This is an archive of past discussions about Israeli apartheid. 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.
Note: As 6SJ7 gently pointed out, my suggestion did not fit within the above RM section. So, I've move my text and some responses here from previous section. Copy those comments back if you wish. HG | Talk Oops -- The section title should be "RM" Requested Move, not RfM! HG | Talk03:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You really deserve to be commended for persevering with the needed renaming, Greg, and for your previous effort with the requested move. You are helping keep people optimistic about working toward a solution. Kudos to others, too, who are hanging in, whether by offering proposals, showing flexibility, or articulating plausible objections. It's been a difficult and frustrating situation, given that so many folks (but not all) agree in principle on revising the name but cannot agree on any specific name. Still, I don't think it's such a great idea to keep posing new polls or requested moves on various alternatives, because there's a certain fatigue in getting people to keep voting, keep explaining their opposition, etc. (See also WP:STRAW.) Instead, since you (and others) are willing to put out positive energy on revising the name, I'd suggest that you move toward consensus -- not by pushing another specific title -- but by clarifying what we've learned from previous polls/discussion about the arguments for and against (1) the need to change the current title, and (2) specific title options. This would show that you understand peoples' concerns, give you a chance to diplomatically present the counter-arguments and countervailing principles. For instance, what do we already know about objections to "debate" (vs. "controversy") or to "Israeli apartheid" (vs. Israel and apartheid, for instance)? Are there other ways to meet some folks' concerns, e.g. with redirects or article headings, even if they don't get their first choice for the title? Most importantly, this would provide the framework for further discussion of the key pro/con arguments. Anyway, thanks for your patience and energy, hope you take this suggestion in good spirits. HG | Talk21:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
HG, I applaud your efforts at moderation, explanation, compromise, etc. Finally some psoitive interventions. This case has been through ArbCOM, and other process, but without much actual tangible positive efforts. I applaud your efforts, and fully support your expressions and efforts, and approach. thanks. --Steve, Sm890021:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
HG, I take your kindly expressed suggestions under consideration, and thank you for good word. Feel better now, even rebuked a little. Are you a preacher rabbi or someone like that? Now I think I know what HK stands for - Harry Kemelman and his Saturday the Rabbi Went Hungry - Am I right? Besides, I enjoyed that book, read it twice. Correction: The style of your writing is so close to HK so I took you for him misspelling G for K. Hope you don't mind. greg park avenue21:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Greg, based on some of the discussion above, I ask that you consider withdrawing this move request, at least for the time being. Based on the preceding section, there is really very little chance that it will get a true consensus, regardless of how you feel about it. It is not going to help anything. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion (a guideline) and Wikipedia:Straw polls (an essay.) I know that somewhere in there is a suggestion that multiple polls in quick succession are not helpful, and another suggestion that excessive polling can make consensus more difficult to achieve. The bottom line is that I hope that you will withdraw this, before people actually start "voting" on your proposal and it becomes even more difficult to achieve a consensus in the future. 6SJ723:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, 6SJ7, I can't close this RfM. If administrators wish to, let them do it. I owe it to editors who were behind the idea. Actually, it wasn't my idea; I preferred the "analogy" version, but after analogy failed in previous RfM, this one looks like kind of compromise, maybe it goes through, who knows. Just give it a try. I gather, on one point we all have agreed - "allegations" must go! Thanks! greg park avenue15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not correct. A request or nomination may be withdrawn. You just don't want to, which is your right. However, this endless polling and voting really is becoming disruptive. As for your statement that "on one point we have all agreed", no, we have not all agreed on anything. I only agree to change the name in favor of a name I think is better. 6SJ718:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Instead of polling, I'd like to create a page to show how we might follow up on my suggestion above. (i.e., Let's work to clarify the arguments for and against (1) the need to change the current title, and (2) specific title options. And to explore creative ways to handle disparate concerns, etc.) A subpage of Talk wouldn't work. We'd need some kind of project page with its own Talk page. Perhaps we can use a Mediation Cabal page? Can anyone suggest what kind of project page I might use? Thanks. HG | Talk00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I for one would like to keep it here, and would cast a vote for keeping the options suggested as concise as possible. Every time the discussion splits off someone keeps going here and the back and forth just gets disorienting. BYT00:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right that it would be good to be concise and not disorient folks. But it's hard for us to avoid repeating and rehashing our arguments, and thus hard to make progress, without a stable project page to record our findings and points of dis/agreement. We also get sidetracked in various ways and then the thread gets lost, disjointed or archived. The long discussion thread also makes it hard for new people to enter into the conversation and evaluate our various arguments. (BYT, we might try keeping it here in the form of a non-archived summary that is kept at the top of the page or as a subpage. But this wouldn't make such good use of the wiki.) Thanks! Any suggestions where I might at least demonstrate what I have in mind? HG | Talk00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey -- as McCartney once put it while with the Beatles, "I'll follow the sun."
If you think this will help break the deadlock, I'll watch any page. Seems counterintuitive to me, though. Anyone not participating in the project page is likely to introduce (familiar) mantras after we announce what we've come up with, and claim they were cut out of the discussion somehow.
I have to be honest, too, about the fact that I'm getting a little weary with very, very long summaries of where we've been and equally long summaries where we might go. A lengthy paragraph also makes it hard, or at least less likely, for new people to enter into the conversation and evaluate arguments. BYT01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that this particular section is the discussion area for a "formal" move request that has been made under the relevant policy. Obviously it has evolved into a more general discussion. However, since there is a time factor on a move discussion, it seems to me that the first thing to do is determine whether this process is going to go forward. As far as I know, the only way it can be stopped is if Greg withdraws it, or if an administrator comes along and decides that three RfM's in quick succession (with an informal poll in between) is too much, and that it should be closed. Personally I think this should be withdrawn. Then, HG and BYT and others, we can proceed with a discussion without a time limit hanging overhead. 6SJ701:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Sefringle's opposition does reflect the earliest concern over the phrase "Israeli apartheid", which is why "allegations" was added after the initial dispute. If I'm not mistaken, opponents argue that the phrase itself presupposes one side's answer to what is being debated (or not even a debate, see previous section). For instance: "Evil Sparta" is more POV than "Moral Qualities of Sparta" and "Athenian Democracy" is more POV than "Political Decision-making in Athens". This is also why Tiamut is commendably flexible (see Talk Archive 24) for supporting both type-A titles that retain the phrase "Israeli apartheid" and at least one type-B title -- "Israel and apartheid" that grammatically delinks the words. We also discussed the notion that consensus might be best explored through type-B titles (as was tried in Cerejota and Jossi's latest Move proposals) but we didn't finish discussing the arguments pro/con on type-B. (Our discussion thread was broken, so we're just repeating ourselves here. That's why I think it would be more efficient for us to write-up a stable and concise documentation of the argumentation.) Thanks for hearing me out! HG | Talk 10:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with HG.
Both for the analysis on the title and the analysis on the importance of a synthesis for the arguments discussed here. Alithien 10:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree that it would be better to pause for a break for discussion and reflection. We've had numerous polls now without consensus. This seems to suggest that the consensus is against renaming! I think Greg is operating in good faith here, but I think we need to take a break for the constant polling. There is no deadline we are working against. Bigglove17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, give the rename/delete/move arguments a rest. We've been down that road too many times, and it's not getting us anywhere. --John Nagle17:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Synthesis of the arguments. Reading this as (limited) encouragement to move forward, and accepting advice to start with a user subpage, I started working on a Synthesis of pro/con arguments about the title. Not a poll. It's obviously a bit disjointed and incomplete so far. Maybe once it is in better shape it could be moved here to Talk, as BYT suggests. Would folks be willing to help in editing and adding to this synthesis? Thanks for your consideration! HG | Talk16:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So far, the main topics include: Notability issues; Neutrality of "allegations", "Israeli apartheid", and of several alternative terms (e.g., debate vs. controversy); and Types of proposed titles to date; possible remedies. I'll try to step back and just encourage you all to flesh out our arguments and reasoning. Thanks! HG | Talk23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not feed the trolls.We've had two move requests in the last week, with no consensus for a move. We don't need to have this discussion again in yet another location. It's time for the people who want to rename the article to just stop for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment re quotation formats
I had a look at the article earlier today and was struck by how quotations are dealt with differently in the two halves of the article. Just scroll down the page quickly and it will be obvious where the "case for the defence" starts from the different visual style. There needs to be some attempt to create a uniform style so that it is not so obvious that two warring camps of editors have been working on the article.--Peter cohen11:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Peter. I tried to do that. Any quote over three sentences long in the article was formatted in the <blockquote> style. I hope that satisfies the concern for now. There are however, a lot of lengthy quotes in the criticism section - it seems to be a bit of a quote farm. Tiamat13:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tiamut. The divide is much less visually obvious now. User:Cerejota did tag the article as a whole as a quotefarm back in May. It needs an honest broker to try to work on things, but on an article like this it may be hard to fine someone who will be seen as such. I want a break from being accused of edit-warring for a while, and have some real work to do. SO I shan't put myself forward as honest broker now, but I may come back in a month to see how things are. --Peter cohen15:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Would the following be useful to editors of this article?
Jewish Telegraphic Agency - 08/30/2007 - "Today Israel is an apartheid state with different status for different communities," Danny Rubenstein, prominent columnist and member of the Israeli newsaper's Haaretz editorial board, also said: "Hamas won the election of the international community and Israel cannot ignore that."
