Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 29

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.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

Mandela "memo"

I have removed the reference in the article to a memo supposedly written by Nelson Mandela to Thomas Friedman. As noted above, this memo is a myth. It was actually a journalistic satire written by Palestinian commentator Arjan el-Fassed of Electronic Intifada in 2001, in the style of Friedman's own mock memos to world leaders. In distribution around the world, Fassed's own name somehow got omitted, and the statement was ascribed to Mandela himself. See el-Fassed's article about this. RolandR (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

- - Are you certain of this? I've found several news media sources indicating otherwise, plus additional information expressing his opinion (with Tutu). If not, I'm awfully sorry. Truly.70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely certain. Read the article by Arjan el-Fassed linked above; he is clearly upset at the misattribution of this article, and the removal of his byline. Although I would like to see Mandela write such a letter, it is clear that he did not. This incident is a striking example of the ability of the internet to inflate an untrue story, with scores of sites quoting each other until the true source is overwhelmed and lost. You are right that several news sources have repeated this; this shows that they simply did not check their facts and sources. RolandR (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, apologies. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article move was EXTREMELY bad form

I am not quite sure how to move a page over a redirect, so someone that does should move this back to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Contentious articles should be discussed here first before any action is taken; renaming just for the sake of renaming was a poor action to take, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just thought if people didn't like the title they'd move it back. Can we see if there can be a consensus for the new title since it is more netural? Strongbrow (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongbrow, there is no need to apologise. And there is no reason for others to abandon WP:AGF. Bold, revert, discuss - just don't forget the discuss part. CIreland (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's like disagreeing over what color to paint the room, one party paints it in their color anyways, then wants to re-start the discussion on whether the new color looks good or not. That is not a solid basis for an honest discussion.

And if I knew how, it'd already be moved back, but I've seen page histories and such get mangled by wrong moves before so I didn't want to take the chance. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the move was bad form, especially since the Afd debate consensus seems to be keep. A move of this article needs to be discussed. --Thetrick (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cireland, WP:BOLD doesn't excuse disruptive changes that clearly violate the consensus building process. Further, it's extremely difficult to revert page moves like this one where the original article was turned into a redirect. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Inexperienced user makes a good faith attempt to resolve a dispute. No need for hysteria. CIreland (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. CIreland has this right. The page move was not difficult at all to fix; it just required some quick requests for help from admins, which were speedily granted. It's great to have new users who are bold, even if they make mistakes; once they learn they'll be a great asset to the encyclopedia. Next time, spend less time condemning and more time explaining, please. Do not bite the new users, and if you don't know that someone else a new user, well, that's a good reason to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I know this is a tough article to work with, but please be nice to each other. -- SCZenz (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested name change

The deletion discussion has closed and the person who closed it has suggested a rename and rewrite of the article. I propose we rename this article Israel and the apartheid analogy since it's more neutral. First of all it doesn't have an accusation of "Israeli apartheid" in the title and secondly it doesn't use the questionable term "allegations" which a number of people from both sides of the debate took issue with in the deletion discussion. Strongbrow (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please list this discussion at [[1]] and inform the people who voted in the deletion discussion? Strongbrow (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The original title was simply Israeli apartheid. The process by which it became Allegations of Israeli Apartheid involved an out-of-process move, a painful arbiration (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid), and much difficulty. Please read the history of that arbitration carefully and consider whether you want to go forward with this. It's really somewhat inappropriate to suggest a name change immediately after the closure of an AfD that did not recommend the change. On the other hand, working on the article content might not be a bad idea. --John Nagle (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some of the content problems come from the article being framed as "allegations". Also, since the person who closed the deletion discussion suggested that the name of the article be changed I disagree when you say the AfD didn't recommend a change. Reading over it and the number of comments about the article's title it's clear that it actually did.

I endorse changing the title to Israel and the apartheid analogy, or Israeli Apartheid Analogy, or An Analogy of an Israeli Apartheid. Anything with Analogy, Apartheid, and Israeli is fine by me. Also, does allegations qualify as a weasel word? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in the AfD, "allegations of..." is itself the product of past compromise. Tarc (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

According to John Nagle it was the product of an out of process move rather than a compromise and also if there was a consensus at the deletion discussion it was that the name of the article needs to change. 78.46.51.83 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is debating that Tarc. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the change because 1) as far as I can tell, the people who are making the allegations are ... wait for it ... alleging that Israel is engaging in apartheid-like activities, and those allegations are the subject of this article, and 2) this new debate will be just another way to avoid working on the article itself, and then somebody will object to the new name and launch an AfD, and then nothing will happen and people will charge that Wikipedia is a hotbed of anti-Semitism, and so on. Yawn. Even a dry title like Allegations of systemic discrimination in Israel-occupied territories would probably drawn legions of detractors. Let it drop, and move on to something uselful, like wikifying articles. --Thetrick (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the article also contains information why Israel is NOT an Apartheid state. So the article might as well be "Allegations of a non-Apartheid state in Israel". Your comments have been spoken before by many others and have been responded thoroughly by me and others in the recent deletion review. Giving an appropriate name to a propaganda piece is step #1. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral between the current title and "Israeli apartheid analogy", they seem equally applicable. There is no need for "and the" in the title, it's just lengthens the title pointlessly. I agree with Thetrick that the energy spent renaming would be better spent editing, so if there is going to be a move let's try not to drag out the discussion forever. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Israel and arpartheid" would seem better than "Allegations of", at the very least. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The possessive Israeli is rather important though, as it makes clear what we're talking about it here; actions of the state of Israel. "...and apartheid" is a bit obtuse, and detaches the actions from the state. Tarc (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tarc's justification for use of the possessive "Israeli" is exactly why such use in the title is POV. The correct approach would be not to have a separate article on this at all, but because there is a continuing lack of consensus to remove or merge this disgrace of an article, we are left with a choice of imperfect titles. Of the ideas that are currently floating around (including the current title), "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is probably the least evil. It emphasizes that what is being discussed is an analogy, while not implying (as "Israeli apartheid analogy" would) that the analogy necessarily applies to Israel. That issue is covered in the text, which has problems of its own, but it should not be decided in the title. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is really the heart of the opposition to the article here; warriors who see this as a battleground rather than an encyclopedia. There are notable allegations that actions of the state are similar to South Africa's apartheid. Reporting on those allegations, and naming the article as such, does not equate to a declaration of their truth or even their validity. That's not what we're here for. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tarc; can you vouch for everybody? Itzse (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is because this is an encyclopedia, with a neutral-point-of-view policy, that the title of this article needs to be as neutral as possible. A more neutral title than the current one has now been proposed. (Oh: Nice personal attack, by the way.) 6SJ7 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 6SJ7, that more neutral is better then less neutral. Itzse (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What "more neutral title" has been proposed? Do you mean "Israel and apartheid analogy"?Bless sins (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Any title that removes the "allegations" phrase is a reasonable compromise. Perhaps, "Analogy of an Israeli Apartheid, or "Israeli Apartheid Analogy". Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I disagree that any change that takes "allegations" out of the title would make it better. I think "Israeli apartheid analogy" would be significantly worse than the current title, while "Israel and the apartheid analogy" would (probably) be marginally better than the current title. And by the way, this is why it is impossible to achieve consensus on a new title for this article. It is difficult to achieve consensus for a new title when there are two options, because changing the title requires something approaching a unanimous vote, not just a majority. Once you put in a third option, it gets extremely difficult. The last time there was a major discussion of changing the name of this article, I think there were something like eight or more different choices. It's all in the archives somewhere. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lengthy process is not a legitimate reason. A) The title isn't neutral. "allegations" is a borderline weasel word and is not wikipedia appropriate. B) How might we change it?? We first need to accept that the title is flawed. Then we can go into the crazy process of actually changing it, but citing the process as a justification is a juvenile fallacy and will not be taken seriously. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think you completely misunderstood what I said. I didn't say an effort should not be made to change the title. I did say (or imply) that such an effort is unlikely to succeed. You can try it if you want. As for "allegations", my point is taking the word out of the title doesn't necessarily make it better. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't have said it if it wasn't meant as a reason. You said, "disagree" and this is why [insert lengthy process here]. As far as the title is concerned, yes taking allegations out of the title and replacing it with "ANALOGY" which seems to be what the article is about. The allegations are proven wrong throughout the article, so analogy is obviously more fair and BALANCED. I've explained this more in-depth before but I'm way too tired to repeat. It's like everyone is running in circles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Israeli apartheid analogy" seems reasonable, as it takes neither side. But note, you need a large consensus for this to take place.Bless sins (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite tag

