Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 20

←

Archive 22

→

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

A newly created article related to this one, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I voted for speedy deletion because there is no analogy to apartheid on the basis that there are no ethnic tensions and this is no government's policy over there, to even make such allegations valid. The keyword is the "analogy". Think about it, Chris, and maybe you reconsider your stand in relation to the Israeli article. greg park avenue 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am participant of the discussion about the deletion of the chinese article. There they say, this article was the first article about allegation of apartheid anywhere, which appeared on Wikipedia. I´m no expert of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I don´t have the knowledge to determine, weather there is apartheid or not. Now I would like to know, why someone choose this name. If there is apartheid, why didn´t you call it Apartheid in Israel or something like that. If there´s no apartheid, why do we need an article about nonsense, anyone told.--Thw1309 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

The verifiable material from the recently deleted article Allegations of Chinese apartheid have been merged into Human rights in the People's Republic of China based on the AfD closing statement.

My proposal is to find a suitable article to merge the content of this article, based on the same arguments. It could be merged into one of the articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I am placing similar proposals on all other articles in the "Allegations of XXXX apartheid" series. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose a merger, support renaming as Israeli apartheid analogy or something similar. The analogy is widely used, and easily reaches the level of encyclopedic inclusion; the page has already survived six afd votes and other attempts at back-door deletion. CJCurrie 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing for deletion. I am arguing about finding a better home for the material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions to this end? CJCurrie 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me respond with a question: Do we have an article in Wikipedia about Human rights in Israel? That would be an excellent home for this material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot agree, for a number of reasons: (i) the apartheid analogy is not limited to Israel proper, but also encompasses events in the occupied West Bank (as well as the unresolved situation in Gaza), (ii) there's simply too much relevant material on the AoIA page to fit comfortably on Human rights in Israel, (iii) on a more fundamental level, it have long been by position that the analogy reaches the level of encyclopedic inclusion on its own merits. CJCurrie 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there an article on the occupation of these territories? Is so, that could be the place for this material. I do not think that the analogy has reached that level. It is a political term and as such it needs to be properly framed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a political term is irrelevant. What's important is that the analogy is widely used -- including by many within Israel. CJCurrie 01:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat my question again: Is there an article on the occupation of these territories? I would argue that if such article exist it will be a better home for the content in this article, as it can be read on context of the overal political discourse about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The article in its current state is a {{quotefarm}} and needs proper summarizing, and it can fit within existing articles on the subject once cleaned up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we're both aware that Wikipedia has an article on the occupation of these territories. We should also know that article size issues would prevent AoIA from being merged to such a location. CJCurrie 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not aware, could you please tell me the title of the article? Once we are done with cleaning up this article, and summarizing the quotes, it will surely fit within other articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've noted elsewhere, I'm not certain there's a need to remove *all* of the block-quotes near the start (and particularly not the Carter/Tutu quotes, which are arguably the most notable in the article). CJCurrie 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that there is a 70 K article on Carter's book. We need to summarize and wikilink to that article. There is need for long quotes, it makes for tedious reading and breaks the flow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - this article genuinely does discuss the secondary sources, as it's supposed to do (but as most of the other articles in the set do not). PalestineRemembered 22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Support as global compromise solution. 6SJ7 23:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - I accept this compromise and would like to see it applied consistently across the entire series "Allegations of apartheid in X". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a viable solution to this matter. CJCurrie 01:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support for this article and the others in the "series". Frankly, this is what we should have done in the first place, because it's the only real way of dealing with this type of material in a neutral and encyclopedic way without starting with a loaded question. And yes, that even applies to this article. <<-armon->> 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that all contributors who've attempted to delete this article in the past will now endorse the proposed merger. Hopefully, this will not be mistaken for consensus. CJCurrie 01:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that many editors (see the AfD of the Chinese allegations) have made strong arguments about these types of articles. I would argue that a consensus is emerging about the lack of viability of stand-alone articles on these subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus is in favour of deleting obvious WP:POINT violations, not applying a "one size fits all" approach to anything with "Allegations of [...] apartheid" in the title. CJCurrie 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There were no WP:POINT violations. All these articles have useful material. The discussion is about how to move forward, not about how to perpetuate a dispute, and I hope you can help me and others in finding a suitable solution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite prepared to move forward and find a suitable solution, but this doesn't require wilfull blindness about past events. CJCurrie 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, excellent global solution for the apartheid allegations series, and the proper home for the content in this article is in Human rights in Israel as Jossi suggests, following the precedent established with the China article. --MPerel 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty with this proposal is that Allegiations of Israeli apartheid and Allegations of Chinese apartheid are entirely different articles, with entirely different histories. CJCurrie 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The history of an article is not relevant to this discussion. MPerel: your proposal does not work unless we change the title of that article to Human rights in Israel and the occupied territories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that history is entirely relevant to this particular article. CJCurrie 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Conditional oppose, until the following is answered: This article is long. Which article exactly has the space to absorb this article? Also, it may be that renaming this article would be the best solution.Bless sins 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See the proposed merger tags in the different sections. It is doable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be doable, or it may not. It certainly isn't desirable: the Israeli apartheid analogy is worthy of its own article. CJCurrie 05:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this seems like an honest proposal. On the other hand, we've been assured many times that this article does not seek to determine whether the allegations have any validity; they are merely intended to document the fact that the allegations, or comparisons if you will, are made. I have offered that Wikipedia would have been better served with articles on the political and humanitarian conditions among Palestinians wherever they happen to be located, or confined. All I am asking for is consistency. --Leifern 02:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I see that Human rights in Israel is already 55K in length. Does anyone really think that we should merge more information from here to that page? CJCurrie 05:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Size suggests > 40 KB - May eventually need to be divided > 60 KB - Probably should be divided. It's difficult to see how this article could be merged with anything. PalestineRemembered 13:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I don't think masive amounts of info are going to be transferred. Once the quote farm has been plowed under, anything useful can go to [[1]], where some of the info already exists, and which could itself be spun off, if necessary. IronDuke 05:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, "I think we can safely assume that all contributors who've attempted to delete this article in the past will now endorse the proposed merger. Hopefully, this will not be mistaken for consensus." CJCurrie 05:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

