But there is a notable public discourse that suggests the US may have committed state terrorism, and therefore there should be an article on the topic, and the title must dispassionately describe the subject matter discussed. Israel and apartheid , like "United States and state terrorism" and "Race and intelligence" does not prejudge the nature of the relation between the subjects, and rightly so because any suggested relation is highly controversial.
But it does include the full scope of the article's content, which any title including "analogy" does not. Ryan Paddy talk , 22 August UTC Oppose I understand the motivations; however, the suggested title would have to result in a completely different article, e. Israel's role in dealing with and relationship to South Africa between and Whether one likes it or not, Apartheid was and remains the Afrikaans term for the policies instituted by the South African government; any comparison must be labeled as such "analogy".
Apartheid is now used as the name of a crime in international law and is no longer confined to the regime that existed in South Africa. But I admit, that's probably a different discussion. The word "apartheid" has two meanings. It means both the general concept of racial segregation as used by scholars and by the United Nations to define the international crime of apartheid , and the specific historical instance of racial segregation in South Africa from which the name originated.
The subject of this article is the discourse about both comparisons of the State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to apartheid in both senses , and whether the State of Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid. This article isn't about Israel's relationship with apartheid-era South Africa. However, that potential ambiguity was discussed at length in the mediation with the resulting decision to include a disambiguation line to clarify the scope of the article.
The editors in the mediation agreed that this issue is much less concerning that the use of "analogy" in the title, which inaccurately describes significant content in the article. This isn't about finding a perfect title, but the least flawed one.
I don't have any strong feelings either way. I didn't know this point had come up during mediation. Thus, neutral on the title It ended up with a consensus for the move, based on the arguments presented. The current article name has been used to argue for exclusion of relevant sources. The current article name has also been found to be of limited value to the reader.
Israel and Apartheid is short and adequate, the consensus also included the writing of a header which would properly explain the scope of the article. It is deeply unfortunate that many of the involved editors choose not to engage in the detailed discussions, resorting to filibustering and derailment at the last moment.
It is more appropriate for smaller discussions. For example, the main Ahmadinijead argument about the "wipe Israel off of the map" quote in the lede went to formal mediation; issues about Rashid Khalidi, IIRC, we were able to handle informally. The mediation was announced on all the relevant wikiprojects as I remember. It is hardly fair to complain of low participation when people choose not to participate.
However, a poorly advertised informal mediation remains inferior to a widely advertised formal setting in my opinion. I also noticed that I had to inform the relative wikiprojects of this request, as the originator did not remember to do so. Ensuring the widest possible participation is key to gaining consensus.
For example, there was a consensus reached to move the three pages corresponding on the articles regarding the Jewish temples, but it was overturned with the argument that the consensus may not have reflected the wider English wikipedia audience as it the discussion was not broadcast in the proper places.
We would not want this discussion to suffer from the same issue. If I am mistaken then please do let me know. I second unomi's comment as well.
After reviewing the article in its entirety the current proposal is simply bogus. Actual, real content explicitly describing and contrasting apartheid South Africa and Israeli relationship with Arabs is remote in comparison.
A better title would be "People who say Israel is an apartheid" but "Israel apartheid" does not in any way connect with the source material. A democratic consensus is irrelevant.
I ask any editor here to point to a single guideline that supports half the information in the article. Most of it was designed by specific editors without regard to policy, which is why the article has stayed in start class for years.
Better we improve the article before changing the title to give it false credence. I do believe Israel apartheid could be a proper title in the future, but now the article is simply important people who believe Israel is an apartheid. Specific parallels between Apartheid South Africa and Israel is barely noticeable. Apartheid analogy is the fairest and most honest title at the moment, because most of the content is about people who compare Israel to South Africa.
This isn't the same as "Israel apartheid. Kenya and Australia were original apartheids Australia was the template for apartheid , so if the article is going to about South African apartheid then perhaps the title should reflect that.