Those who support this article having a rewrite tag, please specify what you think needs rewriting and why. I can see bullet-points that should be paragraphs, and block quotations that arguably should be inlined or paraphrased where possible. However, those issues do not warrant a whole-article rewrite tag. Tags should be put against the sections in question and the specific issues should be described in the tags, so that the issues can be fixed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed bullet point sections to paragraphs, as suggested in the Manual of Style. If there are remaining issues with the style of the whole article please describe them so they can be fixed.Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-writing is not a good idea. That requires drastic changes, and consensus for them will be hard to achieve. I suggest making small changes at a time.Bless sins (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the article is rated as a start class. There has been little improvement on the article since then, so I see no reason why the tag should be removed. It's a necessary reminder. As far as writing is concerned, many of the linked sources are dated, and some link to blogs or editorials. Second, repetition can be found throughout the article. The same info is stated many times (specifically the proponents and opponents of the allegations). Third, an ideal article would have a categorized section that places the proponents/opponents against each other, with strongly-cited commentary in between. And lastly, I find the reflection of "notable" figures quite unnecessary. While I do not object to it, I think the article focuses way too much on the opinions of South Africans and former Presidents. There is more but I'm tired. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also - Need I remind you the administrator who closed the recent afd supported a rewrite. he/she made that VERY clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really relevant at all, that is just one person's opinion. Rewriting just for the sake of it is just as bad as renaming for renaming's sake, if not moreso. If ideas are brought to the table that can improve the article that others agree on, then that is great. But to approach this in a "it MUST be done OR ELSE" manner is a complete non-starter. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrator recommended rewrite. No further discussion is necessary. The article is in start class, no major editing has occurred since that rating. we are done. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point completely, and are harping way too much on article classifications. Tarc (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WF. As I understand it, a rewrite tag indicates that the article needs to be edited to come into line wih the Manual of Style writing quality standards, which is why it has a link to the MoS in it. Let's look at your issues. 1) Start class. We make our own decisions on quality tags, we don't rely on one reviewer's possibly biased opinion, especially on a contentious subject. 2) Dated references. This is not just a discussion of how things are right now, the analogy is decades old so it's to be expected that some references will be old too. In any case, old sources are not a MoS issue. 3) Links to blogs and editorials. If you think some references are not reliable, these should be tagged on an individual basis. Unreliable sources are not a MoS issue. 4) Repetition. This isn't mentioned in the MoS, but I'll certainly give you that it's a writing style issue. Note that there will always be repetition in the WP:lead of material in the body, because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. The lead is currently a bit wordy, but that's not grounds for an article rewrite tag. Quoting different sources on the same issue is not necessarily repetition, as different people have different arguments for their case. 5) "an ideal article would have a categorized section that places the proponents/opponents against each other, with strongly-cited commentary in between" Do you mean that there should be a "for" and an "against" section? That is a debatable matter of taste, and is not a Manual of Style issue. 6) Emphasis on opinions of notable figures, South Africans, former presidents, etc. I disagree, but in any case it's a sourcing issue not a style issue. 7) Closing admin's opinion. I will ask the closing admin to comment here. Overall, it's clear that almost all of your reasons for having the tag are not Manual of Style issues, so you've got the wrong tag. I think the article could do with a little tidying, perhaps focusing on removing repetition. However, I suggest that specific sections with repetition that should be removed be tagged rather than the whole article. The reason that I object to the tagging of the whole article is that it feels like a kind of tag coatrack - what seems like a tag for style is perhaps actually a tag for IDONTLIKETHIS, an attempt to discredit the opinions presented in the article by implying a vague lack of quality in the overall article. I'm not accusing you of that, because you didn't place the tag in the first place as far as I know, and going by your reasons you largely don't appear to know what the tag is properly used for. But that's the overall effect. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this. I was merely suggesting that those who were pursuing deletion may be better served pursuing rewriting and renaming, because there just isn't the consensus to delete.

If you want my opinion, this article is utterly disgraceful, but fiddling with it is pointless without the perspective of history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: you were saying "edit as usual", not "this article has writing style issues"? Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was "Pursue a tactic other than deletion-by-AFD to accomplish your goals, whatever they may be." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So, regarding point "7) Closing admin's opinion", the closing admin was not specifically suggesting that the article has Manual of Style issues, which is what a rewrite tag signifies. There is some editing happening that may improve the lead, and I'm working on removing some repetition across sections. Those being the only writing style issues raised, once those are sorted we can have another look at the tag. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, you're going above the issue. A WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR reviewed the deletion discussion, and suggested a rewrite is necessary. Whether he is biased or not is irrelevant. You could be equally biased just as well, so it's a moot argument. The problem isn't only MoS. Neutrality is a major concern, and that connects with the rewrite issue. I've already explained what needs to be approved, there shouldn't any more issues. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin has said what he meant by his comment, and it wasn't "the article has writing style issues". So the closing admin's AfD comment is not relevant to the question of whether a rewrite tag is appropriate, as he was using a different meaning of the word "rewrite". Each tag has a specific purpose. The POV tag is for POV issues. A rewrite tag is for writing style issues, as defined in the MoS. You have only raised one writing style issue, repetition, which isn't in the MoS but which I agree with regardless. I've also noted that the lead could do with writing style work, I think it's not summary-form enough. When these issues and any other writing style issues raised are fixed, we can look at the tag again. Please do raise any other writing style issues that you see, so they can be fixed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR (I think that's going to be my new sig for a while) has no strong opinion about the writing quality of this article or whether the {{rewrite}} tag is called for or not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Ryan, it's been established by other that there are others problems with the article aside from simple MoS. There is something fundamentally wrong with the article. As I've said, neutrality is a major issue. That ties directly with the rewrite tag. I'm assuming your desire to get rid of the tag gives the article more credibility, and that is something I and many others are not prepared to do. Let's put more focus on actually cleaning up and neutralizing the article instead of petty crap like this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag has a specific purpose. It should be removed when any writing style issues are fixed. If it is not removed then, it is being misused. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. On Wikipedia, placing the tag {{rewrite}} has a specific meaning and instructions on when to use it. Any MoS issues remaining in this article are minor, especially compared to disasters like this. --Thetrick (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made improvements to a number of writing style issues. They were: moved lead to summary form, changed block quotations to inline quotations where appropriate (where they were short enough to be readable inline), changed bullet points to paragraph form, and removed repeated quotes. Folks, please list here any other writing style issues you see but aren't in a position to fix yourself. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If there aren't any further specific writing style issues to be fixed, it's time to remove the tag. However, I'm considering replacing it with the toolong tag. At 102KB this article could do with trimming. There are a lot of paragraphs that could be sentences, and long quotes that could be briefly paraphrased. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A full rewrite would be contentious and very time-consuming. It would probably lead to mediation, if not arbitration. The process works better with small changes. So removing the rewrite tag is probably appropriate. The long quotes are a different problem. They're there because, if a long quote isn't provided, the usual suspects start screaming "original research" and take out the material they don't like. --John Nagle (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of material seems relatively reasonable at this time, compromises are being found and paraphrasing to improve the wording of the lead is staying. Let's have faith and see if highly-accurate paraphrasings of block quotes can be made and the accuracy of their characterisation judged by everyone in a level-headed manner. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaza

Kendrick7; I'm removing "Gaza" from the lead, as it cannot be said that Israel "rules" over Gaza; and even if one might want to stretch the meaning of "rule"; it still is very far from unanimous; therefore it cannot be there. Itzse (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Israel controls the borders of Gaza, the airspace of Gaza, and its coastline (last time I checked). Perhaps, "occupation" would be the correct term in describing this?Bless sins (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine arguements to extend the meaning of "rule" to Gaza; but do we decide such a delicate thing? If in doubt, leave out. Itzse (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Leave out Gaza? I think not. Isn't that exactly what Israel is trying to do. --Tirpse77 (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tirpse77; I don't understand your comment. How does what Israel is trying to do come into the picture? Aren't we creating a neutral Wikipedia? Itzse (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Control" also works.Bless sins (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for whom? Itzse (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) t's not really a military occupation anymore, which was the justification for removing Gaza from the lead in the first place, but Israel still prevents Gaza from engaging in free trade with Egypt via the Gaza embargo, and still maintains, or insists others maintain, the apartheid wall on all sides of the country to that end. Starving the people of Gaza to death because they don't like the election of Hamas to parliament is collective punishment, one of the many qualifiers of the crime of apartheid. As such, I no longer find the withdrawal of military forces and settlements alone makes this territory no longer part of the apartheid system here. In retrospect, it was WP:OR to have removed it without sources attesting to this. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that "Gaza" has to go from the lead; thanks for being able to see both sides of the issue.

Tirpse77; it is not enough that some people would extend the word "rule" to Gaza; in order for it to be included it has to be a fact not someone's opinion. Adding "control" won't either do the trick (pun intended?) because if apartheid means that a country rules in the same manner to South Africa in the Apartheid era; then "controlling" isn't similar to South Africa which ruled and controlled. It is either "rule" or "control" take your pick; "rule" excludes Gaza; and "controls" includes Gaza but destroys the Raison d'être for this article. Therefore I'm leaving "rule" and removing Gaza until someone can come up with a better idea of how to keep this article neutral. Itzse (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Itzse; Israel rules Gaza with an iron fist. It is solely the Israeli government that decides if people in Gaza eat or not, if they get water or diesel or not, if they can have exit visas or not. Surely you noticed the highly publicized recent case where 7 Palestinians from Gaza were not able to take up Fulbright scholarships in the US because the government that actually rules them, Israel, refused to grant them exit visas. Even Jimmy Carter, a former US president, was not able to visit Gaza because the government that rules it, Israel, refused to allow him to go. It is I think rather disingenous to try to diminish Israel's rule/control/domination/occupation/blockade of Gaza. Palestinians cannot even go out to sea to fish, because Israel does not allow them. Nor does Israel allow Palestinians to exploit the natural gas resources that exist in Gaza's offshore waters. One can make an endless list of the ways that Israel rules Gaza and the lives of the Palestinians in it. I understand that for political reasons Israel and some of its partisans wish to 'disappear' Gaza for demographic reasons, to pretend that it exists somewhere else and is now magically no longer part of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael. But WP is not the place to advance that agenda. WP is a place to reflect accurately the situation, and that is one where Israel exercises a kind of totalitarian control of Gaza which in my opinion is actually worse in many respects than anything that existed in apartheid South Africa. But I am also not here to advance my opinion. I do want to work with you in good faith to find language that reflects the reality of Israel's control of Gaza, but I will not agree to eliminating Gaza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tirpse, Israel approved of the visas but the united states refused entry. Now, can we move away from the propaganda and focus on cleaning up this article? Thank you!Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 Just for the record, please take note of the Reuters report that appeared in Ha'aretz on June 16, 2008. The report is headlined "Rice to Israel: 'Extremely important' to grant exit visas to Gaza Fulbright students." You can read the report yourself and see that the United States, at the highest level, is insisting that the Fulbright scholars be granted exit visas by the Israeli government (the one that rules them). It's now much much harder to get a scholar out of Gaza than it ever was to get a Jewish refusenik out the Soviet Union or a dissident out of Apartheid South Africa. --Tirpse77 (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a reliable citation that Israel is preventing scholarship students from leaving Gaza, so it would be appropriate to include a statement to that effect. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Paddy Can you suggest where/how to do this concisely and appropriately? --Tirpse77 (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If I show you that it is incorrect, will you still not agree to eliminating Gaza? Stop and think before you read on.

Now that you probably are open to do the right thing; and the right thing means, the right thing for Wikipedia, not for us; I'll try to explain.

Your above comment is full of emotion, and it might be understandable too; but our emotions don't matter. This is an Encyclopedia created for Anti-Zionist and pro-Zionist alike, and words like "I will not agree" with the greatest respect doesn't belong here.