CJ, given that you are one of the most partisan and vitriolic editors on this subject, would would it be fair to ask that editors ignore your comments wherever possible? No? Then please stop. You are not helping. IronDuke 01:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain when have my interventions been "vitriolic", or for that matter partisan. It's a simple fact that some editors have never accepted the validity of the AoIa article, and have made several attempts to remove it. Many of these editors are now supporting Jossi's proposal. I doubt this is coincidental. CJCurrie 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain when your "interventions" haven't been vitriolic, and they've been as partisan as contributions get on WP. Also, it has been pointed out to you again and again and again that editors' prior support for option A does not mean that they are to be ignored when suggesting Option B, any more than you ought to be ignored because of your previous, relentless support for an article most Wikipedians seem to think is garbage. IronDuke 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think most Wikipedians are staying as far away from this discussion as possible. CJCurrie 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Jossi's comprehensive compromise. Most of the encyclopaedic information already exists in one or another form on that page, and thus it would be more an issue of tightening and rephrasing than lengthening. Tewfik^Talk 06:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Question on supporting grounds. Jossi, thanks for putting this on the table and addressing concerns. You say above that the merge could be "based on the same arguments" as the China AfD. The China AfD was decided on the grounds of no original research and WP:NPOV, according to the closing admin. An endorsing admin emphasized that it was original as a synthesis WP:SYNTH. Are you saying that the Israeli article here should be merged because it's original research? If not, what grounds would be provided in a nominating statement? Take care. HG | Talk 09:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The subject of this article is not Apartheid by Israel and is hence not a subsection of Human rights in Israel. The AfD on Allegations of Chinese apartheid was wrongly decided, both on the facts and against consensus, and its content will presumably be merged into its parent, Allegations of apartheid, when the latter is unprotected. Andyvphil 10:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merger and support a renaming that excludes the weasel word "allegations". We should not engage in "newspeak" or "doubletalk". The notability of the Israel apartheid debate has been established. I do not believe that we can cover that debate properly when we do not name the word that is at the heart of the controversy itself: "apartheid". The article should be named simply Israeli apartheid or Israel and apartheid. Those who still find this completely unpalatable might consider Israeli apartheid analogy or Israeli apartheid debate.Tiamat 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merger. There is enough material on the topic of "Israeli apartheid" to pass the notability threshold. Since two cabinet ministers belonging to successive left and right wing governments use it as well as the Israeli press and Israeli academics it also seems to be part of the political discourse within Israel. There's too much material to jam this into Human rigthts in Israel and it would overwhelm that article. The POV "allegations of" should be removed from the title. I suggest renaming it something like Israeli apartheid debate, Israeli apartheid issue or Israeli apartheid analogy. I think there is enough material for an article called Social apartheid in Brazil and maybe for two articles on Saudi Arabia Gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia and Religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia so anyone fearing that Israel will be "isolated" shouldn't be. Lothar of the Hill People 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Neutral - Jossi, where you gonna merge it into? Palestinian-Israeli conflict doesn't make much sense, because there is no Palestine state yet. What about renaming it to the Israeli segregation policy? Sounds like an idea to me. Means exactly the same but the controversial word "Apartheid" is out, and that stupid word "allegations" too. greg park avenue 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I am opposed to a single prescriptive formula for a clutch of articles so radically different from one another as these are, so I highly appreciate that Jossi is tailoring his "proposals" to each page (suggesting Social situation in the French suburbs for the France article, for example). That said, it's still rather odd to propose that every article in the "series" be merged elsewhere citing as precedent that the China article was determined to be an original synthesis. As is self-evident (but nevertheless has been demonstrated repeatedly), synthesis is not an issue for this article. As I do not agree that there is any natural or sourceable relationship between the articles in this "series," and as I think that "allegations of apartheid" as a supposed general topic is spurious and non-encyclopedic – not because it's incendiary or anything but because it has no reliable-source backing whatsoever (it is the alpha-omega piece of original research that has made possible this whole mess) – I naturally do not feel prompted by the result of the China AfD to revisit this article. This article, however, could use a lot of improvement, beginning with a rename to Israeli apartheid analogy and a more detailed, rigorous, and nuanced treatment of the various valences of the analogy. It isn't purely a debate about what Israel is or isn't "guilty" of, a fact I think is not fully appreciated by those who keep suggesting moving this to Human Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories (nor, for that matter, by those who insist on the word "allegations" remaining in the title). The Adam/Moodley book is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to work that accepts the analogy as a working model (with reservations) but tries to turn it to practical and pragmatic purposes of conflict-resolution as opposed to rhetorical and ideological purposes of delegitimizing Israel. The South Africa comparison is at the center of debates about whether a society can transform without losing its essential character, whether a SA-style truth and reconciliation commission could work in Israel-Palestine; whether a successful peace process based on a one-state solution (South Africa) can provide a good model for one which will almost certainly end in a two-state solution (Israel-Palestine); whether the almost sui-generis efficacy of boycotts and international sanctions against South Africa is a good model for anti-occupation activism, or whether it's likely to provoke a backlash and other unintended consequences; and so on. We need to begin to expand the bibliography and explore books like Geneaologies of Conflict: Class, Identity, and State in Palestine/Israel and South Africa, Talking with the Enemy : Negotiation and Threat Perception in South Africa and Israel/Palestine, Peace Building in Northern Ireland, Israel and South Africa: Transition, Transformation and Reconciliation, God's Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster, Mobilizing for Peace: Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, and South Africa, Undercutting Sanctions: Israel, the U.S. and South Africa, and so on, as well as other books exploring the ethically controversial dimensions of the analogy we're more familiar with: Israel and South Africa: Legal Systems of Settler Domination, Security, terrorism, and torture: Detainees' rights in South Africa and Israel : a comparative study, Israel, South Africa, and the West, Israel And South Africa, etc. This is a fascinating subject and deserves an article in its own right; I see neither reason nor precedent for a merge.--G-Dett 17:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Support. Although the information presented in this article is somewhat notable (especially once Jimmy Carter started alleging an Israeli apartheid), as it stands now, the article is pretty shabby. It reads like a "he said this, but she said that" type of article. I would say it should be heavily summarized into about 3 paragraphs and placed into the Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article (although that article needs a lot of work as well). --GHcool 06:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Israeli internal affairs, not about a conflict and history of the clashes between Israel and its neighbors. If there is no article to merge it into, create one. greg park avenue 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Jossi's compromise sounds more then reasonable. First, such an article shouldn't have been created in the first place. I looked up the definition of "apartheid" in many dictionaries and all basically say the same thing; e.g. "An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites." So the only thing served by such an article is to suggest an analogy to South Africa by innuendo. Secondly those suggestions are already in numerous articles that deal with the same subject, especially Human rights in Israel which in essence means the same thing. So placing this information there would be placing it in the proper context which is the best possible way to achieve a NPOV. Itzse 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Obviously those who support should read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This article is clearly about an existing debate around Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, with a clear secondary source (Adam & Moodley) exploring in-depth the debate, and with notables engaged on many sides of the debate. This is not about human/civil rights in general, or the Israeli internal situation or that in Gaza and West-Bank, but about an specific debate. It is similar to New antisemitism in this respect. Quotefarm issues, which is what "GHcool" explains as why he supports it, could be fixed if editors allowed people to edit without fear of 3RR: I have proposed we edit a version of the article fixing content issues in a subpage of this talk page, and have made people aware of quotefarm since May. This is not a valid reason to merge, it is a valid reason to edit and make the article better. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose merger. Reality-based solutions, please. BYT 14:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Qualified support. I object to treating this article the same as the others created by Urthogie and Jayjg in response to this article. However, underhanded as those users' actions may be, that doesn't really reflect on this article. I don't see that it is encyclopedic as it currently stands, the useful material would be more useful in a longer article where it appears in the appropriate context. However, it has been stated that Human rights in Israel is already very long, though I would think this material is not so important that it can't be severely trimmed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support merger. The proposed merger sounds like an excellent idea, and really the only fair solution. --Steve, Sm8900 16:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong support this is the most POV thing to do. The aricle is a clear POV fork, and merging is the only way to resolve the problem.--Sefringle^Talk 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Exploring the grounds for a consensus