No mainstream consensus has determined Israeli government is an apartheid, nor as the United Nations, US government, European Union, or major bodies say Israel is an apartheid state.
It has not been subject to international sanctions in the way South Africa was. In an unrelated note, I'd say the origins of apartheid analogies could be expanded on.
While Israel has been occupying and controlling most of the Palestinian territories for the last 40 years, the concept of Israel apartheid is a relatively recent phenomenal that is really a decedent of Soviet foreign policy. I might expand this in another talk section. Wikifan talk , 20 August UTC Wikifan, the proposal is to move the article to "Israel and apartheid", not to "Israel apartheid".
There is a world of difference between the two. If you want to comment on the proposal, fine, but please don't misrepresent it. Even if we assume "Israel and apartheid" it still doesn't remotely fit the content of the article, and my rationale is strong and concrete. Feel free to debate it. Wikifan talk , 21 August UTC No, it's not "semantics" at all, there is a very clear difference. See the responses from Ryan Paddy and Carwill below. In the past, you have worn your heart on your sleeve, made your strong ideology plain, and argued it straightforwardly.
There is a place on Wikipedia for people to ensure their well-sourced perspectives are adequately represented in articles. But everything about your more recent comments suggests that these days you are attempting a new tactic of confusing editors with a dazzling array of irrelevant statements intended to avoid engagement in the principle arguments made by other editors.
This is especially disturbing in that some opponents of the move merely cite your gibberish arguments without giving any of their own. You refused to participate in the mediation by stating that your opinions on the matter were too strong to participate in good faith a respectable position , then once the mediation reached a conclusion that you disliked you complained that the mediation was "rigged" because not enough people with your opinion participated i.
Your unstated refusal to discuss the main reason for the move makes it impossible for me to continue to assume good faith in your editing at this time. I defy you to address the principle reason for the proposed move. Please, explain how the sources that suggest that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid, a crime against humanity under international law, can be adequately described as making an "analogy".
They clearly can't, and that's clearly why you're avoiding the subject. Ryan Paddy talk , 23 August UTC Ryan, accusations of crime of apartheid, crime against humanity, whatever mean absolutely nothing. People are drawing parallels, or analogies between Israel and apartheid South Africa.
No international body such as the European Union, United Nations, international courts, etc Claims and allegations of apartheid are just that, claims and allegations.
Wikifan talk , 24 August UTC Prominent reliable sources have stated that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid. These statements are described in the article to maintain a neutral point of view by describing all prominent perspectives. Your suggestion that these perspectives "mean absolutely nothing" ignores the NPOV policy. These sources state that Israel's actions may meet the definition of the crime of apartheid.
That is not a comparison, therefore the "analogy" title cannot be used for an article that describes such perspectives. These sources do not state that Israel has been found guilty of the crime of apartheid or sanctioned, and neither does the article, so your other comments about trials and sanctions are irrelevant original research. Apartheid is universally understood to an era in South Africa.
What appears to be insinuated in the Crime of apartheid , as such lowercase, not uppercase on apartheid. If the article were to concern Israeli-Apartheid South African relations, then the suggested title might work. The mediation process established the naming format and, as far as I can tell, it was done openly and fairly. So, I won't speak of other options. Support Israel and apartheid , Oppose Israel and Apartheid.
Users who purposefully boycotted the mediation and now jump in to oppose at the 11th hour are stuffing themselves with sour grapes, IMO. Doubly so those who have sought by hook or by crook to delete the article outright over the years.
Tarc talk , 20 August UTC Move per mediation consensus, but to the lowercase Israel and apartheid , as Labattblueboy suggested. And by that I meant, I have changed the proposed title to reflect the capitalization issue. I don't love Israel and apartheid as a title, but the current title is an abomination. What does that even mean? Controversial, POV push move. Current title long-standing from debate among much larger pool of editors.