Now to the point. All that you have described doesn't amount to a unanimous opinion on the applying the term "rule" to Gaza; and as much as we would like to please you; Wikpedias's rule of NPOV stands higher, and when in doubt leave out. Do we have an agreement? Itzse (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make things clear: Officially speaking, Gaza is controlled by HAMAS. Hamas has authority over the region. It controls civil services, government health care, and everything else a government is "supposed" to do. All Israel does is supply "some" necessary resources to the region, even though it has zero obligation to do so. I'm kind of offended that the article doesn't even talk about the neighboring Arab countries. Those are the only real countries that have some influence over the region. They refuse to help or contribute any funds to Palestinians, evening going so far as to support militant organizations that create conflict within the government...which I'm guessing keeps the state occupied from ever reaching out to the Arab League. Israel does however impose a strict security barrier across the border line, but from what I understand that is being done to protect the country from suicide attacks...though these precautions haven't been so successful. But I digress.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I understand it, every relevant authority which has weighed in on the matter has said that Gaza is still occupied. Israel exercises near-total control over daily life in Gaza, and it does so by military force. The mechanisms of this control have been sketched above and are outlined fully by B'Tselem[2]. Amnesty describes it as a "stranglehold." The statement that "under international humanitarian law, Gaza remains occupied," or words to that effect, has been made by HRW,[3] Amnesty,[4] John Dugard,[5] B'Tselem,[6] and the Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research.[7] Even conservative Israeli newspapers acknowledge this international consensus, although they do dissent from it. [8]

In short, there is a remarkably clear consensus among relevant reliable sources that Gaza remains under "effective control" of Israel, and is thus under occupation — occupation now enforced mainly from the borders, shorelines, skies, and crucial water / power / sewage infrastructure, rather than by direct military presence, but an occupation nonetheless. Our article must make this clear, even if it annoys or confounds some of Israel's self-appointed defenders. <eleland/talkedits> 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

am i supposed to take you seriously eleland? your questions can be answered quite easily. im just not going to waste my time. use google. but of course, you dont want answers. XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The allegation is that Israel is using an apartheid-like system to control Gaza. The analogy is with Transkei, Bophutatswana and other Bantustans, which South Africa likewise claimed were not under its direct rule. Therefore, this has a place in the article. You may disagree with this characterisation, and are certainly entitled to cite sources rebutting this. But you cannot deny that this analogy is drawn, and thus exclude Gaza from the article. RolandR (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

source for public space and accomodation!

after researching i found this source, it touches on the affirmative action plan and supports the statements made in the article. how might i reference this and replace this source with the unreliable one? when i go to edit references, it says something like "*ref=/2"

here is the section: Arab citizens of Israel are eligible for special perks, as well as affirmative action.[citation needed] The city of Jerusalem gives Arab residents free professional advice to assist with the house permit process and structural regulations, advice which is not available to Jewish residents on the same terms.[40][unreliable source?]

here is the link: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/2/Israel%20Government%20Action%20in%20the%20Arab%20Sector%20-%20Febr

help will be appreciated. this article is so crowded it's truly hard to fix even the littlest things. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a great source (an Israeli government website) and I'm happy to help add it as a reference for affirmative action. What's your impression of what sort of affirmative action is described in it? I see mention of special colleges, cultural centres, and "housing, employment, industry, transport, infrastructures, agriculture, and education". I can't see where it says free advice on housing, so we may need to change the text to reflect the nature of the affirmative action in the source. The way you add references is to edit the section where it is referenced (where the number in square brackets is), by editing what's inside the ref tags. Like I say happy to add it, will do at the next opportunity, probably in a few hours. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the reference, against "The Israeli government has policies of affirmative action for housing Arab citizens". The source doesn't mention providing advice on housing, so I haven't put it against that aspect of the content. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

thank you ryan. im still getting familiar with wiki's complicated code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy

Could I please request that all editors on this page consider renaming "Allegations of Israel apartheid" as "Israel and the apartheid analogy"? This title may not be perfect, but it's a very reasonable compromise and would finally allow us to put this matter behind us.

My reasons for supporting "Israel and the apartheid analogy" are as follows:

(i) The current title -- "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" -- was a bad compromise chosen some time ago, at a time when the article's continued existence was still in doubt. I don't believe it was ever intended as a permanent solution, and there's certainly no need for it to continue now.

(ii) "Allegations" is an obvious weasel-word. It is unencyclopedic, and its presence in the title only serves to distort our take on the subject matter from the beginning.

(iii) There is a general, long-standing belief among serious contributors to this page that "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is an inappropriate title. The only reason it's still here is because previous attempts at change have ground down into acrimonious disputes as to what the new title should be.

(iv) "Analogy" is the proper term to describe the parallels that some authors have drawn between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa. Adam and Moodley (to use the most obvious example) do not explicitly "allege" that Israel is similar to apartheid-era South Africa -- they instead draw an analogy, based on similar conditions and practices in the two countries, in order to provide what they believe is a valuable framework for interpretation.

(v) "Israeli apartheid analogy" and "Israel and the apartheid analogy" are obvious choices for a page move, and have been for quite some time.

(vi) I don't believe there's any significant difference between "Israeli apartheid analogy" and "Israel and the apartheid analogy". The latter is slightly wordier, but also more accurate in a technical sense. I've argued for the former in the past; I'm quite prepared to accept the latter now.

(vii) The previous discussion (above) indicates that there is widespread support for "Israel and the apartheid analogy", even among editors who have voted to delete the page in the past. I have no idea why Wikifan and I are in agreement on this point, but I take it as a sign that some compromise may finally be possible.

Do others agree? CJCurrie (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

i endorse the name change. those who say nay, please direct yourself to the easily-accessible roman numeral (thanks to CJ) and specify why you disagree. thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the existing title, or "Israeli apartheid analogy". "Allegations" is not a weasel word, it's a clear description of what the analogy is because apartheid has a negative connotation. Wiktionary defines an allegation as "An assertion, especially an accusation, not necessarily based on facts". The only good reason I can see against "allegation" is that a lot of people seem to misinterpret it, thinking it's somehow devious when it's not. "Israeli apartheid analogy" would be equally accurate. Adding "and the" is not only wordier, it has been objected to previously as avoiding describing the apartheid as Israeli in origin, when the Isreali origin of the apartheid is clearly part of the arguments under discussion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Israeli apartheid analogy" is a reasonable compromise between CJCurrie's position and Ryan Paddy.Bless sins (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how "Israeli apartheid analogy" would be a "compromise." The proposed "compromise" is "Israel and the apartheid analogy". Which, of course, doesn't obligate anyone to support it, but if people are going to start support/opposing CJ's suggestion, it is only going to get confusing if there are two or more proposals being "straw-polled" on at the same time. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

When Wikipedia was founded, did anyone expect that article titles would become so contentious? I agree with CJ Currie's reasoning. I think either "Israeli apartheid analogy" and "Israel and the apartheid analogy" better describe the issue as a (debated) interpretative perspective rather than something that is factually right or wrong. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Israeli apartheid analogy" is acceptable, but it is worlds apart from "Israel and the apartheid analogy." I do not accept any sort of "well, they're close enough so we'll go with the latter" bait-and-switch. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My thinking on this is in line with CJ's. In response to Ryan Paddy I would say first that Wiktionary is a lousy dictionary, dictionaries in general are lousy sources for the connotations of words, and that an allegation is a specific factual charge, while this article is actually describing a wide variety of scholarship and advocacy which compares (or contrasts) features of the Israeli and RSA social systems rather, than making specific "allegations" as such. <eleland/talkedits> 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oy, after all this noise, and here's a good solution. I'm fine with it, think it's an improvement; and hope we can all move on to more productive matters. --Leifern (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I support either of CJ's alternative titles - both are preferable to the current one, simply because 'analogy' is more neutral (and perhaps more accurate) than 'allegations'. Out of the two, I slightly prefer 'Israeli apartheid analogy' for reasons of brevity. Terraxos (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with retitling this. Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Accusing someones of a crime is an allegation, so I fail to see how this is a weasel word; it's actually the correct English word for the subject matter of the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Allegations" is accurate, but would you consider "Israeli apartheid analogy" as equally accurate? Perhaps it comes down to how many sources are accusing Israel of the crime of apartheid? If very many are, then "allegations" would characterise the situation best. If not, perhaps "analogy" would characterise most of the arguments in the sources. Perhaps we shouldn't rush to our own judgement of whether the sources are mostly accusatory (by linking their use of "apartheid" to our knowledge that it's a crime), rather we should go by how many of the sources describe it as a crime, and are therefore are explicitly making an allegation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Yes but this "crime against humanity" is debated and refuted twice inside the article. Allegations gives credence to the article. Wiki is not a podium, and should not be hosting opinions. Analogy is far more neutral. There might as well be a title that says "Allegations of why Israeli is not an Apartheid". Get it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that Wikipedia is not a podium. But it is an encyclopedia in which significant views are reported. Wikipedia is supposed to host well-sourced opinions. See WP:NPOV, "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It does not matter what is "refuted" in your opinion, it only matters what the nature of the argument is. If the argument is an allegation, then a title with "allegation" is an appropriate option. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "analogy" is better than "allegations", since most of the sources in the "pro" camp are drawing analogies rather than making allegations about the crime of apartheid. Likewise Adam and Moodley say "The majority is incensed by the very analogy" in discussing the issue. Both "Israeli apartheid analogy" and "Israel and the apartheid analogy" are good. The former seems more idiomatic to me. —Ashley Y 03:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As in more like an idiom? Would you say that's a positive or negative thing for a title? Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's do it and have done with it folks. This is not a POV issue; both "allegations" and "analogy" impart distance and the withholding of judgment (which is, incidentally, more than we usually do when naming articles on controversial topics). "Allegations" suggests that what's in dispute is chiefly a question of fact – whether the state of Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid as defined under international law. "Analogy" on the other hand suggests that the dispute is primarily ethical and rhetorical rather than legal – i.e., the question is not Is Israel violating the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court? but rather Is it morally and historically defensible to liken Israel's policies vis-á-vis the Palestinians to South African apartheid? If you look at the sources, it's very clear that they focus on this latter question. Even Adam and Moodley, whose treatment of the subject is the most sustained and scholarly, barely touch on the legal allegations. And it's clear that most of the rest of our sources – both 'pro' and 'con' – use the term "analogy," while few if any refer to "allegations." Finally, the article itself uses "analogy" four times for every one time it mentions "allegations." It's time to bring this article's title in line with its sources, contents, and overall focus.--G-Dett (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"Israel and the apartheid analogy" is fine. No other variation, however, is acceptable. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
If I have not made it clear already, I believe "Israel and the apartheid analogy" would be an improvement over the current title. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The title needs to changed because as G-Dett and several others have explained the use of the word "Allegations" is incorrect. I don't see any material difference between Israel and the apartheid analogy and Israeli apartheid analogy but given a choice I'd prefer the second since it's more succinct. I don't understand why anyone who didn't have a problem with "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" would object to "Israeli apartheid analogy" because it uses the phrase "Israeli apartheid" since the current title does the exact same thing. Strongbrow (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a significant material difference between the two, the phrasing is significant and relevant here as it is what the article is talking about. Divorcing Israel and apartheid is not something I am in favor of. "Israeli apartheid analogy" is an acceptable compromise. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's no compromise at all, as you well know. If we can't agree on "Israel and the apartheid analogy", then we'll have to stay with the current title, which was the result of extremely lengthy negotiations. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Israel and the apartheid analogy" seems clumsy and imprecise to me. I'm not convinced it would be an improvement. But in any case, I'm having an episode of deja vu as I'm sure the "analogy" proposal has been made before and been shot down. I might have to go and re-read those arguments before coming to a conclusion. Gatoclass (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Could those who wish to have "Israel and the apartheid analogy" rather than "Israeli apartheid analogy" please state their reasons? Renaming decisions should not be based on WP:ILIKEIT, but on good reasons. The reasons given so far are "doesn't have an accusation of 'Israeli apartheid' in the title", "more accurate in a technical sense", and "It emphasizes that what is being discussed is an analogy, while not implying (as 'Israeli apartheid analogy' would) that the analogy necessarily applies to Israel". These reasons are poor. Proponents of the analogy are talking about similarities between Israeli actions and South Africa's actions during the apartheid era, so avoiding having "Israeli apartheid" in the title in order to avoid implying that the analogy applies to Israel is essentially avoiding an accurate characterisation of the analogy argument. The title should accurately characterise the position under debate, and that position is that an analogy can be made between Isreali actions and apartheid (leaving aside those who are making an allegation that the crime of apartheid is being committed, not just an analogy, which could be seen as the most strongly-worded form of the line of argument). Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less whether it's israel and the apartheid analogy or israeli apartheid analogy. my only concern is the unnecessary inclusion of "allegations". as far as i can tell, the article is less about accusations than it is about opinion/speculation/commentary. it's spelled out quite nicely why israel isn't an apartheid (inside at least), yet commentary/opinion is found throughout. analogy is most appropriate. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Ryan Paddy's question, I favour re-titling this article as "Israel and the apartheid analogy" because it's a fair and viable compromise that has cross-party support. I would prefer "Israeli apartheid analogy", but I don't see a significant distinction between the two titles.