Drafting of Key Grounds or Principles for Renaming

There have been a number of plausible proposals that merit discussion, including Jossi's above. However, it will be hard to find consensus unless folks can agree on the underlying grounds or principles for moving forward. I suggest working off of the core policies of Wikipedia. Here are two draft statements, which reflect what I've learned from various sides of this dispute.

(G1) On Notability. There are reliable sources showing that there is a notable debate about the similarities and differences between Israeli policies toward Palestinians and South African apartheid. As a result, it would be reasonable for all parties to agree that the debate (the discourse itself) is Content that deserves at least an article subsection and, arguably, a main article.

(G2) On Neutrality. It would be highly desirable, perhaps necessary, to find a more neutral wording than "allegations" and "Israeli apartheid" for an Article Name (or an article subheading, if merged). People on all sides have made good faith efforts to find alternative language. A better name will guide future efforts to edit the content so as to comply with various WP policies. As a result, it would be reasonable for all parties to agree that the debate, the notable content mentioned in (G1), must be placed under a more neutral subheading or Article Name. (Italics shows site of possible amendment)

Proposed amendment: strike ~~and "Israeli apartheid"~~ or otherwise retain 'apartheid' in Title

I believe that if consensus forms around these two statements, then we have a sufficient basis for either renaming ~~or merging~~ the article. So, which, if any, of these statements (G1, G2) are approximately acceptable to you? Can you suggest friendly amendments that would make these statements more acceptable to all parties? Thanks very much for hearing me out. HG | Talk 11:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Revised: I'm now sensing that we would need to rename first, without prejudging subsequent decisions to edit, keep, delete, or merge the article content. As noted below, the choice of renaming and merging (to a renamed subheading) may be nearly equivalent, but this may be contested. (Comments on this judgment call may go in the Procedure subsection.) HG | Talk 00:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Responses to exploratory statements (G1, G2)

Cerejota's viewpoint

I pretty much completely agree with this view, and have proposed a course of action in this regards.

We have a wonderful, respected, highly academic secondary source, Adam and Moodley's "Seeking Mandela", which provides an excellent, compelling, and structured approach to study the debate. While I neither suggest that this be the sole source, nor that the narrative they provide is the best, it is at least a much more serious approach to the question than a quote farm. Since I have proposed the structrure they give both here and in WP:APARTHEID, I won't repeat it, but this I think is the way to move forward.

As I suggested over a year ago, a variation on the theme Debate on Israel and Apartheid is a much better, encyclopedic title than "Allegations", however, Israeli apartheid would be a good title too. "Allegations" is a stupid title, but it is the consensus.

I disagree with using titles to resolve POV issues, as does for that matter wikipedia policy.

If we change the title only to resolve POV differences, then New antisemitism, Pallywood and other articles should surely change their title.

When exposing debates and ideas rather than hard facts (as New antisemitism and Pallywood do), it is inevitable that titles will have POV issues, what matters then is that the actual contents obey policy and present information in an unbiased, sourced, NPOV. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut's viewpoint