Jerusalem Post - Danny Rubinstein has been barred from attending the Zionist Federation conference in London after the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Rubinstein told the UN in Brussels: "Today Israel is an apartheid state with different status for different communities." Rubinstein has apparently been challenged by ZF officials and confirmed these were his words. ZF Chairman Andrew Balcombe is quoted "by using the word 'apartheid' in a UN conference held at the European Parliament, Danny Rubinstein encourages the demonization of Israel and the Jewish people". PalestineRemembered06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly what should be avoided. Columnist opinions, editorials, statements made by political activists directly engaged in the conflict as Mustafa Barghouti are POV loaded and don't belong to encyclopedia. Someone loads this trash into this article, and then there is a reason to post another AfD, just as it occured today. Isn't that what John calls "feeding the trolls?" Seven AfDs in a row probably justifies the term, if two RMs did. greg park avenue11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Rubinstein's comment was made at an international forum and he's a notable Israeli journalist. His comments were not polemical and came in the context of a discussion on strategies to dismantle apartheid policies in Israel. If you have not noticed, it's already been included in the article. I added it a couple of days ago. Tiamut12:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought the troll image was in regards to your multiple, unhelpful move requests actually. And yet another spurious AfD by a relative newcomer with a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale isn't going to get very far, IMO. As for the quotations, it would depend on how notable this person is. It would sem that a senior editor of a large Israeli media outlet would be sufficient. Tarc12:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Would not the fact that the notion of "Israeli apartheid" is widely discussed *currently* in newspapers (and therefore hardly by historians) prove this is not a topic that can be studied with enough distance to keep NPoV ? Alithien13:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
How it that at all relevant? The Holocaust is still currently widely discussed in newspapers and films and television serials. Does that mean we cannot present it in an NPOV fashion? Tiamut13:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not a right analogy. Holocaust is not *currently* happening !
What were the titles in German newspapers about what was happening there in '42. Was it reflecting reality ? Was it neutral ? Alithien13:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And so that we don't get a Godwin's point. What said the newspaper in 1948 about the 1948 Palestinian exodus ?
When events are happening it is perfectly clear involved sides do not present them a neutral way but exagerate them to get the point. And wikipedia is just participating to this concering the current events in Israel.
This reminds me a discussiong on wp:fr where it was suggested to forbid any topic about events less than 10 years old and to leave them to wikinews. Alithien13:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Alithien, your comments are internally contradictory. On the one hand you claim that events are exaggerated when they are being reported on in real time, on the other hand, one can argue, particularly in the case of the Holocaust, that the opposite was true - events were downplayed. But I digress. The point is that we have no restrictions governing the coverage of current events that would preclude having an article entitled "Israel apartheid" simply because it is still ongoing or in the news. And that's all that is really relevant to this part of the discussion. Tiamut14:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
No. My comments are not internally contradictory.
Events can be downplayed or exagerated. I think eg about Iraq weapons of mass descruction.
10 years ago, following the methodology of "israeli apartheid" the article about iraqi weapons would not have been neutral.
We can cover these events but not naming using one side's pov. Because this is not NPoV. There are facts and unknowns about the situation of arab in israel and in the occupied territories.
The current controversies among politicians and propagandists are not our concern and cannot be considered as facts. Alithien08:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut (and Alithien), I would agree that the issue can be presented in an NPOV fashion. The question I would raise is, what kind of sentences or phrases would sound POV and which neutral? Using the Rubinstein example, I'd say that "Israel as an apartheid state" is more POV than something like, using his formulation, a more neutral "Differential treatment of communities in Israel". Do you agree (or at least see why I think so)? HG | Talk14:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello HG,
I do agree and see why you think so but I think others will answer you that "israeli apartheid" is a fact and it is neutral to talk about "bad" facts.
Of course I do Alithein. And indeed, at first glance it seems imminently reasonable. However, this suggestion overlooks the elephant in the room; i.e. Rubinstein uses "differential treatment of communities in Israel" to explain why he believes "Israel is an apartheid state". In other words, the title being proposed describes one of the components or characteristics of Israeli policy that lead people to make the conclusion that it is practicing apartheid. But such a title misses half the point ; i.e., that people are using a phrase or referring to the idea of "Israeli apartheid" based on their interpretation and analysis of Israeli policies and practices. An article entitled Differential treatment of communities in Israel might sound very fine (though some might object that discussion of the occupied territories would be impossible in such a framework since they are not technically part of Israel), but it would not address all the content related to this article nor its main subject. Tiamut14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, thanks for making such a lucid comment. I think you're saying that "differential treat etc" is not the whole story of the apartheid concept. Right? At best, this implies that it could be an article subheading. Without trying to hijack your discussion of Rubinstein, I still am trying to figure out how to describe the whole story in a neutral manner. Using your language above, perhaps you'd accept this as a broader description (though stylistically yucky as a title) "Apartheid-related interpretations of Israeli policy"? (Not sure that folks would allow the pejorative use under 'interpretations' but maybe). Thanks for your responsiveness. HG | Talk15:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that this may be once again a subtitle. Don't forget that we have material dealing with the use of Israeli apartheid as a term (epithet) among other things that may fall outside of the scope delineated in that formulation. In some ways, I am leaning toward Israel and apartheid, (A B-type option in the list you compiled) which is along the lines of Arabs and anti-Semitism and Zionism and racism with sub-titles along the lines of the two you have proposed among others that the content and subject matter require. Tiamut15:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Good. I'm not familiar w/the history of objections to "Israel and apartheid"; perhaps somebody will raise something on the synthesis of arguments page. It would seem to allow coverage of both the phrase/epithet and the concept/concept topics. It doesn't presuppose much of a connection, while naming the key terms. (Tangent: note that Israel, Arabs and Zionism are not parallel, whereas apartheid, anti-Semitism, racism are more parallel.) Thanks again. HG | Talk18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Picking up on your tangent to get back to the issue, I would argue that Arabs and anti-Semitism is more controversial than Israel and apartheid since the former relates a people with a racist concept while the latter links a state/government with a racist concept. I'm also rather shocked that Zionism and racism is actually entitled Zionism and racism allegations?!? since following this line of reasoning to its end, it merely links an ideology with a racist concept, perhaps the least potentially offensive of these different variations. (But now I've gone off on a tangent, but do you see what I'm getting at?) Tiamut20:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, I was hinting at the problem with Arabs and anti-Semitism, which seem more problematic and less neutral than Israel and apartheid in wording. But there are also questions of notability at stake. Perhaps "Arab anti-Semitism" would be more established than "Israeli apartheid"? I don't want to adjudicate that, which draws us into our own POV worlds! But perhaps you'd agree (you're Christian?), that "Christian anti-Semitism" is quite notably verifiable -- so much so (am I biased here?) that I don't see neutrality grounds for "Christianity and anti-Semitism" -- only that maybe the "X and Y" (Type-B) title helps the article cover notable subtopics, such as Christian reconciliation and anti-anti-Semitism efforts. We're mostly on the same page (except I don't want to get drawn into discussing Zionism and racism right now, sorry). What are the WP policy drawbacks to Israel and apartheid? HG | Talk21:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Tarc and Tiamut: AfD is an AfD and I'm not in the mood to speculate what chances this one has, and who is the troll or who is not. Just as another RM was just another RM. This chap Danny Rubinstein spoke for himself and only for himself. As a journalist he supposed to go to Brussels to report the news, not to make the news. Besides, his comments weren't released neither by Haaretz nor by Bethesda University. Some chaps from ZF even disowned him. I even wonder who made him a speaker at UN - a disdainful act. That's why it's all trash. Just another guy seeking attention for whatever reason, I don't care. It's his POINT OF VIEW (POV). It should never be introduced into Wikipedia. That is why you guys face now another AfD - because you took the bait. greg park avenue01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter was "speaking for himself" as well. Does that make it any less notable? No, as he is a former president who was extensively involved in Middle Eastern affairs during his tenure. The same could go for Rubinstein, a senior editor at a leading Israeli media outlet is certainly not someone whose words on the subject are meaningless. The only POV issues at the moment here is your own, wich are now painfully apparent with that rambling diatribe of yours. Tarc02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Take it easy, Tarc. If Rubinstein's words had some merit, at least New York Times would place a note about them. There was nothing of the kind about this Rubinstein during since June 14. And there is some difference in notability between US President/Nobel Prize winner and a columnist from a Third World country. Re POV: You got that one right, kid - talk page is exactly for expressing POV, not the article. greg park avenue04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
a) So a mention in the NYT is now required for notability? Is this new policy to be found somewhere in the Wikipedia, or is it just in the Gregopedia at the moment?
b) Dismissing a Haaretz editor as a "columnist from a Third World country" is rather disingenuous.
c) You are aware that the Danny Rubinstein info and quotation have been in the article for several days now, right? Makes your soapboxing rather moot, I'd say. Tarc13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Tarc, I guess you want this article to stay. If you do, don't litter it with newspaper trash. Your opposition has very valid point (see latter AfD, suspended for a while). They use the example of ABC weapons allegedly kept by Iraq back in 2002 and all this related speculation by newspapers, which in no way could be NPOV. This article is "overdone" now by newspaper sources. Scholar sources are enough. Re a: You have compared Rubinstein quotations to Jimmy Carter's, not me. If they were notable on the same level, NYT would report it, but they didn't bother. Re b: I classify a country as Third World country when US must donate money to keep them afloat, and US donates about $4 billion a year to Israel. The First and Second World countries are able to sustain themselves. Re c: I am aware of this and see what happened - someone nominated it for deletion just one day after inserting this Rubinstein's quote. That was an overkill. greg park avenue14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so now you're claiming a cause-effect relationship between the Rubinstein material and the newest AfD? Interesting. Tarc17:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
According to some editors here, standards for notability appear to require some sort of tacit ideological understanding about when it is and isn't acceptble to criticize Israel. When writers run afoul of that tacit understanding, we start asking whether they've been quoted in the NY Times enough times, or won enough Nobel Prizes.