I'm quite aware that some editors who favour "Israel and the apartheid analogy" have come to this decision for questionable reasons. More to the point, I realize that some highly partisan editors support the change because it gets rid of the troublesome phrase "Israeli apartheid". While I'm not particularly happy to indulge them on this point, I'm willing to overlook it for three reasons:

As I've said before, the differences between "Israel and the apartheid analogy" and "Israeli apartheid analogy" are not significant, and both titles are an improvement over "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". As a general rule, I don't see a problem in compromising on non-essential points.
The partisan editors referenced above do not have sufficient strength to delete this article, but they almost certainly have enough members to successfully filibuster a title change that they oppose. Jayjg has made it clear that he's against "Israeli apartheid analogy", and it's probably fair to say that he and his allies will vote as a block against it (as they've done in the past). The rest of us would be within our rights to challenge their position, but it simply isn't worth the trouble of dragging the process out through endless votes, RFCs, mediation, etc. when the end result is likely to be a stalemate where the status quo prevails (I'm writing from experience here). In a situation such as this, we are within our rights to support a tactical compromise.
Ultimately, the fact that some editors support the change for the wrong reasons isn't sufficient grounds to reject it.

With regard to my "more technically accurate" comment above: changing the title to "Israel and the apartheid analogy" will allow us to move beyond the semantic question of whether references to Gaza post-2006 can be included in an article on "Israeli apartheid".

All of this assumes that changing the title to "Israel and the apartheid analogy" will not result in a significant revamping of the actual article.

If anyone thinks I've missed something important in my considerations, please let me know. CJCurrie (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, I don't think I have so many assumptions of bad faith in a single post in a long time. Thanks for proposing a compromise, but no thanks for your unprovoked and unjustified blast at half the people who have gone along with it. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if any of my remarks were unjustified. CJCurrie (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Stanford group reference

A group of 53 faculty members from Stanford University have stated that "The State of Israel has nothing in common with apartheid". The cited statement is in reference to the state of affairs inside Israel, not in the West Bank or Gaza. I have been trying to make this clear in the article, but have been reverted. The accuracy of the apartheid analogy clearly needs to be discussed separately for inside Israel versus its in Gaza and the West Bank. The Stanford group discuss the situation inside Israel, and that should be made clear to avoid confusion. On reflection it seems clear to me that the Stanford group's text is an excellent citation for the sentence "In contrast, other critics describe Israel within its national territory as a liberal democracy in which Arab citizens of Israel enjoy civil, religious, social, and political equality" as that it precisely what they argue. I'll put it there now. Please comment here with why you think it needs to be used differently if you believe it does, rather than continuing to edit war. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This might be worth digging in to. The statement was organised by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, and I suspect it was a reaction to Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel. —Ashley Y 08:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be researching as well. I find it a little odd a hardcore school like Stanford is siding with Israel. California universities are notorious for their liberal foundations. : )Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Did someone remove the Stanford group reference? I can't seem to find it. This is very important! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently some one deleted, and is still using the source in ref. i will be adding it tomorrow if someone doesnt show why its gone. seriously guys, this is messed up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article now paraphrases their position and cites them, which is appropriate. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that, but it doesn't specifically say Stanford [insert info here]. It's references, but the specifics aren't mentioned anywhere in the article. I intend to add it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's less important who said things, and more important what they say. Unless they're quoted, in which case you have to attribute the quote. The "apartheid roads" reference doesn't say it's from a United Nations statement, despite that being a source that may impress some people. Anyone interested in the source can check the reference. In the WP:LEAD brevity is especially important. The whole article could do with trimming back, it's overly-verbose, but we have to start somewhere. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But the stanford reference is most definitely necessary. It was there before and I didnt see anything wrong with it. the source is still in the refs too.... i think it's pretty ridiculous to axe the info just to save space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The "info" is the position that Israel cannot be compared with apartheid, because Israel has equal rights. That info is present and cited, it has not been axed. If we wanted to have a "dialogue about the analogy in the US" section then we could describe the opposing points of view at Cambridge there, but it's not lead material. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

im not arguing that. im arguing the unnecessary exclusion of the STANFORD reference. S-T-A-N-F-O-R-D! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant Stanford. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

sourcing issues #45

it seems source #45 does not directly hit the listed phrase: 93.5% of the land inside the Green Line is not held by private owners. 79.5% of the land is owned by the Israeli Government through the Israel Land Administration, and 14% is privately owned by the Jewish National Fund. Under the 1952 World Zionist Organisation - Jewish Agency Status Law, and the 1954 Covenant between the state of Israel and the Jewish Agency, administration of state lands was handed to the JNF, which states explicitly on its website that "Jewish National Fund is the caretaker of the land of Israel, on behalf of its owners - Jewish people everywhere."

here is said source: http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Land_and_infrastructure

I added the source for the ILA website 93%. It does not say 93.5% so I guess I should change that. Also, the JNF currently owns 11-13% of land in Israel. The JNF says 11%, while Haaretz says 13%. I will make the changes.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

im thumbing through the site but cant seem to find any info the backs the stats mentioned.

also, this might seem a little picky, but what english language version are we using: british or american? im pretty sure american english spells organisation as organization. ive bolded the letter for everyones pleasure. XD

thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the source is meant to support the "caretaker of the land" quote, not the rest of the paragraph. The figures listed here are identical to the ones I've seen everywhere else; start with the Israel Land Administration website and you should be able to find it pretty easily.

Also, we should use whichever spelling the WZO uses to spell its name. <eleland/talkedits> 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the information isn't backed by the listed source. If someone can find another source that verifies exactly what is stated (or parts of it, which the original text would have to be modified), then that would be very helpful. for spelling, ive located several instances throughout the article shows british and american spellings. im just not sure what the original MoS is...so if someone can clue me in that too would be very helpful. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling-wise we should chose one version of English and stick to it. Usually it's the version most relevant to the topic. What version is used in Israel? But for the names of groups we should use whatever spelling they use for their own name. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Any more comments on the questionable source before I make an attempt to clean it/delete it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think LamaLoLeshLa said above they're reviewing the sources and planning to fix the text. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant material on views of South African public

With respect to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=prev&oldid=219848230