Nice to see you here too HG. I would second Cerejota here. The names of articles dealing with controversial issues will often be controversial when they are named to accurately describe the phenomenon they cover. This does not mean that we should engage in "newspeak" or "doublespeak". The notability of the Israel apartheid debate has been established. I do not believe that we can cover that debate properly when we do not name the word that is at the heart of the controversy itself: "apartheid". "Allegations" is however, unacceptable, as it is a weasel word and it detracts from the neutrality of the article. The article could be named simply Israeli apartheid or Israel and apartheid. If this is too broad and/or simply unpalatable for die-hard opponents : Israeli apartheid analogy, Israeli apartheid debate, or Debate on Israel and apartheid will do, though I'm sure there are other possible variations as well. Perhaps keeping it simple and direct while stringently abiding by NPOV in the article's contents might be best? Tiamat 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut -- You have some concerns, yet I also hear you voicing significant points of agreement with both G1 and G2 statements. To clarify: On G1, you say notability has been established. So, you're fine with the wording of G1? On G2, you agree that "allegations" detracts from neutrality and should be changed. But you have reservations about "apartheid", which you would like to somehow retain in the Article Name, though you acknowledge that it's a controversial term. Is that right? (This suggests that you might accept G2 if we simply struck out ~~and "Israeli apartheid"~~. I'm willing to entertain that as a friendly amendment, see above, but perhaps other solutions will arise.) Thanks for your patience. HG | Talk 14:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. G1 is basically fine. G2 remains problematic to me. Neutrality in titles does not mean omitting the word at the center of the controversy from the title. Neither does it mean adding words so as to cast doubt as to the applicability of the word in this case. Nor does it mean using euphemisms so as to avoid offending people who find the very idea of a concept offensive. Neutrality is determined by article content and a simple descriptive title that does not point the reader in one direction or another. Israeli apartheid debate, Israeli apartheid analogy, Israel and apartheid or even Israeli apartheid are all NPOV in that they describe the subject being discussed without taking sides. Tiamat 14:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tiamut, you are being quite clear. On G1, check. On G2: You would like a "simple descriptive title that does not point the reader in one direction or another" (nice), and still be able to put 'apartheid' (not a euphemism) in the Title. Let me also note that you are comfortable with a formulation such as Israel and apartheid, in which the noun phrase is split. You also use such terms as controversy, debate and analogy (all improvements on "allegations"). I consider all this potentially very constructive.HG | Talk 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut hi. I'm wondering if it might be helpful were you to express your flexibility/constraints regarding certain wording options. Building from Israel and apartheid, for instance, would you approve, or at least not oppose, modifying 'Israel' with such terms as policy, government, or programs? (As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to introduce any such terms yourself, esp if contested.) Likewise, would you approve /not oppose modifying 'apartheid' with such terms as policy, South Africa, or concept? Without my prejudging the outcome in any way, since such terms may not be needed, do you have a way to rank (esp w/WP policy criteria) the utility of such terms as: Controversy, Debate, Discussion, or Discourse. Also, I'd like to share my thinking about the word comparison. Sometimes it means (a) similarities & distinctions, (b) sometimes to resemblance. IMO analogy shares this characteristic. I'm inclined to think the (b) meaning may be POV problematic, so a descriptive title that uses such a term may be longer (though still simple, per your quote above). Thanks, hope I'm not taxing your patience esp because you may have already explained all this to other folks. Finally, I am preparing a set of further questions, esp regarding process. Would you prefer that I ask the q's when I'm ready, or wait? It's a pleasure doing this exchange with you. HG | Talk 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I've taken the liberty of compiling a draft list, in a section below, to make it easier for you and others to review. HG | Talk 10:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In the comments on Jossi's proposal above, G-Dett provides a series of scholarly sources, G-Dett also argues that the sources refer to certain points of comparison that are not matters of policy (and, I might add, perhaps not of human agency and intent), such as the demographics situation. As a result, there may be reliable grounds for a higher-level heading unrelated to policy (and used by scholars), such as: "Comparison of South Africa and Israel." With such phrasing, perhaps the word 'apartheid' could be injected this way: "Comparison of apartheid-era South Africa and Israel". (But this would not cover studies that extend to post-apartheid South Africa.) For this reason, and taking into account the very pejorative connotations -- I'm wondering if you might consider dropping 'apartheid' from a higher order heading? What if you were confident that other headings could incorporate the term? Hmmm. Too many q's. To sum up: Given the scope of reliable sources, might you be able to live with 'South Africa' in lieu of 'apartheid', though it's not your first choice? Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(Discussion flowing from Tiamut's comments)

HG, just to clarify, when I point out that the use of the analogy often pivots on issues (such as demographics but I listed others on your user talk page) that would not easily fit into a human-rights article, I am not arguing that these issues "are not matters of policy," much less that they are somehow beyond the realm of "human agency and intent" (!). The demographics of Israel-Palestine are absolutely a matter of policy, human agency, and intent. My point was that the "apartheid" meme arises not only in discourse about Palestinian human rights premised on an appeal to ethics, but also in strategic discourse about the future of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state – a discourse premised on an appeal to demography. Perhaps two juxtaposed quotes will further clarify the distinction. Both are mainstream journalists/columnists for the New York Times, Anthony Lewis and Thomas Friedman, the former moderately pro-Palestinian, the latter moderately pro-Israel. Both have invoked the "apartheid" meme on multiple occasions (Friedman has used it regularly since the second intifada broke out), but their emphasis is very different. Here's Lewis in a 1988 NYT piece called "Toward South Africa":

The Government of Israel is highly sensitive to comparisons to South Africa. Officials bring it up to deny that occupation practices have anything to do with white South African rule. Indeed, there are great differences. What happens here is not apartheid. Palestinians are trying to get out of Israeli society, not into it. But there are chilling similarities. Here, as there, a people suffer humiliation without recourse, without voice or vote. Men and women are at the mercy of 18-year-olds with guns. Law is manipulated to serve the rulers, until justice is eaten away. The press is censored, and the press is blamed. And here, as there, the process corrupts the rulers. Israel being the concerned place it is, the army has actually sent psychologists to its troops in Gaza to help them mentally with the orders to beat people. But the problem lies deeper. It lies in the very fact of occupation. The longer it goes on, the more true will be a comment made to an Israeli friend by Prof. Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University. "The ultimate revenge of the Palestinians will be to turn you into South Africa."

That's the human-rights discourse in a nutshell. Now here's Friedman in 2001:

If the settlers get their way, Israel will de facto or de jure annex the West Bank and Gaza. And if current Palestinian birth rates continue, by around the year 2010 there will be more Palestinians than Jews living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza combined. When that happens, the demand of the college anti-Israel movements will change. They won't bother anymore with divestiture. They will simply demand: "One Man, One Vote"...If you think it is hard to defend Israel on campus today, imagine doing it in 2010, when the colonial settlers have so locked Israel into the territories it can rule them only by apartheid-like policies.

That's the demographic discourse. Finally, just to give a sense of how wide-ranging the meme's relevance can be, I'll give an example of what might be called the strategic-political discourse. Here's Flora Lewis in the New York Times in 1983:

Comparison with Israel has become an insistent theme in South Africa when people there discuss their country's actions. It keeps popping up, so heatedly that it inevitably involves America – as though the United States does and must have the same attitude toward both countries.