Suggesting Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post are suddenly not mainstream -- and that these writers' choices to violate the unspoken party line have nothing to do with their papers' sudden non-notability -- is embarrassing to the encyclopedia. BYT14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is that supposed to mean? To return to the stated topic of the thread: Haaretz and the The Jerusalem Postdo not become non-notable the instant an editor happens to disagree with their content. Stay on-topic, please, if you're going to participate in this discussion, greg. BYT17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure where the right place to put this is... I use WP for initial research of university issues and in attempting to gather info from the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article I was appalled. I found the article convoluted, unfocused, and in some aspects irrelevant. I occasionally dismiss the WP header warnings of 'needing cleanup', etc, but I should have heeded them this time. Then, when I clicked on 'discussion', a deeper mess presented itself. I read the whole article and tried to familiarize myself with this discussion page's history, but it is nearly impossible, so I apologize if I am covering previous ground - I just don't have days to review this morass. I suggest the following to return this article to the reputable WP fold: (1) Realize that 'allegations' are POV by definition, (2) Leave this article as "Allegations" and retain only material that is appropriate to said allegations (i.e. a primarily non Pro-wall stance), (3) Pro-wall writers should remove their material and start a rebuttal article titled "Defense of Israeli Security Barrier", (4) the two said articles should be extensively linked, (5) Keep the articles journalistically rigorous while maintaining their purposes. I hope some change occurs soon, because this article is currently a unusable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WriteNcomm (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Put "Defense of Israel" in quotes and I think you've got something. Looks to me like we're stuck with this article title for a while. BYT17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia doesn't allow POV fork playpens as the solution for competing POVs. For which "university issue" was this article "unusable"? Andyvphil23:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
How does that saying go? 7th time's the charm?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
So you again admit to disruption? Instead of trying to seek consensus on editing, you just want to delete? And promise to continue to do so? Then people ask me why I think you are just a run-of-the-mill troll. Thanks!--Cerejota03:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am voting delete because I think the article should be deleted for reasons already expressed. I will not re-nominate the article for deletion; that would be disruption, but I do still think it should be deleted. I do not appreciate your continued accusations that I am a troll. Please mantain some civilry; after all, you tried to get me blocked for being uncivil, practice what you preach.--SefringleTalk03:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see here. I of course practice what I preach, but we are not required to continue assuming good faith in the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (You -indirectly- called me an antisemite, or you forgot already?). If you truly think my behavior has been disruptive and not conducive to the seeking of consensus, I suggest you follow our dispute resolution process and present evidence and remedy in the ArbCom. Otherwise, please stop trolling and launching unfounded accusations.
I also suggest you seriously reconsider editing in wikipedia, or at least in this article: you obviously lack the ability to write for the enemy or to understand how consensus gets built, key skills for any editor to have. Thanks!--Cerejota04:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
exactly, we are not required to assume good faith in front of evidence to the contrary, but we are supposed to mantain civilry even when others don't provide evidence you agree with. Second, you can misinterprit what I say all you want, interpriting my opinions when expressed as disruption, and call me directly or indirectly an enemy editor. I understand how consensus is built, but you clearly don't understand that there is no consensus at the time; and likely there will be more afd's until a consensus is acheived. This isn't a promise that I will be disruptive; it is just a prediction of the future. A POV fork cannot exist forever on wikipedia without someone wanting it deleted; it should be obvious by now that it isn't us who are the problem; this article has issues that goes beyond any minor disruption you claim is from us (notice that no involved party nominated this article for deletion; in fact it appears to be a brand new editor). Obviously you are tired of this issue, as many are too, because you are resorting to responses like discuss issues on the talk page, repeating arguements already presented to that have been responded to, accusing people of disruption etc. Everything but arguing over the points presented for deletion.--SefringleTalk04:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
POV tag
PoV flag (initial motivation)
copied/pasted from here above
Dear Gentlemen,
I think what has happened on the article these last 24h can be considered as an "edit war".
I don't have any solution for the neutralisation of this article (starting by its title) that would be consensual among us but this remains an "edit war".
There should nevertheless be an agreement that there is a disagreement on the title (accuracy and/or neutrality) and the content (relation with the title and/or neutrality). And if there is no consensus to change/move this, there is no consensus to keep it neither.
For these reasons, I added the PoV flag. Alithien10:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
POV is probably good idea. Now this article looks really like a piece a propaganda and justifies "allegations" title, but one which doesn't belong to Wikipedia. I'm totally confused about replacing statetements done by notable politicians by indoctrinization brought to us by the advocacy organizations as this one: StandWithUs, an anonymous propaganda outfit, operating out of the Post Office Box. All these recent edits seem to me like scavenging the article for just one reason - to discredit its content. Undo it all and keep the page protected until the dispute is resolved. See also StandWithUs with the only other reference which supposed to be an independent source (but IRS didn't publish it), and [1] as the only third hit on Google for the supposed legal name of the outfit - "Israel Emergency Alliance". greg park avenue16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
What neutrality issues specifically do people see here?
I don't want to be rude but please : this has been widely discussed here above and in the archives. There is no reasons to summarize one pov to start discussing them and not to summarize the other pov not to discuss them.
Currently, there is no consensus about the title (neutrality and/or accuracy) and linked to that, about the content (neutrality and/or due weight).
I don't mean to be rude either, but that doesn't make much sense. You added this tag yesterday. If you can't briefly explain why you did that, and what it is specifically that you feel represents a POV problem, other than, you know, the article's existence, I'm afraid there's not much to say in defense of this edit. BYT01:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree to summarize the different points if you summarize the different points explaining why we cannot move the title. Else, "I'm afraid there's not much to say in defense of [preventing] this".
The tag remains unexplained. For the record, I do want to move the article, though I'm not sure where you now feel it should be moved to. Anyway, you have inserted a tag stating that the article itself, not the title, is biased. Could you please give me some idea of the nature of the bias you actually perceive in the text of this article? So we can fix it? BYT00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Five days later: Can Alithien, or any editor, please quantify which POV issues, specifically, we should be working on in the text itself? Regarding the article's existence as biased, and refusing to identify any criteria for the removal of this tag, is a nonstarter. This article has survived multiple AfDs. What textual and editorial changes do people envision for the removal of this tag, please? BYT14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This is explained here below in all the discussion pages you refer to.
Sefringle: Since you've reinserted the POV tag, could you briefly summarize what you feel the article's neutrality problems are, so we can try to fix them? BYT02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Several RMs and similar discussions were had about the title, and none reached a consensus for a move. Thus it will remain as is. Does that mean the POV tag should stay til you get your way? Tarc03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Seconding Jossi on title & structure, which set things in motion. Also, many sections are currently balkanized POV units (like mini POV forks). Also, the quotes farms seem to try to hammer us w/the competing POVs, rather than inform us with synthesize descriptions. And the text is littered w/POV. Intro with my strikeouts: "Some of those who make the allegation also use it in reference to the alleged second-class citizenship[1] of Arab citizens of Israel. Those who reject the analogy argue that it is political slander intended to malign Israel by singling it out, and say that legitimate Israeli security needs justify the practices that prompt the analogy..." "the analogy is "intellectually lazy, morally questionable and possibly even mendacious" (name calling is not an argument)" Verwoerd's quote after A&M ? Absence of encyclopedic, neutral intros to various sections. If quotes don't offer any content, then just say "On the one hand, this rhetorical device has been used on occasion by some South African activists, a few U.S. officials, the Soviets, Israeli-Arab leaders, even some Israeli officials. On the other hand, the device has been avoided or critized by some X, Y, Z and even Palestinian leaders." (Admittedly, 1st Overview paragraph does this. But even this lacks nuance, Carter and Malik in parallel structured sentence?) Put empty-content allegations into footnotes. If one quote says, "Can it seriously be denied [they are racist]?" then shouldn't the reader then see the relevant denial? Even when there's some balance, e.g. permit and closure system paragraph, it's poorly written back-and-forth POV game, deserving the POV tag. POV intro to "Related debate on the two-state solution." Sections 4 and 5 are like POV vs POV, not NPOV. Sorry if it sounds too critical (don't make me defend each claim above!), but I think the POV tag is merited. However, I'd encourage you all not to spiral into a tag debate, but to try to constructively figure out what to do, hence my article structure effort above. Thanks. HG | Talk08:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
* Would somebody please move this subsection above, combined with "PoV flag" and "What neutrality issues specifically do people see here?" Otherwise, this subsection is a distraction and arguably disruptive. HG | Talk 08:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks! HG | Talk12:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Arrangement of subtopics
Perhaps it would help to explore the outline of main subtopics. We had some earlier discussion of the outline but the thread was dropped. That link also identified more scholarly articles. The current outline is not based on a clear parallel or analytical structure, sections tend to be sets of disjointed quotes. (See below, with my annotations). Let me float something and ask others to suggest improvements.