The reason its entirely justified to remove this is because there is nothing in the sources that shows that the polls indicated that people were being asked to express an opinion on whether or not "apartheid" was an appropriate analogy for Israel's treatment of Palestinians. One has to make the leap that this is what South Africans were thinking. WP:NOR. I am just trying to apply consistent standards here, since this edit was made on the same basis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=prev&oldid=219841813 --Tirpse77 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, the polls say "conflict" and not apartheid, but both could be considered interchangeable in one perspective. This alleged "apartheid" would be considered part of the conflict, which is why I feel it is a necessary fact. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the inference can't be drawn from the poll source, and the poll source should be removed. The poll has no commentary, so we could only draw conclusions from it via WP:OR which is not allowed. However, you seem to have ignored the Rhoda Kadalie & Julia Bertelsmann source, which does state that most black South Africans don't think Israel is an apartheid state. They don't say explictly where they got this idea, which it strange seeing as the document is otherwise well-referenced and this is the crux of their argument. They seem to be making a poor inference from the poll. Which raises some doubts about the source's reliability for me. But if the Rhoda Kadalie & Julia Bertelsmann source is considered reliable we should describe their conclusion and how they got there. Also, while it's admirable to avoid WP:OR, let's keep WP:COOL please and try not to get into a tit-for-tat source-removing war to make a WP:POINT. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan. There needs to be some information that demonsrates SA, so including Rhoda and Julia source seems like a reasonable compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the claim to comply with what the Kadalie/Bertelsmann source actually says, but frankly I am considering removing it because these authors are not notable in any way and because of the poor inference that Ryan Paddy has noted above. --Tirpse77 (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How are the authors not notable?? There credible sources and thus they should be mentioned. Leaving them out reduces the significance of the fact. If we use your system of measuring notability, half the sources that support this analogy would be removed as well.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the authors (Bertelsmann) is apparently a college undergrad. I am nor sure that a college undergrad opining on Zionist blog constitutes an RS. --Tirpse77 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh? The names are notable enough, let's include them. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The relevant standard here isn't notability, it's verifiability, which requires that the sources be reliable. Wikipedia has a specific definition of a reliable source. Blogs typically fail the definition, unless the blogger's opinion is considered of particular importance (for example if they are a prominant politician, a journalist or academic who is frequently published in reliable sources, etc) The source is in Z-Word, which could perhaps be considered fringe and therefore not a reliable source. The main questions are: has the article been fact-checked? Has it had even-minded editorial oversight to consider whether the conclusions drawn are appropriate to the facts presented? Reliable sources do such things. Blogs almost never fact-check or give significant editorial oversight. The fact that the authors appear to have jumped from the data that the majority of South Africans support Israel over Palestine to the conclusion that the majority of South Africans reject the Israeli apartheid analogy, and the editors haven't rejected the article on the basis of this unsupported leap, suggests that the editorial oversight is either lacking or biased. From reading the "About" page it appears that there is a strong editorial bias against the analogy. That doesn't speak well for being a reliable source on this subject. If the article had merits of its own, it could be published in a less biased source, perhaps something like an international political science journal. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The material from the Z-word blog is neither notable nor verifiable and should be removed. --Tirpse77 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're removing "z-word" blogs then naturally we should also remove the supporting sources, specifically propaganda sites that have been frequently used in the article. Uri Avnery's home base is a one-sided propaganda newsletter. shall we remove that? XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Each source should be discussed separately, and if they don't meet WP:RS they should be removed. This article does not have any special dispensation from meeting Wikipedia standards - if anything, a contraversial article should be especially strict about sources. Just be aware that our personal interpretations of what "reliable source" means is not important, it's what WP:RS says that matters. Let's all read that policy closely before discussing the reliability of sources, it will save time later. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the same thing at all. I personally do not like Uri Avnery, but his views are notable as a long-time journalist and former Knesset member and founder of Gush Shalom. Avnery's site is a reliable source for Avnery's views. But the Z-word article is not a reliable source on what the South African public at large thinks of the apartheid analogy, which is how it is being used here. All one has to do is look at the Z-word article to see that weak inferences are made, apparently from a poll that does not even address the apartheid analogy and no additional evidence is offered to support the factual claim the authors make. And I really do not think that the authors are particularly notable. There's any number of blogs out there expressing views on this issue. Should they all be included? I think there need to be some notability criteria. So the Z-word source fails the tests of both verifiability and notability--Tirpse77 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so you're saying Uri Avnery's website is a reliable source for it's own opinion yet a z-blog isn't? Both are equal in terms of QUALITY and BALANCE. You can't put notability above quality. I can dig out ten or twenty sources that paint Uri Avnery a different face, what about that? I think we're beyond the notability aspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood what I said. Z-Word is certainly an RS as far as the opinions expressed on Z-Word are concerned, but those opinions are not notable. It is not an RS on what South African public opinion is with respect to the apartheid analogy. --Tirpse77 (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

semantics. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you have not been able to show that it is verifiable or notable, and no one else has, I am now going to take out the Z-Word reference. When someone shows how it is notable or it become notable we can put it back in.--Tirpse77 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed it per WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. I should have been talking about "undue weight" rather than "notability" since notability applies to entire articles rather than content. The correct standard is undue weight; hence the Z-word reference is not verifiable and not an RS as a source of fact on South African public opinion, and the opinion of its authors is given undue weight by including it.--Tirpse77 (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead needs argument against analogy in Gaza and West Bank

The lead has improved markedly, it's much more concise and steps the reader through the various views better. Personally I could do with fewer quotes and name-dropping of sources, but that stuff is a matter of taste. However, the main thing that it's missing is a presentation of why some people think the apartheid analogy is not applicable to Gaza and the West Bank. I gather that the main argument might be characterised as "Gaza and the West Bank are not part of Israel, so Israeli action there is foreign policy not apartheid". However, that argument is not currently represented in the lead with sources. Thoughts? Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. In the intro there are several notable figures that support the Apartheid analogy, but there is not notable figures that are opposed. am i right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What's missing is argument against "apartheid" being applied to Gaza and the West Bank. It needs to have sources, but it doesn't matter if they're notable and named so long as they're reliable. On the topic of "notable" sources, I'd have removed the Uri and Carter source-namings in the lead already if they weren't being quoted. On a side-note, some of us have recently made multiple revisions and need to be careful of WP:3RR or we'll get disciplined. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on which sources would be most appropriate for this purpose? Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Article needs to be more concise

I guess everyone has noticed the "this article is 102KB" alert that comes up every time you edit the article. As it is, the article is overlong to read at a sitting, and the ability of readers to take in both the pro and the con arguments will suffer for it. I've tagged the article with the "toolong" template, but obviously splitting the article as the tag suggests isn't the right solution. It's just too wordy. Proponants of the analogy in particular need to be aware that long arguments for it are not more convincing, shorter arguments would actually get read. Please look for places where paragraphs can be turned into sentences while retaining the gist of the content, and ways to paraphrase some of the block quotes briefly. Once the article is more concise, it will also be easier to create a more readable flow of information, with sentences leading into each other rather than standing apart in blocks. As a rough guide, we should look at getting the article down to under 60KB. But don't remove reliable sources, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Israeli control of movement in and out of the West Bank

Itzse let's not start a pointless argument about this. The evidence of Israeli control of movement in and out of the West Bank and within the West Bank is incontrovertible. Here's just one recent report of how that is done, from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. But you can get countless others from all kinds of official and non-governmental organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about the West Bank; we are talking about Gaza; and Gaza has a few other exit and entry points controlled by Egypt, the United Nations, and the Mediterranean Sea.

Please do not revert my edits; please discuss first. Itzse (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, its even easier to talk about Gaza. Israel controls the sea front and does not permit Palestinians (or anyone else) to enter or exit by sea. Israel also maintains control of the border with Egypt, what it calls the "Philadelphi route" in coordination with Egypt and the EU monitors. If Israel did not control the exit and entry from Egypt, can you explain to me why the Palestinians would be negotiating over the exchange of Gilad Shalit over the reopening of Rafah with the Israelis? If Israel did not control Rafah, then why negotiate with Israel over reopening it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the appropriate articles regarding all these exit points and ask these questions there. Itzse (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your change does not even make grammatical sense. Before you make such a change please justify it here. So far you have not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have justified every change I made in the edit summeries and for your asking also here on the talk page. What more can I do for you; short of going to grammer school? Itzse (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

It doesn’t need consensus just as you did this without consensus. If what critics against have to say doesn’t belong there; then what critics for have to say doesn’t either belong there; please be consistent. Itzse (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I accepted your insertion of the material, cleaned it up and moved it somewhere more appropriate, and others have accepted that and so apparently have you. You also moved the material I added on Guelke, not to where I would have put it, but fine with me. But those things are irrelevant to what we are discussing here. The point is I am contesting your change to the lead and I do not accept it, so we have no consensus. I have not understood the purpose of your change or what you are seeking to clarify or the factual claims you think you are advancing. So could you kindly explain clearly and concisely here why you are making that change to the lead? Who knows, maybe I will agree with you. But right now as I understand it you are somehow trying to imply that Israel does not tightly control access into and out of the Gaza Strip. Please disabuse me if I am wrong. You also took a very concise sentence and made it clumsy and ungrammatical. What precisely was wrong with it that it needed changing? I will not revert right now in an attempt to seek consensus, but that depends on both of us trying.--Tirpse77 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather clumsy and true, then grammatically correct but factually untrue. How many times do I have to explain that the West Bank and Gaza are not the same? Gaza has a few exit and entry points not controlled by Israel; and that is not what I am saying; all Wikipedia articles on those entry points say so; please look them up; and debate them there.

Your understanding about consensus is not the same as mine; please read up on that to. In the meantime it is not appropriate to revert someone’s changes first and ask for a discussion later. First discuss and then change someone's edit. Most of my edits were edits not reversions to try to adjust it more to your liking. I reserve reversion only as a last resort when I can't come through without it.

Please don't revert again as it will violate the 3RR rule. I'm leaving for the day and leaving it to all of you to make the article adhere to Wikipedia's rules. Itzse (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of consensus is that you already tried to make a lot of changes to the lead and there was a long long discussion about the nature of Israel's control over Gaza. Some consensus was apparently reached and then you came in and unilaterally changed it without reference to those discussions and you are once again trying, through the back door to change the substance of the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the article

As no-one has responded to my comments from yesterday (here), I'm going to assume that most participants who have a strong opinion on the matter one way or the other have already stated their case, and that the discussion is now winding down. It seems clear to me, looking over the discussion, that "Israel and the apartheid analogy" has more support than the current title. I realize there are some people who believe this is a step in the wrong direction, but the new title has cross-party support as a reasonable compromise, and it seems like the best chance we've ever had to resolve this vexed question.

I'm going to invoke WP:BOLD and move the page to its new title in a few minutes. If anyone strongly disagrees with this, please let me know. I would recommend that those who favour "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" find a way to incorporate this title as a sub-header in the "analogy" article.

Please note I'm reserving the right to move the page back to its current title, if certain partisan editors attempt to restructure the focus of the article in a disingenuous way. CJCurrie (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you do not retain the right to move it back once you move it. If you are moving it, it is on the basis that your proposal has achieved a consensus, or close enough. If there's a consensus, and you move it, you cannot move it back just because you decide you don't like how the editing is going. You do not own the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My, my ...