Sorry for the length; I hope the distinctions I was drawing are clearer now. There are several other such issues in addition to demography, which don't fit comfortably into a human-rights paradigm.--G-Dett 17:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! You've made a helpful clarification. Without belaboring my own misunderstanding, you are saying that "human rights" is not an adequate umbrella term. However, "policy" would work, at least for those who accept your knowledge of the sources. ("The demographics of Israel-Palestine are absolutely a matter of policy..."). Thanks, stay in touch. HG | Talk 23:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

When we say "Israeli Apartheid" we are framing the debate as if asserting that there is such a thing. Political debate about Israel and apartheid-like practices may be a better attempt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What about Axis of evil? Should that be renamed Allegations of an Axis of evil? Lothar of the Hill People 17:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That article carries a POV tag, and for good reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Even better, would be to have subsections with similar titles at Human rights in Israel and Israeli-occupied territories, where the debate can be contextualized for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, your point on subheadings is terrific! This may put the Merge and Rename procedural mechanisms on an roughly equivalent basis, vis a vis this exploration. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Won't work, the Human Rights in Israel article is too long and too broad as it is. Also, "apartheid" in Israel has enough credible and high-level sources to be a notable topic in its own right. Lothar of the Hill People 17:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The proposal is to merge specific material into that article, not the whole article. Namely apartheid-like practices within Israel material. The material related to such practices within the occupied territories, can be had under their own section at Israeli-occupied territories. These sections can carry the term "apartheid" in them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My opposition to this (beyond the objections raised by Lothar and CJ, which I second) is that some of the most interesting material on the Israel-South Africa comparison does not focus exclusively or even predominantly on comparisons of state guilt or on how to fairly characterize human-rights violations.--G-Dett 20:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett's viewpoint

I agree with the G1 and G2 statements (though G2 is a little ambiguously worded), and I concur with the responses posted by Tiamut and Cerejota. I am not terribly bothered about titles; my chief concern is that an average Wikipedia user who has heard about the Israel-South Africa analogy can find a detailed, interesting, and thorough article about it. My objection to the word "allegations" in the title has always been that it's the wrong word, not that it's unfair; the average reader (i.e. one not idiomatically conditioned by disputes internal to Wikipedia) would think an article called Allegations of Israeli apartheid detailed formal charges, not contentious descriptions and comparisons.

As I've pointed out directly above as well as in the "proposal" section, some of the best material on the Israel-South Africa analogy – including the Adam/Moodley book – is not centrally concerned with documenting human-rights abuses or with evaluating and comparing state guilt in same, so merging into a new or existing "human-rights" article seems ill-advised. The only thing I'd add to this is that I think we've misconstrued the Adam & Moodley book as somehow sui generis, when in fact it's very much representative of a significant body of similar work. I think the strong web bias of Wikipedia sourcing has played a role in our perceptions here; after all, the entire introductory chapter of Seeking Mandela is available online, so most editors here have become aware of its authors. There are many others, a few of which I've listed in my longer comment in the "Proposals" section above.--G-Dett 20:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, thanks for your clear response and support (G1, G2). I'd be happy to hear suggestions for less ambiguous wording for G2 which you think would be amenable to all interested parties. HG | Talk 21:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Interim response from HG. I appreciate all your responses. Based on your feedback, let me give you a head up about my current thinking. For those who support the grounds (G1-G2), I'm working on potential next discussion items on this page. Not sure I should float any more trial balloons without more feedback on the process steps (see below). Or maybe I'll try it anyway. Thanks, folks. HG | Talk 13:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(Removed procedural ideas that did not generate discussion)HG | Talk 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional Grounds (G3): Self-identification principle & the phrase "Israeli apartheid"

The follow proposed statement of principle is drawn from WP Naming conventions. I believe this statement to be reasonable. Still, our exploration of different Article Names, and a Requested Move, is not contingent on acceptance of these grounds. (G1-G2 are sufficient.) HG | Talk 01:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Plausible grounds for new Article Name (G3). WP Naming Policy encompasses a naming convention on identity. "When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use." Such self-descriptions should be verifiable. The self-description guideline is related to the fundamental justice of self-determination. Finding: Since most Israelis and the Israeli government do not identify their policies, politicians or actions as apartheid, the phrase "Israeli apartheid" is subject to the Self-Identification Principle. This is grounds for splitting up or other changing the phrase for the purposes of Article Names and headings. HG | Talk 01:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested question: How, if at all, does the Self-identification Principle (G3) apply to the noun phrase "Israeli apartheid" in our current AoIA Title? Note: The initial comments have been moved from below, or from Talk:Mediation Cabal. HG | Talk 01:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Mediation Cabal --

Personally, I feel the article should be called simply Israeli apartheid, which currently redirects, and should address usage and the controversy attending. Compare Islamofascism, which explores usage of that controversial term. BYT 17:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT -- Your comment raises an interesting point. When does another existing article serve as a precedent for other articles? In my view, which is backed by Wikipedia guidelines, an article which violates policy should not be defended by citing similar articles that violate policy. In my view, the Islamofascism violates the a neutrality-protecting Naming guideline: "When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use." The self-description guideline is related to the fundamental justice of self-determination. Islam refers to a specific (albeit large) group of people and they do not identify as themselves by this term, so the article is unjustifiable. Perhaps some of the article content can be placed within a more neutral article about Islam, though this epithet should not be given Undue weight. It's important that we function through our basic policy principles, even if this means re-assessing existing articles. What do you think of my explanation? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Islamofascism is about the term, not Islam. You can't forbid every article about any term any group has ever objected to. Wikipedia is not censored. --Ideogram 21:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What about "Racially-based aspects of Israeli domestic policy." as a possible neutral title? Tim Vickers 21:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a very bad example of original research. Israeli apartheid might be controversial, but it is supported by secondary sources. For example, see Nigger. I simply do not understand this need to weasel word the title. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from below (started by BYT as "Israeli apartheid", thanks!)

Personally, I feel the article should be called simply Israeli apartheid, which currently redirects, and should address usage and the controversy attending. Compare Islamofascism, which explores usage of that controversial term. BYT 17:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this view. There is also New Antisemitism, Pallywood, Nigger etc. --Cerejota 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Israeli apartheid" is an epithet, not a phenomenon, and you are not going to get agreement on a title that muddles that distinction. Nor on one which makes it explicit, for that matter (e.g., Israeli apartheid (epithet)(also a current redirect)). Nor on "merging" (deleting) the article. There's not going to be any consensus here -- just get over that idea.Andyvphil 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am completely opposed to that title, as I was when the article was created under that name. It assumes that the subject of the title, "Israeli apartheid", is something that exists. And as I have said in the past, examples of the type that Cerejota mentions are not relevant to me, because in the first two instances, I do not like those titles either. I think it would be better to have them in quotation marks or to precede them with "Allegations" or have some qualifying phrase in the title after them. As for "Israeli apartheid", it shouldn't even be its own article, much less under that highly POV title. The N-word is a completely different story, as it (unfortunately) took on a life of its own a long time ago, and is a worthy subject of an article. 6SJ7 00:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF and treat this proposal as bit of humor to lighten the mood. IronDuke

Toward a set of recommended terms and headings

Please read this with a charitable eye, as a draft listing. The idea would be to draw upon this list to construct the Article Name and, perhaps, recommended headings (or naming conventions). This listing is not designed, at all, to prejudge the relevance of other applicable Wikipedia policies. Such policies may determine whether the underlying content can justify the need for such headings, e.g., requiring verifiable sources, no undue weight, etc. I apologize if this seems premature; much of this discussed in prose form above, w/Tiamut.