Current outline -- FYI
Lead paragraphs with an overview
1 Overview (mainly listing Carter and various others who've made comparisons, including Adam and Moodley's typology of commentators)
2 Accusations voiced in UN-sponsored conferences (brief)
3 The West Bank and the Gaza Strip (no intro sentence, long series of disjointed quotes, more conclusions than their policy reasoning, if any)
3.1 Related debate on the two-state solution (brief intro, another series of quotes)
4 Apartheid analogy applied to policies inside Israel (no intro sentence, only long series of rather disjoined brief items. Land. ID cards. Marriage law. JNF land.)
5 Opposing views (narrative w/block quotes. Differential treatment issues. Affirmative action. Critique of allegations. Finkelstein vs Morris. Vs Carter. Argue for barrier. Critique the comparison.)
6 Adam and Moodley (Long summary, part social discourse/psychology and part policy analysis.)
7 Other views (Outliers)
One idea for a new outline
A. Policy analysis of similarities and differences between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa
Overarching neutral description of the comparative context, incl. part of Adam & Moodley, historical background. Perhaps a note on the most reliable sources and the study of apartheid in general.
Citizenship, personal status and family law. The issues, arguments for similarities, arguments for differences.
B. 'Apartheid' in political rhetoric and slogans against related to Israeli policies and practices
Overarching neutral description of the apartheid-related political rhetoric, incl. some of Adam & Moodley.
Notable political contexts (citing both allegations and counterpoints.) United Nations. World leaders (e.g., Carter, Tutu). Pro-Palestinian political efforts and misc. //add: Zionist usage (per A&M, Cerejota) HG | Talk14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Notable slogans, such as "Israeli apartheid," with some examples
Please note that I'm not seeking to prejudge or assert the notability or neutrality of any given subtopic, nor the quality of the current article. Anyway, is this a useful springboard for editing collaboration? HG | Talk22:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Feedback on proposed article outline
I agree with the spirit and almost every word of the outline. I would have added a "C" as per A&M, which is the separation of Zionist and anti-Zionist discourses: it is clear that some self-described Zionists, do speak of certain policies as apartheid policies. And of course, we got to be careful not to fall on WP:SYNTH. This is pretty much the article I would like our readers to see, and one whose synthesis stems from secondary sources. I specially like that it allows an encyclopedic voice, instead of pro/con quote farming.
I really think you provide the springboard to deal with content. I look forward to see if others are as encouraged. Thanks!--Cerejota23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Cerejota (of course, you deserve credit here too, as done implicitly via my link above). I think A&M's point on some Zionists' usage might be handled thru the second bullet of B. Political discourse. Depending on how fringe, such usage might mean revising B. to Political... against about Israeli.... Right? HG | Talk12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL no, Alithien, you proceed! ;--) Seriously, let's see how many people want to discuss and help revise the outline. Then it would help to have a plan on how to edit this thing, in toto, without revert wars. Maybe through a subpage (though that's deprecated)? Or, provided there's some broad agreement, put the empty outline after the lede w/o deleting the remainder, and allow editors to gradually fill it in. Or maybe work on subtopic ledes etc on Talk first? Thanks for your positive attitude, Alithien. HG | Talk12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Certainly looks a big improvement on what we've got. Whatever the pros and cons of including the use of the term by Amin and the others in the other views section that has been yoyoing in and out of the article, they're much better integrated into the sort of structure you give as examples of the use of the rhetoric than left how they are. For example, if there is a proper source of Amin using the term apartheid whilst he was a dictator, it would be good evidence of the history of the rhetorical use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 11:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a splendid plan for a scientific paper titled "History of Israel in the apartheid-style era 1973-now", starting if I may suggest with the historical background of Yom Kippur war and explaining the settlement between Israel, Egypt and Jordan which followed, which gave room to this apartheid-like policy (this would take some heat off Israel, South Afrcans got away with that, why not Israelis?) but who's going to write it? Wouldn't fit into the current title, which as an encyclopedic entry should be precised first. It would look like if someone wrote the paper about history of Germany in the Nazi-era 1933-1945 and titled it somehow frivolously "Allegations of German Nazism". greg park avenue14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Greg, thanks for your willingness to look into this matter. We're trying to fit into the current content of the article. I suppose we also are taking into account content that's been discussed in Talk. Perhaps you could look over the current headings. Do you like these headings? Can you offer a constructive criticism of your own regarding the article structure? I would take your input seriously. Thanks. HG | Talk15:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
HG, I like these headings but they are subheadings. If you can manage to get consensus on either of them in the requested move contest, I would support that. I have supported similar ones in prior polls. So go ahead with your plan, request a move and you got my vote. The article structure is splendid, no criticism on this one. Only trolls will complain. greg park avenue15:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
To date, Cerejota, Alithien, BYT, Jossi, and (?) Greg, affirm that the proposed article structure is on the right track. Before folks try to reorganize the article, I'd recommend these steps, so we can avoid edit warring:
Since we haven't gotten any negative feedback on the proposed outline, I think it would be wise to invite constructive criticism from some Users who have opposed the article. Better to hear concerns now than later. Perhaps those who like the outline (Cerejota, Alithien, BYT, Jossi), or others, would be willing to contact some of your interlocutors, tell them that a restructuring of the article is being considered, and invite their critique? (This is not canvassing and simply needs to be done in a courteous manner. Just keep in mind that they might not feel like getting involved.)
Please look at this working draft to restructure the article. So far, I've only changed/added subheadings and moved around the material. I have made no edits otherwise to the text of the article. The result is a draft with a better structure, but the underlying material mostly consists of fragmented quotes (a problem with the current version, too) that seem germane to the subheading. Of course, some quotes may belong elsewhere or apply to multiple subsections (sorry!). Anyway, would you all be willing to write neutral leads for the subsections? And refine my stab at moving/copying quotes that belongs to each subsection? If so, please propose your neutral sentences on the Talk page for the restructured draft for now.
Your cooperation is really appreciated. Once there's a rearranged draft w/ better subheadings and neutral explanatory intros -- yet without modifying the underlying content -- we might consider replacing the draft with the current version. (Note: This effort does not imply that any given subsection will endure. Subsections that fail notability, undue weight, etc., criteria may eventually be omitted. But let's not tackle that now.) Thanks! HG | Talk14:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Subsections that fail notability, undue weight, etc. criteria may eventually be omitted." Well, for me, the draft works as a starting point. If you have specific comments about what you feel should or shouldn't be in it, I wish you would express specifically what they are, rather than warning about objections you may raise in the future.
If you're suggesting that the subsection on the term's usage as a slogan or epithet somehow is built around non-notable usage, I strongly disagree, and to that end have forwarded six (6) references [1][2][3][4][5][6]documenting its emergence into the political and academic mainstream. Remember? BYT21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
BYT, please rest assured that I was not implying my own future objections, nor undermining what we had discussed on the Synthesis of the Argument page. The purpose of my caveat is two-fold: (i) primarily, to make it make it easier in principle for people to express their opinion about editing the article, even if they would prefer to delete the article, in whole or in part, and (ii) to emphasize my own role in facilitating, rather than taking sides on whether or what to delete. With the caveat, the restructuring suggestion takes notability as a rebuttable presumption. Ok, BYT? I hope you'll think about how Part B is set up and how it's component subsections might be introduced in an NPOV manner. Thanks for your perseverance here! HG | Talk02:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, and for the ongoing encouragement.
Those who would rather delete the article than edit it should, in my view, begin moving through Kubler-Ross's sequence, past rage and denial and bargaining to acceptance. The article is here because the phenomena it describes are here. There are plenty of articles certain subgroups of editors wish didn't exist on WP, but they do.
Since a relatively small number of people have worked on the proposed new version, and only a few more may even be aware of it, I think something should be done to call greater attention to it, followed by a comment period. Like say, a notice on the top of the article page itself, pointing to the proposed new version, and stating that the old version may be replaced with the new if there is a consensus for replacement after (say) 7 days. I appreciate all the work that has been done on this, especially by HG, but let's try to avoid yet another round of controversy. 6SJ717:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, 6SJ7. You've a fine idea. Not sure you all would need consensus exactly, but at least it would help to get more feedback. I agree that the current proposal isn't getting much attention, since it's on a user page. Another idea -- when/if the restructured version is attempted, maybe ask in the Edit Summary that folks not revert it quickly but discuss in Talk. In Talk, propose to let the restructured version sit for at least a week. During that week, perhaps the restructured version would get some regular editing -- intros and transitions for the various sections, and fewer quotes, etc -- in order to begin reading like an encyclopedia article. (Frankly, the current version needs similar editing.) Take care. HG | Talk02:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The statement on the top of this page does not seem adequate. In any event, and on second thought, I do not think any action should be taken until after the arbitration case is closed. There's no rush. 6SJ723:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: "... since it's on a user page." I believe this was an early objection of mine. :) Anyway I agree with your edit summary idea above.
Question for 6SJ7, HG: As quite a lot of work has now gone into this reorganization, and as that work has manifestly and transparently been pointed toward this article, I am inclined to push back a little bit on 6Sj7's suggestion above.
I do not get the sense that the arb case is about what should happen with this article ...