Plot Spoiler talk , 21 August UTC This Seems to have been the discussion forming the basis to the move to this title, if so, it involved 15 editors and a significantly smaller consensus for the move than the one we just had. Gatoclass talk , 21 August UTC Move The existing title violates NPOV policy by implying that official reports regarding Bantustanization;,deprivation of human rights; and allegations of crimes against humanity are trivial analogies.
This kind of activity is very disturbing. NickCT talk , 21 August UTC Move - The word "analogy" is very inaccurate and misleading, since many of the sources cited in the article do not describe the relationship between Israel and apartheid as an analogy e.
Some editors opposing the move cite the fact that prior Talk page discussions, involving a larger number of editors, decided on the "analogy" title, but that ignores the fact that 1 consensus can change; and 2 the material added into this article in the past year about the international crime of apartheid which has nothing to do with an analogy. Finally, in the "oppose"! If we assume for arguments sake the reaction section is removed, there is very little content that supports an "Israel and apartheid" title.
Wikifan talk , 21 August UTC Your comments here are WP:Tenditious and WP:Disruptive - you are pointing out that the current title is inaccurate, and you are listing 2 other titles that are more accurate.
You did not participate in that evaluation, and - worse- you are not acknowledging that the evaluation happened. Instead you choose to disrupt the WP dispute resolution process by repeatedly going back to the beginning and starting over. It is contrary to the spirit of consensus-building to re-hash irrational arguments over and over. Are you leading up to a call for a block on them all, expelling them from the discussion? That would of course greatly simplify the discussion.
There is indeed vested political interest in having Israel compared to apartheid South Africa. If negotiation is unsuccessful, interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter. In this instance, discussion of the name stalled here on the talk page, so a mediation was opened in keeping with the ARBCOM remedy.
The mediation went on for many weeks and saw a great deal of rational discussion on the name. Editors were required to enter into good faith mediation on the name, however a few chose instead to ignore or boycott the mediation until its discussions had reached a consensus that they did not like, and then protest.
These editors have failed to respect the required process. Following the ARBCOM remedy, is clear that the article should now be moved to Israel and apartheid , per the unusually strong consensus of the mediation. If editors continue to have an issue with the name, then they can follow the correct procedure to attempt to form a new consensus to move it again. The existing name cannot stand for the reason made clear and widely agreed in the mediation: it fails to include in its scope the significant content of the article that cannot be described as an analogy, especially the content regarding reliable sources that suggest that Israel may be committting the international crime of apartheid.
The new agreed title Israel and apartheid does not have this issue, and it is a neutral title that does not suggest any specific relationship between Israel and apartheid. This is appropriate to this article, the subject of which is a varied public discourse relating Israel to apartheid. Unlike "Israeli apartheid", the agreed title does not imply the existence of apartheid in Israel, which would be inappropriate as there is not a strong enough agreement between reliable sources to imply the existence of apartheid in Israel.
Rather, like Race and intelligence , the agreed title describes the subjects of the notable public discourse without inappropriately implying the fact or nature of their relationship. These were the reasons for the move that were discussed at length in the mediation, reasons that those who boycotted the mediation have never engaged with, preferring endless delaying tactics to consensus-building discussion of the pros and cons of title options.
That's just not good enough. I urge editors to take account of the process that has been followed, especially the mediation and the reasons discussed in it. Prior to the mediation, I myself took some convincing that there was a problem with the "analogy" title, and it was the laying out of the reasons that convinced me.
You have to look at the reasons carefully, this isn't an appropriate topic for a "gut feel" response. The proposed title sounds like an article about Israel's approach to South Africa's pres policies, not an alleged form of these policies occurring in Israel today. The current title isn't exactly great, either, but the new one suggests an article that ain't here.
Apartheid has two meanings. It refers to racial segregation in general, and is used this way by the United Nations to define the the international crime of apartheid, a crime against humanity. It also refers as you say to the specific historical instance of racial segregation in South Africa, where the name arose. Except for 8 years in Jersey I have lived in the Bronx for my entire life.