I've arranged this list in the order of terms to replace "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" with significantly more neutral (NPOV) terms. HG | Talk 10:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacing "Allegations of"

<do not replace the term, discuss unproved claims within Article Content>
"Debate" -- esp. to describe the most reliable sources, e.g. scholars
"Controversy" -- inclusive of Debate and weaker, more POV sources
"Discourse" -- HG: deprecated as academic jargon
"Statements" or "claims" e.g., "Controversial statements by famous people"

Replacing "Israeli" and the comparative referent for "apartheid"

"Israel" -- which would include:
"Israeli situation", circumstances (etc?) -- to cover demographics, unintended aspects, yet which would include:
"Israeli policy" -- for intentional government policies/programs, etc.
"Israeli __________" self-descriptive Israeli terms for any verifiable separation programs, separatists, etc. Preferably, their own English translations.

("Human rights" Jossi and others have recommended "Human Rights" as an umbrella heading, similar to policy.)

Note: Comments welcome on such terms as "West Bank and Gaza" etc.

Replacing the South African referent for "apartheid"

"South Africa" -- as the highest order term, which would include:
"South Africa situation", circumstances (etc?) -- to cover demographics, unintended aspects, yet which would include:
"apartheid-era" or "post-apartheid" South Africa (= S.A. "during/after apartheid")
"South Africa policy" -- for intentional government policies/programs, etc., similar to:
"South African apartheid" -- as above, and yet including:
"South Africa __________" self-descriptive S.A. terms for apartheid programs, political parties, etc. Preferably, not in Afrikaans.

Comparative terms. (Comparison is implied by the current title.)

"similarities and differences" -- e.g., "The debate over..."
"comparison"
"analogy"

Comments and proposed revisions to this list:

I would like to see a proposal that focuses on the merits of merging portions of the content of this article into relevant articles in which proper context for the political use of the term can be framed. As it stands, the article lacks context and thus NPOV is sacrificed. The term "apartheid" can be used in sections within these articles, so as to advise our readers of the use and application of that term in the political debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, thanks, you raise several related good issues here. As now added to (I), I'm now sensing that we would need to Rename first, without prejudging subsequent decisions to edit, keep, delete, or merge the article content. It's fine if you disagree and want to pursue this here. How about a subsection, above Groundrules, entitled something like "Relationship between Renaming and Merging decisions" ? Also, if you can support grounds I.G1-2, perhaps you like to add your viewpoint there? Many thanks for your insights here. HG | Talk 00:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of groundrules and other comments

Suggested groundrules. I am politely requesting for this exploratory section, which admittedly nobody owns, that comments outside the scope not be placed in the preceding subsections. This includes uncivil statements, the motives of interested parties (including good faith and WP:POINT concerns), history of editing and AfD disputes, etc. I am addressing these ideas for those Users who may be amenable to revising the Article Name. If you are unconditionally opposed to revising the Name, I'd rather you comment elsewhere on this Talk page. If you believe that comments above might not fit these suggested groundrules, please notify that person via User Talk (not here). If you come to realize you've said something outside the scope of the preceding subsections, please strike out your words and, if you choose, pursue your point elsewhere. I think this will benefit all parties! Thanks. HG | Talk 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to HG's comment on my talk page

I must thank you for your approach, it is refreshing to see some civility for a change. The diffs for my proposal [2] and [3].

1) Policy relevant to titles not resolving POV:

WP:NPOV

A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.[5] The general restriction against POV forks applies to article names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth).[6] Even if a synthesis can be found, like Shape of the Earth, or Earth (Debated shapes), it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.

Which follows with specific guidelines on how to solve controversies vis-a-vis titles:

WP:NCON#How to make a choice among controversial names

Proper nouns

The three key principles are:

*The most common use of a name takes precedence;

If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organizations)
Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

I think a large part of the conflicts in this and related articles would be solved if people followed policy, as it stands, instead of trying to meatpuppet each side of the POV into submission, tire the community with endless controversy, and/or willfully violate policy to try to get a successful AfD (this has been done all over the place by both sides of the POV)

2) I think "Allegations" is stupid in the title because of WP:WTA, which advices against "Allegation" in titles. It is a violation of policy imposed by consensus, in many case by editors who have voted for AfD based precisely on the title. Yes, the logic here is that circular. Some are trying to get "apartheid" (outside of South Africa) as a word to avoid, however we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

I do not want to sound controversial, but I am experienced enough to know that consensus is whatever keeps admins from pulling wheelies on each other ;) - if an admin can survive de-syoping by doing an action, s/he will do it even if it is not quite consensus. There was an almost-but-not-quite-wheel/move-war-to-which-ArbCom-said-we-really-don't-know-so-lets-give-amnesty-to-all-the-involved as part of the "debate" to rename this article from Israeli apartheid. Thats in a nutshell how the article ended up with the sorry excuse of a policy violation we have as a title.

I hope I have answered all of your questions, and by all means join in and try to help us move things forward, instead of in circles. Thanks! --Cerejota 06:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, I'm grateful for your detailed and clear response, and the info you provide in the diffs. G-Dett provides some related info above, so I may respond there and welcome your thoughts. In terms of consensus, as I've used in my section heading, I do not mean the admin decisions but rather a broad mutual agreement (or shared understanding), based on people's underlying interest (not nec. declared positions, which may be more ephemeral or expedient), and thereby what should be a more stable and cooperative kind of consensus. Thanks. HG | Talk 08:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of merge tags

I removed merge tags because no discussion and rationale was given in the target pages, nor has there been any meaningful discussion in this talk page or the centralized discussion.

If the editor wants to re-propose, I suggest the following:

1) Provide a rationale here and allow debate to flow before proposing. Proposing a controversial merge in a controversial article out of the blue is not very civil.

2) If you still want to propose the merger, use one merge-multiple tag in the top, and specify sectioning in the actual discussion. This makes clear the intentions, and is less disruptive. Section merge tags are meant only when a section and not the whole article is meant to be merged to a different page. You were using it incorrectly.