... as much as about what to do concerning what may or may not be a coordinated violation of WP:POINT via the creation of other articles.
The question remains, and I will, with all respect, continue to pose it: What are we planning to do, precisely, and sooner rather than later, to improve this article?
We can't say, "Don't go into the article and try to isolate or fix the perceived NPOV tag problems, because we're all working on a good-faith reorganization right now" ...
... and then in the same breath say that the reorganization is indefinitely postponed.
We are here to work on, and improve, articles, including this one. What do people think are our next steps, please? BYT12:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand, why you ask permission, HG? The article has been significantly improved by you and by BIG - the structure is more encyclopedic now, almost professional, without even having to change its content. Why wait for ArbCom decision - they don't deal with the content - or wait another week - only few people will find it on your user page? Go ahead with that - Wikipedia is waiting for you, they expect and even ask you to improve this article if you can. No sane administrator will undo that after you changed for better. If you don't believe it, let me do it for you. greg park avenue17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much asking permission, it's more like trying to build consensus and respect the discussion process. With this highly contested article, I've been trying to avoid undertaking a big shift in a manner that would be perceived as unilateral or disruptive.(While I thank you for your praise, my own assessment is that the article remains quite low quality and needs significant editing, even with the restructuring.) HG | Talk19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's low quality. Lots of trash. Now after restructuring anyone can see what is missing and what is insufficiently referenced or simply doesn't belong. Needs more scholar sources. If you want to improve editing start with Dr Henry Kissinger - many analogies to apartheid done by him as an insider - one who was very close to the Israeli apartheid policy (1968-1976) in making, and who was pretty neutral too. This is missing! greg park avenue01:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Specific editing concerns
I've been on Wikibreak and will remain so for another week or so. I note that the Crime of Apartheid material has been eviscerated from the article again. *sigh* It will be restored when I return. Andyvphil02:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
For any significant or controversial concerns you have with the article, please discuss your concerns here in Talk page, before or while you are making edits. Just as Andyvphil does above. This will help prevent edit warring (regardless of whether the restructuring stays or not). Thanks. HG | Talk22:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Crime of Apartheid is just another UN creation, a resolution which as many others alike stays on paper only. For example US Department of Justice points out that apartheid is not a crime against humanity; denial of rights to vote or racial segregation policy is not a capital offense yet. So, please, don't thin this article by reintroducing this eccentricity back into this article, which is now under marvelous effort of restructuring it, by Brandon et al, in order to get rid of POV ballast. A very successful effort and magnificent work indeed. Just take notice no one is complaining at this time. greg park avenue13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Given the controversial issues here, perhaps BYT and others would be wise to briefly mention (and briefly justify?) here any major edits of the article, esp deleted items. Thanks. HG | Talk00:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't succumb to paranoia, HG. If someone does right thing while editing Wikipedia, he doesn't have to explain every each step he makes, just like few editors, who deny the very existence of apartheid in Israel, suggest. Let me go back once more to the example of US Dept of Justice standpoint in this question, which I think is pretty neutral. No one in there denies that there is no apartheid in Israel, or that there is no human rights violation in Saudi Arabia. Still both these countries are considered friendly, and that means, there are no basic human rights violations observed to validate the change of this standpoint. The ethnic or religious minorities or women are treated as refugees, but their basic needs to survive or to live in relative dignity are conserved, just like refugees are treated elsewhere. It's just another culture (based Sharia or Talmud) which we Western people don't accept or support but must tolerate it. We don't have to pretend that the apartheid in Israel is alleged and explain each time that someone said - it was or it wasn't; we know there is a valid analogy to apartheid South Africa in Israel, just as it is a valid analogy to women's discrimination America (before they were allowed to vote) in Saudi Arabia. greg park avenue15:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Gee, color me succumbed. <smile> I'm fine with you registering your countervailing advice. Still, I feel that you downplay or even denigrate the degree of legitimate intellectual disagreement, among Users and beyond Wikipedia. E.g., you say: "we know there is a valid analogy to apartheid South Africa in Israel." This isn't a Forum to debate it, plus I'm not taking a side on it. But I believe such confidence in what "we know" is misplaced. Anyway, I'm not singling out BYT specifically, it's just that he's doing the most constructive editing lately. Given that anybody may find it difficult to recognize and respect both sides of this controversy, I'm just suggesting that he/we err on the side of Discussion. HG | Talk15:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Once someone advises to discuss the content of this article on its talk page before making any substantial changes; now you advise against it because it's not a forum. Of course it's not a forum. How can one discuss with the facts - "we know there is a valid analogy to apartheid South Africa in Israel."? And the facts are: about 3.5 million Palestinians in the territories of Israel don't carry Israeli citizenship while Jewish settlers residing in the very same territories do! But maybe I'm missing something? greg park avenue15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, it's a balance. Keeping both ends of the scale in mind, I guess you and everyone else should exercise your best judgment. Since the entire article assumes that the analogy (or comparison etc) has the status of an allegation, I feel that discussing its validity is a bit too broad for much constructive discussion. Thanks. HG | Talk15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
What you're missing is that this is a dispute over which residents and land in the West BAnk fall under the jurisdiction of which country. This is NOT an issue of apartheid or political rights under one country, but rather a territorial and political dispute between two political entities, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. --Steve, Sm890015:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Identify POV concerns
... I think the time has come for us to quantify precisely what, in the content of the article, is standing in the way of removing the POV tag. The article's title or existence is not a sufficient reason to tag the content of the article as biased. The article does not get to stay permanently tagged simply because people wish the deletion votes had come out differently.
Here's what I have so far. If nothing gets added to the list, I'm going to assume that this is the entire universe of problems:
Absence of encyclopedic, neutral intros to various sections.
Put empty-content allegations into footnotes.
Many sections are currently balkanized POV units (like mini POV forks).
Quotes farms seem to try to hammer us w/the competing POVs, rather than inform us with synthesized descriptions.
Listing the POV issues is helpful. Numbered your good list for discussion (hope you don't mind). For #3, just wanted to point out that topical sections (e.g., land, security) often were set up based on the subject matter of cited quotes. Presumably, folks would first try to de-balkanize these, by adding countervailing information, before deleting the section. Thanks. HG | Talk12:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The "quote farm" problem exists because certain editors would tag anything critical of Israel and not a quote with an "original research" tag. Quotes were inserted to resolve those tags. I don't see how we can avoid a quote farm without returning to that problem. --John Nagle14:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, editors might try (a) introducing the subject prior to quotes, (b) summarizing the points in a quote or series of quotes, then using the sources and maybe even full quotes in a footnote, (c) asking neutral copy-editors to help out. I agree with what I gather is John's implication, that articles should not be written merely to satisfy the tenacious tagging tendencies of troubled editors. HG | Talk14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"Crime of apartheid" stuff needlessly inflammatory
One man's opinion: Let's lose it. We've made a lot of headway here. Let's either talk about alleged parallels between the systems (section A) or documented use of the term or its variations as a slogan or epithet (section B). Some people would want a section on the "crime of genocide" in the George W. Bush article, but I think 95% plus of editors would reject that kind of table-pounding. Let's make it an article, not a pamphlet. BYT10:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The subject of this article is accusations of "apartheid". Israel is routinely accused of committing the UN-defined "crime against humanity", "the crime of apartheid". Yes, the "crime" is a Cold War era Soviet fraud, but suggesting we "lose" the subject is just bizarre. Andyvphil21:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"Inflammatory" does not mean that the accusations aren't notable, sourceable, and relevant. We aren't here to make sure certain people's feelings our hurt; we're here to write factual articles about notable events. Tarc21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The main reason that the "crime of apartheid" should not be in the article is that Israel is not a party to either of the relevant treaties (the one that defined the crime of apartheid and the Statute of Rome, which provides for enforcement.) (Neither is the U.S., for whatever that's worth.) International law is not like the laws made by a sovereign state or its subdivisions (such as U.S. states), in which everybody in the state or subdivision is subject to those laws. Because countries are sovereign, laws on the international level apply only when the country has agreed to that law (usually by a treaty.) So Israel cannot be formally charged with the "crime of apartheid" because it is not part of the relevant treaties. For the same reason, for an individual writer, professor or whoever to allege that Israel is guilty of the "crime of apartheid" is meaningless, and such references do not belong in the article. 6SJ704:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Your narrow technical argument might belong in a legal brief should anyone ever try to formally indict Israel with breaking the "crime of apartheid" but it's irrelevant and somewhat OR here. If you can find a reliable source that makes the same criticisms you make of the professors argument we can include that but we can't dismiss a reliable source based on your legal analysis, particularly when this article is not a legal submission. In any case, the charge that Israel is in violation of the "crime of apartheid" seems to be a political one rather than one of strict jurisprudence and it is stated in the section that Israel is not a signatory of the treaty and thus cannot be subjected to its provisions. Also, if a credible source accuses me of breaking a law and it's pointed out that I am actually outside of that law's jurisdiction that doesn't mean the accusation has not occurred.
This article is not only about true allegations of Israeli aparthieid. And, as I noted in the text, the Nuremberg example makes it clear that not signing on to the Statute of Rome need not prevent Israelis from being convicted (even if innocent). Andyvphil14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Other opinion: Move all the facts about human rights violations in Israel to a new article, called "Human rights violations in Israel" and delete this article.