I have a lot of street smarts as well as common sense and I have never ever been mugged, or beat up, and my apartment has never been broken into. I don't hang out in the streets and I avoid ghetto people. There definitely are areas of the Bronx and outer bouroughs that aren't safe to live in but that goes for Manhattan too. The thing is that with a little common sense and reasonable precautions a person will likely NOT be robbed, raped, or killed. You know the stats Hustla Originally Posted by Fresh Meadows, Flushing, Forrest Hills, etc Those areas have public housing and others, and you're saying that they have crime above national average?
Originally Posted by Jasper You're a cop. Your experiences are ten times worse than other New Yorker's experiences so you shouldn't have any say when people ask about New York City.
F'ck, you make it seem like the Bronx is the ultimate hellhole. It's not. You're still alive. Well then I guess me, all of my immediate family, and all of my friends have been extremely lucky because we have never been the victims of a crime. I think that people should just look at the stats and make up their own minds about how much a risk they are willing to take.
Precinct Crime Statistics broken link NYPD Contact Information broken link I think that people will be better served by looking at the facts instead of listening to various people's dubiously not referring to you personally knowledgeable opinions of this neighborhood or that one. I have also noticed a trend on this forum and that it is full of negative people. Now, I agree with you that if one has the money and resources to live in a fantastic crime free environment then they should definitely pursue that.
I mean hell if I had the money I would be living in one of those K houses in Bronxdale. However, I think the issue of moving to undesirable neighborhoods comes up because people really don't have the money to afford the live in the "desirable" places.
Originally Posted by Freak. Whenever the number of people in your household or their income changes, you must report it right away to your landlord. If you do not, you may be accused of fraud and can lose your housing assistance or even be charged with a crime. You may also have to pay charges for back rent. If you did not report changes in the number of people in your household or their income, but did not do so on purpose, the landlord must let you repay back rent.
If the landlord does not let you do this, you should contact the Legal Aid Bureau. When your income or household size changes, your landlord will adjust your rent. If your rent goes down, the change will go into effect the first day of the month after you report the change in your income or household size. If your rent goes up, your landlord must give you 30 days notice of the increase, and the change will not go into effect until the first day of the month after the 30 days are up.
Sometimes a landlord is allowed to stop providing the kind of subsidized housing described here. If you hear that your landlord is planning to end a subsidy, you should contact the Legal Aid Bureau as soon as possible. Remember that you have a right to your affordable housing subsidy.
Call the appropriate housing inspections office to have a housing inspector inspect the premises for possible housing code violations. Section 8 tenants should call their Section 8 advisor, or the Section 8 inspections office with complaints about housing conditions.
Their phone number is What criminal activity or disturbances might cause an eviction in public housing? Any of the following types of criminal activity by the tenant, any member of the household, a guest or another person under the tenant's control might cause a termination of tenancy:.
Before your landlord can evict you, he or she must send you a written notice telling you the reasons why you are being evicted, that you have 10 days to discuss the eviction with your landlord, and that you have a right to defend yourself in court. The notice must be sent to tenant by first class mail, properly stamped and addressed to tenant at his address at the project, and with proper return address.
If no adult answers the door, the notice must be left under the door or attached to the door. If the landlord does not send you this notice, the landlord is not allowed to evict you. After sending you notice, your landlord must go to court before you can be evicted. Your landlord cannot change your locks, cut off the water or electricity, or move your belongings without going to court. Your landlord must wait 30 days after sending you the notice before going to court; then the landlord must prove that you broke your lease.
You may ask for a jury trial, but you must ask before the judge hears the case.Apr 07, · When you move into a public housing unit, HUD complex, or section 8 unit in the private rental market, the landlord must give you a written lease and a list of any damages already in the unit. The HUD and public housing lease are standard leases approved by the federal government, (in the case of HUD housing) and the local housing authority.