Thanks!--Cerejota 07:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The merger tags are valid, as attested by the discussion on the subject. I am restoring them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been no discussion of section merges, and there is no consensus for addition of the (multiple) section merge tags, each of which would need to be discussed individually. BYT 17:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are discussions? Read this page. I will not editwar about tags, as it is counter productive. But I would appreciate if you are accurate about your assessment of the discussions above. We are discussing possible mergers as a valid strategy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think a section should be merged, could you please start a discussion head about the section that you think should be merged? BYT 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. For example the section "Allegations of apartheid in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" and any counterpoints in the "Opposing views" section can be moved to Israeli-occupied territories with the same section title. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a section in that article named "Arab Palestinians and Israeli law", that could host that content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be, but I think the content is more appropriate here, and do not support adding section merge tags. Could you please start a new discussion head when you raise one of these issues? BYT 17:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: there is no specific proposal/rationale for merger. I do not want to edit war over a tag either, but it is unhelpful to just place a tag without engaging in discussion. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we reading the same talk page? There are standing proposals for such mergers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the quotefarm tag, there is only one section with too many quotes, and it is tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There are mentions here and there of merger, but no clear rationale as per notability, OR, and other such things ins separate specific thread. Propossing a merger, specially in a controversial article, is a semi-fromal process that should be approach much more seriously than this. Please start a thread with the specific rationale for merging into two separate articles, including why topic does not deserve its own article.

Quotefarm is not only for quotes per se, but when contents are too dependent on quotes rather than on secondary source narrative. This entire article suffers from quotefarm, and I have provided rationale several times. Please be productive. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are mistaken. There are solid proposals for a merger based on solid arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Requested Move for "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid"

Cancelled. This straw poll was a well-intentioned idea but it's not ready for prime time. It needs more conversation and development. So I've removed the straw poll text, which you can find in this diff if you are interested. I've left up the initial responses from CJCurrie and Jossi. I still think it may be worth pursuing the exploratory conversation(s) above, starting with basic principles with which to evaluate the Article Name and subheadings. Hope this wasn't too distracting. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort that you've put into this, and I commend you for your honest efforts to resolve this seemingly intractible contoversy. That said, I cannot endorse any of these awkward, convoluted and somewhat inaccurate titles. This article should provide an overview of the "Israeli apartheid" analogy, not directly compare Israeli policies with those of apartheid-era South Africa. Please don't give up. We need as many constructive suggestions as possible. CJCurrie 03:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the lead is wrong? It reads "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw an analogy between South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era and Israel's treatment of Arab citizens of Israel or Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that the best course of action is to merge the content of this article into Israeli-occupied territories and Human rights in Israel with section titles such as "The apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinan conflict" and "The apartheid debate" respectively. This article, as it stands, suffers not only from a disastrous title, but also lacks the necessary context to give our readers to understand the politics involved. Such context can only be given within the narrative of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the situation of the human-rights in Israel, as well as the state of democracies in the Middle East. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your frank and civil responses. I've rescinded the poll as noted above. Take care. HG | Talk 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Too bad the poll was cancelled. I was ready to endorse option "B" without reservations. greg park avenue 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to basics. Thanks to all of you (and others) for replying above. In trying to be responsive to your concerns, I would appreciate each of you to response and, maybe agree, on G1-3 above and now three Procedural Principles Toward Consensus (P1-1) about why to explore a small step, a synonymous new name, even if worded more awkwardly. HG | Talk 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise on MULTIPLE fronts

In the real world ... encyclopedias chase actual human experience.

For a long time there was not a meaningful, mainstream debate about whether Israel's policies constituted apartheid. Then usage accelerated, positions shifted, and the debate made it into the mainstream. WP is usually on the cutting edge of these kinds of issues, which means we have interesting choices to make.

And here we are again.

Now, the policy on naming reads: "When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use."

Yet, at the same time, global political dialogue has polarized, and there are catch-phrases floating about that deserve independent articles.

How to square this circle?

The way we have settled this in the past, if I may be blunt about it, is to focus on mainstream usage and things like whether there is a dictionary entry for a term, and to simply ignore the policy above.

Witness Islamofascism, which is manifestly about Muslims and Islam -- yet no Muslim I've ever met has self-identified as a fascist. There may be Israelis who adamantly label their government's policies as apartheid, but I've never encountered any. Yet lots and lots of editors felt it was important to strike a blow against "censorship" by endorsing, and defending, the Islamofascism article title, and lots of editors in this dispute, as at Islamofascism, are fast-forwarding over the policy cited above, and reject the possibility of appendages like (term) and (epithet) in the article title.

So here's my proposal. If we are willing to apply the policy above even-handedly to all articles that describe "specific people or specific groups," we could ...