Allegations can only be notable, if there is more than any old man, speaking into a microphone, and nothing else happening. Let' s be honest. Absolutely nobody cares, who said, that Israel has a system of apartheid or said, it does not have such a system. A statement can only gain enough notability to be content of an enceclopedia, if there was any kind reaction, a worldwide outcry of horror, an investigation by the United Nations or an attempt to kill or arrest such a backbiter. In this case, nothing happened. Someone made a statement, because there were a camera and a microphone and some tv stations aired the statement, because they did not have any better news. But nobody really cared. That' s nothingan enceclopedia should write articles about.
Does it really matter whether the Israelic treatment of the natives can be compared to the treatment of the system of apartheid in South Africa. I don't know enough about the situation to tell something about the truth of such comparsions, and, to tell the truth, I' m not interrested. "If" there are violations of human rights, then that' s a terrible thing. It will not get any better or worse by trying to compare it to the system of another country. The whole sense of such statements is to gain a larger audience. Let the stupid politicians do this, but we are an enceclopedia. We do not want to bend the truth, we want to spread it.
If human rights violations exist, then make an article about it and if there is not enough proof, please let it be. But please do not try the chicken´s way out: I can not prove the fact, but I can prove that someone said it, so instead of making an article about the fact I make one about the allegation of the "fact". So I do not have to prove the fact. --Thw130923:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that verifiability is a pivotal criterion for inclusion. Hence, the Bennis quote (and the conference) would seem to support some inclusion, though maybe this is an isolated incident referring to the intl crime, per se. However, the current version of the article contains 3 more paragraphs explaining the intl crime. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs seem to be superfluous overload -- (a) because such info belongs in the Crime of apartheid article itself, with a link sufficient from here, and (b) we should avoid giving undue weight to the crime aspect, unless more noteworthy or neutral sources make such allegations. The fourth paragraph ("No mechanism exists to prosecute...") may make interesting points, but these seem rather like editorial additions by Wikipedia, not summations of verifiable sources. So, at most, I would stick w/the Bennis quote and add a better sources countervailing opinion or perspective (e.g., to explain rhetorical rather than legal quality of allegation). Thanks! HG | Talk06:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm for it. One doesn't have to demonize Israel to prove that there is an analogy to apartheid in Israel; citing simple facts is enough, not the contoversial UN resolutions. Anyway that's what Wikipedia is for - recording facts, not allegations. These are good for newspaper articles or for fiction novels by Nelson DeMille. greg park avenue15:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact, though (not an allegation) that the UN resolutions in question have been passed. Any given reader may (or may not) consider their content to be controversial, but not their existence. If the consensus is to keep this section on the "crime of apartheid," then reference to these resolutions is surely relevant. If we decide to delete that section, then the question is moot. BYT16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, it is a fact that US Department of State lists Hamas as a designated terroristic organization, and terrorism is the official policy of Hamas (they just don't like the name "terrorists", preferring "freedom fighters"). Yet, there is no article titled the "Allegations of Hamas terrorism". So, why make an exception for Israel? Because some editors don't like the term "apartheid"? Let them come up with better name. Until they provide one, the word "allegations" ahould be removed from this article title, because it means - it may be or probably is not true. Consensus does not mean, that some editors don't like the term - by WP:POV. Then and only then, the Crime of apartheid in form of a UN resolution may be incorporated into the article under its section "allegations" as an example of how some legal entities got the meaning of the term "apartheid" wrong. Besides, Wikipedia is not for citing every source to prove, that the word used in it is correct. If so, one should include any reference to this term as they come down. I just read the book "Exile" by Richard North Patterson and there was a reference to "Batustans"in West Bank in it. Should I include that in this article then? Just don't let us get paranoid. One proper reference on the subject is enough; case closed. greg park avenue17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a recent disagreement among editors about the lead paragraphs, especially the sentence dealing with "separate roads, infrastructure, legal rights, ...." Since some editing attempts have been reverted, I suggest moving the discussion from competing "edit summary" lines to a fuller explication here in Talk. Perhaps involved parties could explain their concerns here? (I'm wondering if we might resolve the issue merely by deleting the word 'separate' which may seem to presuppose one-side's conclusion. But maybe there's more at stake here.) Thanks. HG | Talk17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems like moving the content of the sentence into the 'access' part and removing the 'separate' bit would be the best option. Those who want the article to say separate as much as humanly possible may disagree. Nimmo10:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to see any of the reverters addersing the issue raised here on talk. Please use talk instead of just trying to win by being a larger group of reverters...... Due process is to discuss the issues raised here by 3 editors. Zeq12:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
So how is it that you think you can swoop in and delete a section of the article without discussion, and when others reverse that you demand that they discuss that reversal first? Do you practice at being a hypocrite, or does it come naturally? Tarc13:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Tarc, I agree that Zeq (and all of us) need to be respectful of the editing/discussion process here. Specifically, I think for this article we're past the WP:BRD stage for many edits. However, would you please strikeout or delete your wording and rephrase in a way that doesn't escalate tensions? Thanks. HG | Talk14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I will not strike a thing, as sometimes the harsh truth is a necessary injection into these proceedings. There is plenty of evidence in this person's history to warrant the suspension of WP:AGF. Hell, he was banned from editing this particular page for a year, once) These were not good-faith edits. Tarc15:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ia gree with HG. I also asked Tarc in several other places not to escalte issues. Tarc, please see your talk page. Zeq15:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Tarc, I see that you saw my polite request but you dleted it from yout ralk page and called me a troll: [2] - this would require an apology since I am NOT a troll. Zeq15:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Accuracy
The lead presents some assertion as facts. These assertions are not accurate and incomplete. Enclopedia should be based on facts.
The facts are that few of the west bank roads are open only to cars with an Israeli plate (the owner of the car is either an israeli -could be a Palestiniaan or resident of e. Jerusalem) and to Palestinian public transposrt. Private cars with PA plate are not allowed for security reasons (drive by shootings). Other west bank roads are open to all tafic and many west bank roads are not open to Israelis. So there must be a way to present arguments as arguments and facts as facts... Zeq14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is the place to discuss concerns with the Adam & Moodley, etc., lead on the "Policy analyses" portion. Please stop reverting, cool down, and Talk. HG | Talk14:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree and I am more than welcome to talk about the issues. see above I have raised my concern but there is no answer. Zeq05:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Zeq, a late arrival to the party here. I've been busy elsewhere and am unfamiliar with the dispute here. Forgive me for not distilling the details of the conflict from previous discussions. Can you please thumbnail it for me? BYT09:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
the short part is that this article has too many quotes and on the other hand has too many assertiosn which are presented in wording that make them apear as undisputed facts - while in truth they are part of the claims one side makes. The article need to be re-written with NPOV guidelines stricly adheer too. Zeq15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Repetition of Quotation
I'd just like to point out that the following quote is used twice in the article: once in the "Political rights, speech, voting and representation" section, then again later in the "The Israeli disengagement plan" section. Perhaps I might recommend only using it once?
"More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."[43]
Yes, that's my responsibility. In trying to reorganize the article, without yet rewriting, I found some quote that pertained to more than one topic. In general, as Zeq and others have noted, the article is too chock full of quotes. Hopefully, people can propose and discuss neutral, encyclopedic descriptions of the content (and of competing views) so as to gradually reduce the over-reliance on quotes. Thanks kind Reader! HG | Talk15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
A new suggestion
Would other editors be willing to accept the following title for this article: Comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa? CJCurrie03:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
CJCurrie, I applaud your interest in renaming. Indeed, I think there are good reasons to get back into discussion of title. However, would you mind holding off on eliciting comments on specific titles? We went through a series of unproductive, even disruptive renaming votes. Before our renaming efforts were suspended, we were working on an effort to synthesize the arguments and weigh alternatives for renaming. Would you be willing to look over that effort and let us know what you think? Then, maybe we could go back about the renaming discussion in some kind of measured fashion. Does that sound promising? Thanks. HG | Talk03:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe there's been any action on that page for a month, and I find it improbable that the discussion will yield any conclusions.
I'm attempting to cut through this Gordian knot with a new suggestion, and I'd like to see if anyone else endorses it. My position is that "Comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa" gets the basic point across, and avoids most of the semantic disputes of recent months. It's simple and straightforward, and I believe that it works. CJCurrie03:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I thought CJCurrie liked this article so much that he had actually lost the ability to distinguish between the two countries. :) 6SJ704:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
CJ, I'd be pleased as punch if everybody simply signed off on your suggested name, which is among the alternatives that appear to have the best chance for consensus. Still, some folks find it disruptive to run polls rather than discussion. That's partly why we wound down efforts like the synthesis page. As you may recall, I once started a straw poll here and I cut it short based partly on your reaction. Will you likewise retract your polling, and help with a discussion, if you face a few serious objections or concerns? Thanks. HG | Talk04:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with CJ. it is a better title. Many things in this article nead to change and we can start with the title move to lead etc... Zeq07:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The crucial element of the comparison and the primary focus of the controversy is the charge of apartheid-like practices by Israel. This title seems to remove the focus of "Israeli apartheid", which is what this is all about. Tarc12:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"Polemic" and "propaganda" are entirely your own POV. Controversial? Of course it is, but that is certainly not a valid reason to get rid of an article or its name, otherwise we'd lose half the encyclopedia. Tarc16:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The term "israeli apartheid" is clearly propeganda. That is why the whole "alegations of..." came about. It is also polimic by nature. I think POV is noty the right definition for it but maybe you right and it is POV as well. Zeq17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It may be an epithet, but it's not propaganda. That implies dark and sinister forces somehow ensuring, by coordinated means, that a certain phrase enters the popular lexicon. Surely you're not proposing we make that contention the lead of the article.