I never said that I'd move it back if I "don't like how the editing is going". I wrote I'd move it back if "certain partisan editors attempt to restructure the focus of the article in a disingenuous way", and I stand by this. CJCurrie (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I find this page move premature, especially since at least as many people expressed a preference for "Israeli apartheid analogy" as opposed to "Israel and the apartheid analogy". The discussion only began five days ago, and given the contentious nature of the article, I don't see what the big hurry was. I had already expressed a desire to go back and re-read previous arguments before coming to a decision, but you chose to ignore that, which is not exactly courteous, and go with your own preferred title instead, which also meant ignoring the views of all those who expressed a preference for a different title. Needless to say, I'm not particularly impressed, and I still intend to go back and re-read those arguments and make further comments if necessary.

I might also add that I find your comments about "reserv[ing] the right to move the page back to its current title, if certain partisan editors attempt to restructure the focus of the article", a case of shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. That is an issue that also concerned me, and one that should have been discussed before the page move, not belatedly after. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gatoclass,

I should first apologize for what probably seemed like an arbitrary action on my part. I believe that I was justified in moving the page (and will provide more context for that decision in this post), but also I recognize that some editors who were contributing in good faith would regard my decision as premature.

You've noted that this particular discussion only began five days ago. That's true enough, but (i) the broader discussion around the name change has been going on for much, much longer, (ii) several prominent editors had already stated their position this time around, and (iii) the focus of discussion on this page was rapidly shifting elsewhere.

I've been involved in discussions about the title of this article since 2006, and I've noticed a fairly predictable pattern over the last year or so: (i) an editor will propose a name change, (ii) several different options for renaming the article will be brought forward, (iii) virtually all suggestions will prove unacceptable to some parties, (iv) a long and inconclusive discussion will take place, and (v) the status quo will win by default. This is obviously not a good way of doing business, and it was important to me that we not fall into the same trap this time.

On this occasion, (i) several long-term participants agreed that "Israel and the apartheid analogy" was an improvement over the status quo, (ii) the new title won the support of editors from opposing "camps" in past discussions, and (iii) a majority of editors who commented on the matter believed the change would be an improvement. Given these circumstances, I believe moving the page was the correct course of action. Had I done nothing, there was a real chance that the discussion would have faded into the background yet again. (People can only discuss this matter so many times before structural fatigue sets in, after all. WP:BOLD seemed like the best option.)

In response to your final point: (i) I believe there is a general understanding that the move from "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" to "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is a name change, and does not provide automatic sanction for a restructing of the article, (ii) fundamental changes to the article would require separate discussions in any event, and (iii) given that some editors have gone out of their way to undermine this page in the past, I thought it wise to indicate that there are ways of preventing further disruption from occurring. That said, I take your point that changing the name back to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is probably not the most viable course of action at this stage. It may be more accurate to say that further nonsense from certain participants could re-open the question of the name yet again, and perhaps lead to an outcome that no-one can foresee at this stage. CJCurrie (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the title. The term "allegations" should never have been removed from the title, and as long as the term "apartheid" is used, "allegations" should be used as well. Otherwise it is not a neutral or accurate title. YahelGuhan (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to that opinion, but I don't believe it has any widespread support. CJCurrie (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The term allegation has a specific meaning. It's an abuse of the English language to slap the term "allegation" on any analysis or argument which is not universally accepted. Shall we rewrite Wikipedia's series on Marxism to titles like Allegations of a rate of exploitation, Allegations of false consciousness? Allegation that property is theft, Alegación de que el pueblo unido jamás será vencido... not to mention Allegations of new antisemitism or allegations of Pallywood, [[Durban StrategyAllegation that alleged Israel allegedly has the alleged right to exist and so forth. (Yet I do note with interest that this "allegations" shibboleth has been shoehorned into Zionism and racism allegations...) Furthermore, many of the most notable critics (Adam and Moodley, Avnery) explicitly describe the apartheid "analogy" or "comparison" as a useful tool for analysis, but as much — or more — in the differences than in the similarities.

If we follow WP's general practice (viz New Antisemitism, Pallywood, Islamofasicsm et al, even something genuinely vile and discredited like Jewish Bolshevism) the proper title for this article is Israeli apartheid. I'm quite willing to compromise and go in for Israeli apartheid analogy or the present variant. But I'm not going to accept "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," a nonsensical nonce phrase with no independent existence outside of Wiki-land. There is an organizing slogan called "Israeli Apartheid," there are several scholarly analyses comparing and contrasting the two systems, but there is simply no "allegation" to speak of. <eleland/talkedits> 04:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is really very simple. Either there was consensus to move the article, or there wasn't. If there was consensus to move the article, it can't be moved again without a new consensus, regardless of how anyone edits the article. If there was not a consensus to move the article, it shouldn't have been moved in the first place. Although I do think the new title is an improvement, the consensus in this case does seem kind of iffy. But that is the only basis for determining whether it stays at the new title or not: Whether there was a consensus to move it. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain things are always quite that straightforward, given the lengths that some editors have gone to undermine this page in the past. (Though perhaps we can hope this a is moot point now.) CJCurrie (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FFS, didn't we just go through this a week ago with another user, that being "bold" in this case was not a good idea? Would have figured that someone who is at least more familiar with the article would have been a bit more reasonable then to pull this kind of stunt. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference is there was a discussion this time and a clear consensus that the word "allegations" is unacceptable in the title. Strongbrow (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That is debatable, but besides that, there was absolutely no clear consensus on what to move it TO, hence the fall back on WP:BOLD. Like WP:IAR, it is an unfortunate fallback used to justify most any behavior or action on the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As some folks know, I participated actively in discussions last year about renaming the article. Among other things, we attempted an analysis of the renaming issues. In my view, the current title ("Israel and the apartheid analogy") is a significant improvement based on POV and other WP-policy considerations. (It's what our analysis calls a "Type B" title, the kind most likely to gain consensus.) Whether or not the move/renaming holds, I would like to extend kudos to CJCurrie and other editors for your ~~consensus-building~~ progress here toward a more encyclopedic title. Best wishes, HG | Talk 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's one step forward, three steps back in the "consensus-building" department. At the same time that CJ is pushing through a name change that is probably an improvement (though perhaps lacking in both consensus and procedural correctness), he has to take a "shot" at other people in almost every one of his posts in this section, i.e. "if certain partisan editors attempt to restructure the focus of the article in a disingenuous way", "the lengths that some editors have gone to undermine this page in the past" and "further nonsense from certain participants." Obnoxious comments are not well-known for their consensus-building powers. Plus, CJ calling other editors "partisan", that's a laugh! So, no kudos from me. "Nonsense", indeed. 6SJ7 (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, 6SJ7. I was focused on the resulting article name and I haven't looked closely at the interpersonal/discussion process. I agree that both process and result are important. I don't have a suggestion at this time on how to mediate the process. So let me revise my comment above to refer only to the latter, ok? Thanks. Good luck to all. HG | Talk 07:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How about going back to the original title, Israel apartheid? That gets rid of the weasel words, and it's the term with the most hits in Google. This will make some apologists unhappy, but so be it. --John Nagle (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if a separate article, focusing only on the phrase Israeli apartheid, would now be in order. Something tells me it would meet with opposition if anyone tried it. CJCurrie (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if we named it "Israeli apartheid (neologism)", and included a criticism section in it. It's interesting to note that we unashamedly implicate 1.2 billion people's religion as terrorist (see the name of Islamic terrorism). There is no "Allegations of Islamic terrorism".Bless sins (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

When we restructured the entire article -- by a fairly decent consensus process (September 2007) -- we divided it into two main sections. Roughly speaking, the first deals with policy aspects and the second deals with discourse/rhetoric aspects. So, the second half of the article addresses the usage of the phrase/neologism. For this reason, if you don't mind my saying so, an article about the phrase would be unnecessary and perhaps interpreted as a POV fork. But both halves seem to have plausible Notability. Thanks. HG | Talk 07:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

John Nagle's name-calling ("apologists") aside, "Israeli apartheid" was a very bad, POV title and would be again. As for Bless sins' suggestion, if I understand it correctly, it's interesting. It is somewhat similar to the title I moved it to 2 years ago, "Israeli apartheid (phrase)". The creator of the article, "HOTR", fought against it tooth and nail. I am not sure whether "... (neologism)" would be better or worse than the current title, but I would be pretty surprised if it achieved a consensus. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There are articles called Pallywood, Islamofascism and Islamophobia. How is it that those are not POV titles but "Israeli apartheid" is? Why is there an exception in this case? Strongbrow (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

An exception to what? Three examples do not a rule make, when there are millions of articles on Wikipedia, including hundreds (thousands?) dealing with Israel and environs. In any event, you're asking the wrong guy this question. I have supported the idea of putting some sort of qualifier in the titles of articles that are about hotly contested, politically loaded phrases. As long as similarly situated articles are treated the same, I would have no problem at all with putting a phrase like "Islamofascism" in quotation marks, in the title. Such an approach is not favored by Wikipedia guidelines, but that's not my fault. I also wouldn't have a problem with putting the word "(phrase)" after such a title. I would say the same thing about "Pallywood". (I don't see how the same issue applies to "Islamophobia".) Of course, all this is just my opinion. You would have to get consensus before actually changing an article title. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

An exception to the practise of having straightforward titles without qualifiers. You say, correctly, that "all similarly situated articles" should be treated the same. Therefore, if the standard practise is to have titles without qualifiers then this article shouldn't be an exception, ie the proper title for this article is Israeli apartheid. Strongbrow (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Just because some other article might be renamed to something that you and I think is better, but hasn't been, does not mean that this article should be renamed to something worse. What I was saying was that if we can achieve "better" and "consistent" at the same time, we should do so, but if we can't, there's no benefit in sacrificing one for the other. Plus there is the fact that the current title (to which you had previously moved it, so I don't see what your problem with it is now) is, at least arguably, the product of a compromise pertaining to this article, as was the previous title (Allegations of...). That being the case, and given the nature and history of this article, it is not surprising if it has a title that is unusual and less than completely straightforward. 6SJ7 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid is the better name for the sake of straightforwardness and consistency - and I don't see the point of renaming Islamofacism or Islamophobia (a concept or term some people contest) since I think the current titles are preferable. Israeli apartheid analogy or Israel and the apartheid analogy are not inaccurate titles and are certainly preferable to the old title, but if we're striving for consistency Israeli apartheid is even better. Strongbrow (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole subject of this article is that there are some people who blame Israel for a racist policy, while the Israeli public and many others totally reject these very serious allegations. As an Israeli, I think the word “Apartheid” has no base in reality and is used as a buzzword to demonize the state of Israel and to delegitimize its very existence. Therefore the present title of this article - just putting "Israel" and "Apartheid" together - is biased and misleading unless the title will state clearly that these are controversial allegations and not an accepted truth. If this Encyclopedia does not wish to lose its credibility with many of its readers I suggest that this disgraceful title should be changed.