By the way: Segregation is in fact segregation, apartness is in fact apartness, and apartheid is in fact apartheid -- the "policy or practice of separating or segregating groups." (That via dictionary.com, but let's not talk about what the word actually means according to a reputable source. Might be distracting.)
Anyway, this separating-or-segregating-groups business is what a whole bunch of bright, non-sinister, highly notable people feel, and have eloquently maintained, is actually happening on the ground. You may not like their position, and you don't have to believe it's the only one, but let's not call it propaganda, because that assumes a nationalistic bias that is foreign to the spirit of this project.
Carter, for instance, didn't make a comparison to South Africa -- he said conditions of apartheid existed in areas Israel is occupying. And he is not the only manifestly notable figure to have called that particular spade a shovel.
Even referring to this manifest reality as an "allegation" is, in my view, a rather shameless concession to the pro-Israel lobby. It's like saying "alleged Great Train Robbery" as far as I can see. If we're not going to call the article Israeli apartheid, the present compromise may have to do.BYT12:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Carter is not an authority on the issue. Since he used it this way as a title for his book this shows he wanted to shock, to get attention (or to increase sales) in any case we are an ebcyclopedia not propeganda - so the use of the term "Israel apartheid" should be avoided.
since you accuse the "pro-israel lobby" for adding the word "allegation" to what you seee as fact - in that instance you showed that NPOV is not really important for you. Som,e people see it one way some see it another way. What both are dealing with is the act of comapring israel to south africa (and they have different conculsions) but this act of comparing is what nice in CJ Proposal. Zeq12:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you forget that the current title itself was a compromise? It has been "Israeli apartheid (phrase)", then just "Israeli apartheid", then a vote moved it to the current title. Go look at the page history of "Israeli apartheid, and you'll see;
Humus sapiens - "NPOV title", and "this is allegations"
Jayjg - "There's good enough consensus for this, and NPOV really demands it."
SlimVirgin also did a page move w.o comment. I realize that these aren't your words. but I think it is safe to say that the four of you share a similar opinion on this matter. So, could you please explain why an article title that was "good enough" a year ago is now not good enough? What has changed? Tarc12:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tarc. It looks like Jayjg and H.S. were saying that adding "Allegations to" made the title more NPOV. They are not saying that the title couldn't be further improved, i.e. more neutral. People on both sides of the aisle, so to speak, have supported a title like "Israel and apartheid" as arguably more fair-minded than "Israeli apartheid." (The latter presupposes that Israel has apartheid. Cp. Christianity and anti-Semitism versus Christian anti-Semitism.) CJCurrie's suggestion likewise separates the words 'Israel' and 'apartheid' in a manner that both sides might live with, though it may not be their first choice. HG | Talk13:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I see it that way. It appears that the "sides of the aisle" came to a consensus agreement on the current title. What it looks like now is that one side is attempting to step beyond that and want it to be more (in their opinion) neutral, while the other wants to keep it as-is, or hint at backtracking themselves to plain "Israeli apartheid". Tarc15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, Tarc, there's a difference between negotiating an agreement (which might be called "consensus" in an AfD context) and actually having a stable, broadly-supported mutual understanding. Again, in our suspended discussion of the title (beginning Archive 24), people on both sides acknowledged neutrality concerns with the current title. It's a key factor in the volatility of this article. In any case, I am curious to know whether you (BYT et al.) believe that AoIA is so superior from an NPOV standpoint that you couldn't imagine accepting another title and, if so, why. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk17:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Tarc's assessement reflects my take on this as well. Problem seems to be that an entry is seen as being "biased" if it causes discomfort to editors who support a certain country -- in this case, Israel and its policies -- regardless of the published sources citing the phenomenon, regardless of the notability of those sources, and regardless of the notability of the persons identifying the issue.
Fr'instance, we were just told that Jimmy Carter is not qualified to speak about this topic, or be quoted on it. Quite a remarkable claim.
Listen. If you really, really like Israel -- or Botswana, or the Czech Republic, or the People's Republic of China --that's cool.
Only trouble is, when you pitch a fit upon encountering sourced, encyclopedic content on WP that you perceive to be "hostile" to your country of choice.
If you find yourself in this situation, my advice is that you SKIP THE STEP where you try to delete or airbrush articles you don't like ....
... and instead go start another project where nationalism can be the determining factor in editorial content.
Otherwise, WP will have change, not just the content you don't like about your country of choice, but ALSO articles like White phosphorus use in Iraq or McCarthyism when someone labels that content "anti-American."
Do we really want an encyclopedia that knuckles under to nationalists when it comes to verifiable statements from figures like Nobel Laureates and a President of the United States? (And I'm speaking here of nationalists of any stripe.) BYT17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
HG is correct (again.) "Allegations of..." was seen as a temporary compromise because it was less POV than just "Israeli apartheid" and it was the only name on which a consensus could be achieved at the time. (This was June/July 2006.) And by the way, Tarc, the original title was "Israeli apartheid" (without the (phrase)). The person who started the article, and his supporters, fought against any attempt to put any "qualifier" in the title. As a result the name bounced back and forth among "IA", "IA (phrase)" and a few other options. While all this was going on, there was a sort-of mediation that went bad, but it did result in a poll on various options, and from that poll it appeared that "Allegations of..." had the best chance at a consensus at the time. Eventually someone did a "formal" move request and "Allegations of..." did achieve a consensus.
BYT, I think what you are doing is defining your own POV as "neutral", with the obvious result that anyone who disagrees with you (and believes their own view is neutral) is seen by you as "biased." That's why this whole thing (or indeed any POV dispute on Wikipedia) is so difficult to resolve. The point is that no matter how you phrase it, you are just stating one point of view. 6SJ718:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't really address the issue that it was an acceptable compromise then, and now suddenly it is not. Tarc18:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Tarc, a closer look reveals that "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" was not considered an acceptable compromise unless your definition of "acceptable compromise" is something that is proposed by one side and rejected by the other. Looking at the Israeli apartheid move log it's clear that the renaming was implemented by four users, all of whom are opponents of the article and previously tried to get it deleted. In fact, there was clearly an edit war over the renaming if you cross reference the Israeli apartheid move log with the Allegations of Israeli apartheid move log it's clear the renaming to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" was opposed. The clincher is that the name change resulted in an arbcom complaint Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid. Tarc, given all this I don't think your claim that "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" was ever an "acceptable compromise" is valid. What seems to have happened is that the name change was proposed by opponents of the article and opposed by proponents of the article and that the whole matter ended up at ArbComm which did nothing and because the ArbComm did nothing the change became the status quo. Lothar of the Hill People19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This isn't entirely correct. The vote 6SJ7 refers to was largely polarized around the usual partisan lines, with opponents of the article endorsing the name change and supporters opposing it. There were a few exceptions to the pattern, as well as some interventions by genuinely uninvolved parties -- but, in general, the poll's value as a reflection of community opinion was and remains highly suspect.
More fundamentally, there were some rather serious problems with the way this "formal move request" was conducted. The page was moved from Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheidseveral times on 4 July 2006, while the move request was still in progress and before there was any consensus to endorse it. The page moves were undertaken by SlimVirgin, Jayjg and Humus sapiens, who (i) weren't exactly neutral parties to the matter, and (ii) all have well-documented histories of aggressive editing in controversial situations. As a general rule, I don't believe that "changing the facts on the ground" while negotiations are still in progress should be considered a good-faith strategy.
In any event, it should be obvious to everyone involved in this discussion that the public debate surrounding the Israeli apartheid analogy has changed significantly since July 2006. Even if the "AoIa" name was once deemed appropriate, I believe most parties to the discussion have now reached the opinion that it is unsuitable, and should be changed to something less awkward and tendentious. CJCurrie05:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that editors opposed the article then does not mean there is a consensus for another title now. BYT19:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It does mean though that this name was not the "acceptable compromise" agreed to by both sides that Tarc argues it was and that, in fact, there's never been an accepted compromise. I can understand how he could have assumed it was but looking at the circumstances around the actual name change it's clear it was not a compromise but the result of one side winning an edit war (thanks to the change being frozen into place until arbcom settled the matter). Lothar of the Hill People20:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
errr, 6SJ7, I'm actually on the same side of this as you, and of similar views. however, little is to be gained by now recounting the entire course of discussion of this issue, and picking apart the flaws and problems in how it was handled. We have enough to do in handling the issue itself. sorry...don't mean to be picking on you today, but it seems to me we should simply be discussing the problems in the title itself, not discussing the problems with the discussion of the problems. hope that sounds somewhat constructive. thanks. --Steve, Sm890019:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"we were just told that Jimmy Carter is not qualified to speak about this topic, or be quoted on it. Quite a remarkable claim. " - no that was not what we were told. This is very argumentative to claim that this is what we were told when what we were actually told is that unlike Carter who wanted to make a point we need to choose an encyclopedia name and CJ suggest a perfect name. (carter can still quoted inside the article but carter does not dictate the name of the article - since his view is POV) Zeq22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I misinterpreted what you were saying. (I don't sign on with CJ's proposal, however.) BYT14:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
HG is correct and "allegations" was seen as a temporary compromise - everyone knew it is not a good encyclopedic name. Zeq04:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
a), b), c), 1), 2), d)
a) Problem as I see it is that "comparisons" and "analogy" and suchlike are no improvement whatsoever over "allegations" in article title here.