I also think that it is misleading to change all the links from other articles to this controversial title, while the title of the article itself is still locked and under dispute (for example please see last edits by Strongbrow to "Two-state solution" and to "Human rights in Israel"). Tkalisky (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Two quick thoughts. First, it does make sense for articles to indicate when a topic is controversial and disputed. Whether such controversy has to be indicated in the title is a judgment call; usually, titles do not say that the topic is controversial because otherwise controversy would be an extremely common part of titles. Currently, the article does indicate the controversy in the lead ("Opponents...argue... slanderous") and I suppose that point could be made a bit earlier.

Second, this new title is an improvement insofar as it is not, as you say, "just putting 'Israel' and 'Apartheid' together." With the title "Israel and the apartheid analogy" those two words are now separated by and. That separation creates an important semantic difference. Whereas the phrase "Israeli apartheid" does presuppose that there is an Israeli form of apartheid (and thereby favors one point of view), this presupposition is not stated by the current title. By way of comparison, consider Christianity and abortion versus "Christian abortion" as titles. When two issues intersect, using 'and' as a connector is often a neutral way to handle the title. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 09:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the current title is that the word “Apartheid” is used today to completely demonize Israel and to delegitimize its very the existence. This term is widely used in radical anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic incitement and I do not think that this respectable encyclopedia should reflect such rethoric. The analogy of “Christianity and abortion” is not the same case: “Abortion” does not delegitimize “Christianity” and is not used to justify murder of christians (would you think the gruesome title “Christianity and Nazism” is natural? or maybe "Jews and Greediness for money"? I think not). Maybe something like “Appartheid anology and the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories” would be more appropriate, as most allegations do not regard “Israel itself, a wonderful democracy" but rather the west bank and Gaza. This also has less negative connotations regarding the legitimacy of Israel’s right to exist.

I also think that it is misleading to change the titles of links to this article when it is still disputed (and blocked from editing). Tkalisky (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The "state of Israel" is itself contested because it was established as a "Jewish state" in a country where the vast majority of the population was not Jewish at the time. Today millions of people who live under direct Israeli rule do not recognize the legitimacy of the entity that rules them and many perceive the nature and methods of this rule to be akin to apartheid. Israel does not have the consent of millions of those whom it governs. But part of its population, Zionist Jews, who identify with it, are in absolute denial of the contested legitimacy of their state hence their efforts to define any controversy as being motivated purely by ill-will, ignorance or prejudice, rather than a politically coherent view that differs from theirs. How does this relate to the naming issue? It being indisputable that Israel's legitimacy is contested and contestable, I propose that we change the name of the article on Israel to "The Alleged State of Israel." Sorry to be disingenuous, but this is the logic that is being offered above. In short, if it is legitimate to have an article on "Israel" or "Zionism" it is totally legitimate to have an article about Israel and the apartheid analogy" --Tirpse77 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also propose that we rename the article on Jews to "Alleged Jews" and Monday to "Alleged Monday" because someone has suggested that we're off by a day.

I think it is very simple; an article on Islamic Terrorism exists (and it does not have to implicate 1.2 billion people), because "Islamic Terrorism" exists; and an article on Israeli Apartheid shouldn’t exist because "Israeli Apartheid" doesn't exist. If "allegations of Israeli apartheid" exists; so then an article called Allegations of Israeli apartheid should also exist; it's so simple. Itzse (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Simplistic, not simple, as well as just wrong. The term allegation has a specific meaning to do with accusations of criminal activity that haven't been proven in court. It's often misused in discussion in order to minimize or dismiss an accusation someone has made for instance "this groundless and politically-motivated allegation."[9] "It seems to be a politically motivated allegation"[10] "It is very much so a politically motivated allegation."[11] It would be POV to use the term in that sense in an article's title so the only sense in which the term can be used is in relation either to formal allegations that Israel has violated the crime of apartheid (no such allegations have been filed in any court) or potential criminal allegations. There might be a few sources we can use for this but most of the article has nothing to do with apartheid in a criminal sense but, explicitly, deals with it in a political sense as an analogy so even if someone wanted to create an article called Israeli apartheid allegations there would have to be another article called Israeli apartheid, Israeli apartheid analogy or Israel and the apartheid analogy to deal with the bulk of the material in the current article. If you insist that there has to be an article that's specifically on "allegations" then maybe there should be a series of articles on Israel apartheid? One on the concept as it relates to the crime of apartheid (which could use the word "allegations" though in the absence of formal charges Israel and the crime of apartheid would be better), one on the analogy as it's applied in the West Bank and Gaza and one as it has been applied within Israel's 1967 borders. Strongbrow (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the main problem I see in the current title is that the word “Apartheid” is used today to completely demonize Israel and to delegitimize its very the existence (please see comment above by Tirpse77). This term is widely used in radical anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic incitement and I do not think that this respectable encyclopedia should reflect such rhetoric. Israel is a well established state and a respectable member of the United Nations. Like with every state in the world no one is perfect and criticism of Israel is acceptable. However calls for total annihilation of Israel, which are regarded by many as a modern form of antisemitism (Please see "Future Tense: The new Antisemitism - What is it and how do we deal with it?" [12]), are not acceptable, and have no place in the wikipedia. I would recommend to use a far less inflammatory term, or at least a title that clearly limits the "Apartheid analogy" to certein aspects of Israeli policy such as "The Israeli control of the Palastinian territories", which is what the majority of the allegations are about (e.g. Jimmy Carter's book). It will also conform with the present version of the article. The current title is totally unacceptable, just as "Israel and Genocide", "Israel and ethnic cleansing", or "Jews and well poisoning", are not.Tkalisky (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent me. What I said, and what is indisputable, is that millions of people view Israel's creation as a "Jewish state" in a country which had a non-Jewish majority as illegitimate. It is not enough to try to explain away their views by simply saying they are all bad people are all just misinformed or to use the standard canard "anti-Semitic." They articulate politically coherent viewpoints whether or not one agrees with them, and I did not say I did. As much as Zionists attempt to censor those viewpoints (by trying to rename articles out of existence) does not change that reality. This is not the place to argue the merits of the case. The article exists because many prominent Israelis (including Ehud Olmert), Palestinians, South Africans, and others whose views on the topic are notable, use the apartheid analogy to describe Israel and its policies (inside the 1949 ceasefire lines and inside the territories occupied in 1967). That is why the article exists. If you want to argue that it is wrong, then go write a newspaper article or a book and then your views will be notable and someone might include them in the article. Let me ask you a simple question: do you recognize that this article has a right to exist? --Tirpse77 (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Time does not permit me to comment on all of this, so just a couple of points: Ehud Olmert, as reported in the article, did not "use the apartheid analogy to describe Israel and its policies". He was referring to a potential future situation, as a way of arguing in favor of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As for Tirpse's last sentence, articles do not have rights. Whether an article should or should not exist is determined by Wikipedia policies, guidelines and procedures, which unfortunately are subject to differing interpretations as well as abuse and manipulation. I made my position on this article's existence clear a long time ago (starting several hours after its creation by a subsequently-banned user) but, alas, it continues to be a stain on Wikipedia's record. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is not if there are people who are opposed to the state of Israel (as an Israeli I know that there are many) but rather if the title of this article is inlammatory or not, which I think it is. The word "Apartheid" is an inflammatory word used to demonize Israel, to deny its right of existence, and to justify murder of Israeli civilians, and that has no place in a civlized encyclopedia. I am sure you would agree that a title "Jews and well poisoning" or "Jews and the lust for money" also does not have a place in the wikipedia even though one can write a completely natural article with pros and cons using these titles (being a Jew myself I allow myself to suggest these titles). Again I would suggest a title that clearly limits the "Apartheid analogy" to the very specific aspects of Israeli policy such as "The Israeli control of the Palastinian territories", which is what the majority of the allegations are about (e.g. Jimmy Carter's book). Tkalisky (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7 No, no, no, the article has an absolute right to exist and anyone who denies that is a bigot and has a hate agenda and is simply trying to delegitimize this article for their own political purposes. As for you Tkalisky, I submit that anyone who disagrees with the title of this article is a bona fide anti-Semite and I challenge you to disprove that. But be warned, if you try to disprove it or refute my points, that will only further confirm that you are indeed an anti-Semite. --Tirpse77 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You are trying to be funny, or ironic, or make a point, or something. Whatever it is, it isn't working. It is probably best to just discuss the article in a straightforward manner without regard to whatever analogies or whatever are operating in your own mind. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Let's discuss the article without the ridiculous and constant resort to accusations of anti-Semitism at anyone who criticizes Israel or its apartheid policies.--Tirpse77 (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

PS 6SJ7, thank you for acknowledging Olmert's use of the apartheid analogy.--Tirpse77 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not in the way you said, though. In fact, he rejected the "apartheid analogy" as that term is understood in this article. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter that he rejected it? Have you even read the article? It has lots of examples of people who have rejected or strongly disputed the analogy. I even added one or two of those myself. The point is that comparing Israel and its policies to apartheid is a notable topic per WP:NOTE. That is all that matters, not whether you, I or the Pope agrees or disagrees with the content. This article meets every one of the notability guidelines. --Tirpse77 (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you are changing the subject. You made a statement. It was incorrect. That is what I was pointing out. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The conversation seems to be veering off into the question of whether the article should exist, is it notable, etc. That topic is best suited for an AfD, not here on the Talk page. In addition, it's off-topic under this section heading. Perhaps this thread has played itself out? Thanks. HG | Talk 02:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if someone insists on this article the title should still reflect its contents. In my opionion the present title uses a term which is inflammatory and is used to delegitimize Israel and to demonize the Jews in general. The majority of politicians, journalists and academics cited in this article who use the term “apartheid” were using it to critisize very specific policies and to motivate change. They were careful to distinguish themselves from those who totally delegitimize Israel. The present title suggests serious generalizations (hence I call it "inflammatory") and fails to reflect the contents of the article. Whether this article will stay or not its present title is unacceptable. Tkalisky (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tkalisky. I think I understand your view, but I'm not sure what constructive recommendation you have for the article title. It would be helpful if you looked over some of the Talk history debates over renaming. As you'll see, there have been efforts to place the content under a title without the word 'apartheid' at all." (Known as "Type C" titles in the renaming analysis, which I linked above.) However, currently, titles w/o 'apartheid' have no plausible chance at consensus among editors. So, what aspects of your concern/argumentation are addressed to the name, and not existence of the article? And what article name are you proposing instead? Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I should mention that it wouldn't work to propose limiting the article to the disputed/Palestinian territories. Many of the most Reliable Sources (e.g., academics) clearly refer to Israel overall and, in any case, the logic of the analogy does concern the overall state, (post)colonialism (theory), etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding.

I think this article is problematic because it does not actually deal with facts - there is almost no dispute about the facts, rather with their interpretation which is controversial. I do not know if this has been suggested before but I suggest in such cases the controversy can be stated as a question: “Are Israeli policies towards the Palestinians comparable to South Africa’s Apartheid?” the answer to this can be “yes” or “no” so this resolves the NPOV. The article will discuss this controversy in detail and will bring a broad spectrum of opposing views. Another advantage of this title is that it is focused on the Israeli-Palastinian conflict.

I will not agree in any way to the title “Is Israel an Apartheid state?” because it is over-generalized and the expression “Apartheid state” is an inflammatory hate expression which is used to demonize Israel. Also, this title may mislead the reader to think that Israel discriminates according to pseudo-scientific racial criteria (blacks/whites Arians/Jews) as in South Africa’s Appartheid or Nazi Germany and will marginalize the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palastinians over control of the land.

Tkalisky (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

“Are Israeli policies towards the Palestinians comparable to South Africa’s Apartheid?” would make a good essay question but a lousy wikipedia article title - the point of our articles is not to answer a yes or no question but to summarize reliable sources on a particular topic. In any case, while the apartheid analogy uses South Africa as a starting point it goes beyond a simple comparison between South Africa and Israel. I'm glad you're no longer advocating the use of the word "allegations" but you haven't explained the problem you have with the current title except that you don't like the word "apartheid". There are lots of articles on concepts I don't like but that doesn't mean the titles of those articles should be censored or made into convoluted jibberish or undergraduate essay questions. Strongbrow (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I do not agree to the current title is that it consists an inflammatory hate expression which is used to demonize Israel. It is over-generalized and misleads the reader to think that Israel discriminates according to pseudo-scientific racial criteria (blacks/whites Arians/Jews) as in South Africa’s Appartheid or Nazi Germany. It also marginalizes the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palastinians over control of the land. Titles matter as most readers get their first impression from them.

The title I proposed is more appropriate to a subject that is mainly opinions and interpretations of (mostly) agreed uppon facts (is this article appropriate for an encyclopedia? I am not so sure).

If the question mark is the problem then we can agree to change the title to something like: "Opinions on whether Israeli policies towards the Palestinians are comparable to South Africa’s Apartheid” or even better - "The controversy on whether Israeli policies towards the Palestinians are comparable to South Africa’s Apartheid”. This is focused, precise, natural, and non-inflammatory. Maybe it is not perfect (a bit long ...) but it precisely describes the essence of this article, and it is surely better than the present title which is unacceptable.

Tkalisky (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Jeopardy. Titles are not phrased in the form of a question and they also shouldn't be a statement. I'm sorry you don't like the word apartheid but you're not going to be able to get away from it in an article title. Adding verbiage to a title just to bury a word you don't like isn't going to fly either. Titles should be short and to the point rather than long enough to be an article themselves. That's what the article on the accusation of Islamofascism is called Islamofascism and not "Opinions on whether or not some elements of fundamentalist Islam are fascist in nature". You're trying to write a title in such a way as to delegitimize the subject of the article but that sort of bias really needs to be put aside. Strongbrow (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongbrow,

I am sorry but I do not agree with you.

The title I proposed above, “The controversy on whether Israeli policies towards the Palestinians are comparable to South Africa’s Apartheid”, is not a statement and not a question.

It does not "bury a word" but rather describes precisely the essence of this article: a variety of opinions and interpretations on a subject in which the facts are known. In other words, a controversy.

The title is long, but it is not misleading and not defamatory – it is the most precise description of the contents of this article. An Encyclopedia, as opposed to talkbacks, blogs and Op-Eds is regarded as a respectable source of information for all of humanity should be precise.

If you think the title Islamofascism is not appropriate you are welcome to change it or opt for it to be deleted (I don’t like it either and I will be happy to assist you). However, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Finally, I am bothered by your hostile attitude and the unprofessional motives you are referring to me ("Adding verbiage to a title just to bury a word you don't like", "you don't like the word apartheid but you're not going to be able to get away from it"), and I ask you to stop (please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith).

p.s. The page history shows that you have reverted my last edit in the discussion page. I assume it was by mistake but I ask you to please be careful in the future.

Tkalisky (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's reasonable to conclude from your statements that you do not like the word apartheid being applied to the Israeli-Palestinian situation given that you refer to the word as an "inflammatory hate expression". It's also reasonable to describe your proposed 14 word title as "verbiage" intended to bury that word you don't like - and having a 14 word title where a three word title would do does have the effect of burying that word you dislike, regardless of whether or not that's your intent. The title length is completely unreasonable for a wikipedia article and the title you are proposing is inaccurate since the article is not simply a comparison Israeli and South African policies. I'm also not proposing that the title of Islamophobia change, I'm just pointing out that the title you are suggesting here is completely out of whack with accepted naming practise and that you are proposing an exception be made in the case of something relating to Israel for completely subjective reasons. I also don't honestly see why you think “The controversy on whether Israeli policies towards the Palestinians are comparable to South Africa’s Apartheid is any less offensive than the current title since the only real difference between the two is the number of words - yours being so long that users of wikipedia are likely to fall asleep before they get to the word apartheid. Strongbrow (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main problem Strongbrow has with the title I suggested is its length (he himself states at the end of his comment that for him the only real difference between the two titles is the number of words). However, I believe that the accuracy and objectivity of this title are far more important when presenting controversial and sensitive subjects (it should be noted that the very appropriateness of this article is disputed). It also avoids generalizations and terms which are perceived by many (me included) as slander and defamation.

Tkalisky (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume then that this is it.

I strongly disagree with Strongbrow and the title he proposed is still under dispute. Maybe the title should be restored to its last version (“Allegations of Israeli apartheid”) before it was changed it to its present form until the dispute is settled.

In addition I think all the links to this article should be reverted to the last version as they were changed unilaterally by Strongbrow while the article is still locked and its title is disputed with no possibility of reverting without violating wikipedia policy.

Tkalisky (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The dispute over which the article was locked isn't the title, it's references to Gaza in the first few paragraphs. There was a consensus to rename the article and there was a very broad consensus to dump "allegations", the reason why that word is inappropriate and inaccurate has been explained and since you are arguing that you want a more accurate title it's a bit odd for you to advocate changing the name back to something that's less accurate. There's also no reason not to have the links to this article directed to the current title rather than the old one. In any case, as much as you dislike this title, you should dislike "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" more since the title implies that Israel has been charged with criminal wrongdoing and since it uses the phrase "Israeli apartheid" which the current title doesn't use. Wikipedia policy, I believe, is that redirects should be bypassed when making links to other articles and there's no exception for names that are in dispute. Strongbrow (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is currently a consensus on the present title. Maybe there was once until more people noticed the change.

I am sorry but I strongly disagree with Strongbrow's title. I think it is inflammatory and makes inappropriate generalizations. I think both the title and links from other articles should be reverted until dispute is settled.

Tkalisky (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is no consensus for Allegations of Israeli apartheid or for your 14 word proposal. If you want to try to create a consensus for a title you like better go ahead and propose one and good luck to you. Strongbrow (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. However there is no concensus on the present title either (there is even dispute regarding this aticles existence according to the previous comment by 6SJ7). I assume there will be future disagreements between us and I hope they will be conducted with mutual respect and civility. Tkalisky (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sound impatient with you but there was a broad consensus to change the name of the article to the current title - a consensus that included opponents of the article like Wikifan12345 and 6SJ7 and proponents of the article. There was also a consensus that the old name of the article was unacceptable, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination) and particularly the comments by the administrator who closed the vote, so for you to come in after the fact and try to veto that consensus because you, personally, don't like the name is pretty disrespectful (and in any case one or two people can't block consensus). If you want to suggest a new name and try to build a consensus for it then please do so but the old name is a non-starter and that's clear if you look at the recent Articles for Deletion vote above so please don't waste everyone's time by trying to re-open the previous discussion. Can you show the process that much respect? Strongbrow (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised this actually worked out. I support the new name, though if it was up to me I'd trash this article 2 weeks ago. But, my opinion doesn't matter. Nobody's does. The topic is going nowhere and it will remain that way until G-d comes down from the heavens and smites the all evildoers who stand behind this pathetic piece of wikipedia. Ok, I'm kidding (Seriously, I am. Don't take this as a serious threat. Please. XD). But honestly, I don'tsee the point in continuing cordial relations or any relations period regarding this article and its sub-topics. Israeli and Apartheid Analogy will be here until wikipedia ends. Get used to it. I'm done. : ) Have fun!

Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK OK I agree to let go of the title for now.

However I maintain the right to have this subject revisited in the future if I have good reason to think that the consensus has changed (I suppose people will eventually realize what this and similar ridiculous misuses of the term "Apartheid" [13] can lead to, and yes, I know there is already an article about it).

Tkalisky (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)