b) In fact, they are more problematic, because
c) These proposals don't accommodate either:
1) The by-now-obvious emergence of "Israeli apartheid" as a political epithet (no one would seriously propose an article entitled Nigger analogy)
2) The messiness of the dispute, clearly a defining element. Conflicting epistemologies are at play here, as this talk page clearly demonstrates.
d) What, if I may ask directly, is the problem with Israeli "apartheid" controversy? Other than the fact that I'm the person suggesting it? (I acknowledge openly here that that may well be a signficant hurdle for us). BYT 10:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Putting it in quotes is a bit weaselish, IMO. It has nothing to do with you personally. The article is about this particularly loaded/explosive/controversial/charged accusation, how it is used, who uses it, and the associated criticisms of such usage. You can't talk about something and not use the very name of what you're talking about; Israeli apartheid. Trying to do so has become an enormous drain on time and energy. Tarc15:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tarc. Above, I asked you about "Israel and apartheid" as an alternative (which I gleaned from Tiamut). As an example, I noted that Christian antisemitism is now titled Christianity and antisemitism. While I am can appreciate that you'd prefer "Israeli apartheid" as your first choice, could you live with "Israel and apartheid" as a title? I mean, leaving aside the q of the negotiated compromise you've noted above, could you accept "Israel and apartheid" in terms of neutrality and adequate naming of the topic? Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Kind of a broad analogy there. Christianity encompasses a wide, wide array of beliefs and sects, from Mel Gibson's church to the Coptic Orthodox to Catholicism. I can see why assigning antisemitism to such a broad group would be a bit problematic, but here we already have a much narrower focus; one allegation/analogy applied to one nation. Tarc16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok Tarc, "Christian antisemitism" isn't quite analogous to "Israeli apartheid." Fair enough (i.e., there's only one Israel but many Christian entities). Still, even though you'd prefer the one cohesive phrase "Israeli apartheid" -- would you be willing to accept "Israel and apartheid" or the like? To be sure, it wouldn't be your first choice and it isn't the same as what was negotiated, but would it satisfy neutrality and other principled concerns? Thanks, HG | Talk16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe the current title violates any neutrality guidelines of any sort, though. That some here do not like it and see it as an epithet is glaringly obvious, but that has no relevance at all here. There have been far worse suggestions in the past other than "Israel and apartheid" though, so it at least has that going for it. Tarc23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
"Israel and apartheid" would work for me. No quotes in that, of course. Note that unlike the current title, HG's suggestion does not use "alleged" or "allegations," and either of those remains a problem per WP:WTA. (Though not as much of a problem, in my view, as a title that tries to avoid naming its subject.) Note that "Israel and apartheid" would still allow us to explore the use of "apartheid" as both an epithet and an academic/poli-sci controversy. BYT10:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
For me the proposal won't work. Israel and apartheid implies there is a connection. The issue here is whether or not there really is a connection. YahelGuhan18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Yahel, mind if I ask you to explore this a bit? I'm assuming that you'd prefer there to be no article at all, and no implied connection, but let's leave deletion out as an option for now, ok? Let's consider the term (sans 'allegations') "Israeli apartheid" -- you'd agree that this implies a very strong connection, right? Indeed, the phrase takes as a foregone conclusion that such a form of apartheid exists. With me on that? To be sure, when we add 'allegations of' we get a title that says that the foregone conclusion is not definitive, the jury is still out. But what connection is implied with "Israel and apartheid"? Logically, the conjunction may be bringing together two quite different items, like Bread and chocolate or, closer to home: Mormonism and Judaism, Israel and animal welfare, Homosexuality and Judaism, Israel and the European Union, Anarchism and Orthodox Judaism. Now, surely there are some connections to be read about in these articles, but does the title really tell the newcomer what those connections will be? Yahel, we've all gotten pretty absorbed in this Israeli apartheid debate here at Wikipedia. But, if we step back a moment, I think you'll find that whatever connection might be implied by Israel and apartheid is quite uncertain and unknown. At most, the reader might want to read more - but they won't assume that it's an (alleged) foregone conclusion. If the reader is curious to find more, hopefully they will find an even-handed and fair description of the alleged connection(s) and their merits, etc. Thanks. HG | Talk20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'd prefer no article, as obvious by my pro-israel bias. And I think "allegations" is better than "and." Allegations implies doubt as to whether or not the concept (or connection) is real, while "and" implies there is a connection. Allegations still isn't a good title, but I don't believe "and" is the way to go. YahelGuhan00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yahel, if you don't mind my saying so, it's not obvious that a pro-Israel bias requires you or any editor to "prefer no article." To the contrary, I'd say that Israel would benefit more by confronting such allegations in an open and public way, putting the best facts and analysis on the table, and improving public knowledge on this topic. The truth will out. That's the premise of Wikipedia's strategy of encyclopedic knowledge. In particular, and I believe I can say this without my taking sides, the "Israeli apartheid" claim is a "minority view" to be edited in line with Wikipedia policies (e.g. no undue weight). However, it's awfully hard to ensure a knowledge-centered treatment of the topic when it's burdened by POV-warring and a yucky title. Like you say, "allegations still isn't a good title." So what would you consider a good encyclopedic title instead? Presumably, your ideal title would avoid the phrase "Israeli apartheid" -- however, without that phrase, can you suggest a title that will gain consensus here? As I listen to folks on both sides, it's my impression that "and" will be needed for consensus on a better title. I'd very much welcome your good faith effort, since deletion is not a realistic option at this juncture, to help us come to an agreement on a good title. Yahel, let me know what you think. Thanks. HG | Talk07:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
"Israel and apartheid" doesn't work for me because it seems to say that the subject of the article is the connections between the country of Israel and the defunct South African policy, which is the only proper meaning of "apartheid". And that is not the subject of this article. Andyvphil12:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point -- how does the title relate to the meaning of apartheid? This was discussed somewhat in the centralized Talk and the synthesis. There are two meanings of apartheid: (1st) The official self-described policy of South Africa. (2nd) Similar or analogous policies elsewhere (see Oxford Eng Dict). The title "Israeli apartheid" uses the 2nd meaning. This seems to favor the anti-Israel side. In the suggestion that started this thread -- "Comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa" the word 'apartheid' has the 1st meaning. This arguably favors the pro-Israel side. But "Israel and apartheid"?? Gee, one of the interesting things about "Israel and apartheid" is that the noun 'apartheid' is not modified (either by Israeli or SA). So here the meaning of 'apartheid' is ambiguous. If you don't mind my asking a follow-up question, Andyvphil, don't you think that ambiguity might add to the appeal of such a title? HG | Talk16:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that there is a dictionary definition that adopts the bad-faith usage of the term "apartheid" as apparently, in some sense, legitimate. I've already had a fairly extensive discussion of this, mostly with G-Dett, presumably now archived. English language dictionaries are ill-equipped and disinclined to be prescriptive, or to talk about semantic weight... Anyway, the two definitions are not equals. There is a reason the second definition is the second definition. The first definition is very much the primary definition and, as I said, the result is that Israel and apartheid seems to be talking about something other than the subject of this article. And that can't be a "good title". The current name isn't perfect, but at least the subject is reasonably clear, and I am uninterested in making it more "acceptable" at the price of greater ambiguity. Andyvphil22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think "Israel and apartheid" is confusing and is not an improvement over the current title, which I don't really like either. As I have said before, I do not think it is possible for this article to have a good title, and certainly not a good title that will get a consensus. 6SJ703:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi 6SJ7. As I recall (using archive 24), you think the article "is a POV fork and inherently POV." As you might imagine, my role wouldn't be to disagree w/you but merely to ask -- since the article is surviving AfDs -- how do we best present and contextualize what you regard as inherent POV? I noticed that later you said "Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or "Apartheid controversy..." are "better title than the current title... which, given my overall opinion of this article, isn't saying much." So, though you presumably prefer deletion, I see your willingness to improve the title. Since you also second Leifern below, who'd like a "proposal to resolve this issue" -- would renaming the title possibly be part of a way to resolve this issue? Thanks. HG | Talk11:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not know whether it is possible to "resolve" this issue. I am certainly willing to consider "improvements" which fall short of a real "resolution", in fact if you look at Archive page 25 you will see that when there was a formal move request (to "Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"), I "voted" in favor. (I also added my usual comments about how it wasn't my first choice.) However, this proposal did not achieve a consensus (it looks like it was tied, 8-8). The next two proposals I did not vote for, but it wouldn't have made a difference, since those proposals were even further from a consensus. So I think I have answered your question by my past actions. 6SJ718:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
^ "To call Israel a Nazi state, however, as is commonly done today, or to accuse it of fostering South African-style apartheid rule or engaging in ethnic cleansing or wholesale genocide goes well beyond legitimate criticism." -- Alvin H. Rosenfeld, " 'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism" [3]
^At Durban a large contingent wore T-shirts emblazoned 'Occupation = Colonialism =Racism, End Israeli Apartheid.' " -- Jerusalem Post, 8/22/07, Stop Durban II.[4]