Move AoIA to Israeli "apartheid" controversy

Move Islamofascism to "Islamofascism" controversy

Note that I am proposing, in this case, that we move in tandem on both articles simultaneously. It seems likely that other articles might benefit from such an approach in weeks and months to come. BYT 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a fair proposal.--Urthogie 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think shudder quotes are the answer, nor do I think bringing in other articles people have beefs with is going to resolve this any faster. In fact, it makes this process much more difficult. IronDuke 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The self-identification clause of the naming policy is a red herring here, because this article isn't about Israeli policies. It's about a prominent and controversial analogy used in discussion of Israeli policies, the common term for which (among both Israelis and non-Israelis) is "(Israeli) apartheid analogy." I agree with IronDuke that scare quotes and appeals to system-wide consistency (however conceived) are inappropriate, but in different measure. The latter has caused enormous disruption already. As for the former, I'm prepared to take an WP:IAR approach if it helps us out of this impasse.--G-Dett 19:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for trading horses in a pissing contest. "Islamofascism" is the word in common use and that's why it deserves an entry into Wikipedia, regardless how bad it sounds. The term "Isareli apartheid" is not in common use, but the word "apartheid" is, and guess what; it doesn't even have an article on it in English Wikipedia, just a redirection to History of South Africa in the Apartheid era. Why not make it simple and create a new article titled the "Apartheid", explain in the introduction what does it mean, and then merge the South African article and the AoIA into it? The word apartheid is in common use in reference to Israel too (i.e. Apartheid wall, Piece not apartheid, etc), so it deserves a section in it, but not the whole separate article. It will take a lot of heat off, if this article would be deleted. And make the section titles simple too: Definition, South Africa, Israel, France, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, etc. Thank God, we are down to only four now. greg park avenue 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could gain consensus more quickly on this move if we consider "islamofascism" a seperate issue. Let's discuss the merits of renaming this article to BYT's proposed name. I, for one, am willing to join G-Dett in ignoring precedent if it will settle this age old naming dispute.--Urthogie 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT's proposed name looks OK to me, scare quotes notwithstanding.--G-Dett 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the essence of this proposal. --Ideogram 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a very constructive suggestion. One question to ask yourselves, or the actual people: Would the Users who struggled to delete AoIA have their objections met by the title "Israeli "apartheid" controversy". I think not because they don't want the title to already be framed by a point of view or presupposition on the question. In other words, to really come up with something that both sides can live with, you'll need to find a title that satisfies both those willing to ignore the self-determination principle you've boldfaced above, and those who do not want to compromise this principle. However, I do notice this: Some "Keep" votes would accept "Israel and apartheid" and, by separating the two terms, may move closer to a title acceptable to the Delete voters (though not quite there yet). Plus, your idea of resolving multiple epithets together, which arguably violate self-determination for both side, is quite appealling. HG | Talk 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No title with both "Israel" and "apartheid" is acceptable to me at this point. This name was adopted as part of a temporary compromise, but time's up, and I see very little spirit of compromise from the people who think this is a valid article. Lets rename this to something NPOV or just get rid of this travesty of an article. It makes Wikipedia look stupid. 6SJ7 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear 6SJ7, I'm wondering if you might be able to live with a title that uses apartheid but contextualizes it. For instance, "Similarities and differences between Israeli policies and South African apartheid". While maybe you rather such an article never existed, and this certainly isn't your preferred title, do you think you might be able to live with such a revised Title. Maybe you could accept it as an incremental improvement, from which you might be able to explore agreement on something closer to your ideal? HG | Talk 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7's position is not new, and he has courage enough to state it. However, I think is wrong to delete/merge reliably sourced, notable, encyclopedic material just because he doesn't like it.

Hyperbolic statements like "It makes Wikipedia look stupid" are also extremely unproductive, some argue that Exploding whale makes wikipedia look stupid, and it is a FA. Unfortunately for him and his stance, the existence of New antisemitism, Pallywood, and the crown-jewel Islamofascism, and other non-neutrally titled, articles in wikipedia argues against his view: wikipedia has no problem with controversially titled articles as long as they are properly sourced, presented neutrally, and are not OR. That said, please see bellow for proposals that do contain Israel and apartheid in the title but are separate enough for the topic be be built up. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, it makes Wikipedia look stupid whether I say so or not, so I might as well say so. I don't need you lecturing me. I don't care about those other articles, I care about this article. To HG, I have already compromised enough. Under current AfD procedures, this article would have been deleted in June of 2006, so as far as I am concerned it is not legitimate, and from now on I am going to treat it that way. This article is part of a political smear campaign against Israel, and I am finished discussing it as if it were a serious article. 6SJ7 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

quotefarm issue

Does anyone have a proposal as to what to do with the quote farm issue? My proposal is that we issue only a few prominent examples. Nothing is gained by quoting ad nauseum. For the section on the allegation being used in reference to the territories, the examples could be:

Carter
Tutu

For the section on the allegation being used in relation to Israel itself the examples could be:

McGreal
Adam and Moodley

This would let the article spend most of its time discussing the allegations, rather than quoting them in list-like form.--Urthogie 15:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this thinking, and are happy you are seeking to engage in meaningful, productive conversation, but I disagree with the geographical distinction. For example, Adam and Moodley deal deeply with both Israel and the Palestinian territories, whereas Carter's argument is basically that the Palestinian territories are de facto Israel, and the policies regarding the territories being a form of apartheid (hence the title of his book).

I must state again that the differentiation - in terms of the debate of apartheid - is a fluid one: Carter clearly states so in interviews, but not so clearly in his book, and Adam and Moodley certainly move back and forth fluidly. I am afraid geographical distinction would be a form of WP:SYNTH in this context, in so far as no secondary sources speaks of these as separate issues when it comes to this debate.

There are POVs who say this, but others than don't, so it is clear that geographical division is also at the heart of the debate, and adopting it would be favoring.

I re-state that I think using the model put forth in "Seeking Mandela" is the best one: it categorizes the debates around motivations, political consequences, and contextualizes the debate as one that seeks to find solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It also goes much deeper in its critique than simply calling it an epithet: it sees validity (and problems) of both points of views.

While ultimately they conclude that analogy is not very valid, and might put them firmly on one side of the POV debate, their structure is a solid one, and the sources they provide (which include Tutu, for example) allow for an NPOV presentation, that doesn't engage in original research, and can speak in an encyclopedic voice.

Adopting Adam and Moodley's model will help us then solve quotefarm.

BTW, a few months ago, as part of a similar conversation, I created wikiquote:Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which where all of these extended quotes belong. The solutions are all there, only if two stances are abandoned: 1) The deletionist/mergist stance 2) The apartheid-should-be-WTA stance. This debate is notable enough to stand on its own, and to be NPOV, as it has been engaged in notably by people form all POVs. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is a debate, then it should be based on the voices in the debate, thus making the argument of WP:SYN invalid in this instance. As the subject does not exist but in a debate context, because it does not deal with facts (it deals on opinions of those that engage in this debate), the article needs to be either merged as proposed, or alternatively, renamed and re-written so that it captures the debate in all its voices. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, in what way does my proposal to use Adam and Moodley's model is incompatible with "capturing the debate in all its voices"? Thanks!--Cerejota 03:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, hi. Let me follow up with you about your fine suggestion, nicely worded: "renamed and re-written so that it captures the debate in all its voices". To the extent that the comparison is in public discourse, I agree with Cerejota (based the A/M and other sources cited to me), that there are two branches: the academic debate and the more political use of the epithet. What if the article title and the body of the article focused on the scholarly debate, and then moved to review some of the political uses of the comparison (e.g., by pro-Palestinian folks, by famous people, etc), noting encyclopedia where they add to the scholarship yet without giving the rhetoric undue weight? Sample outline:

Title: Debate over the comparison of Israeli policies and South African apartheid

Main heading: Scholarly analysis of policy similarities and differences

(Various substantive subheadings, e.g. demographics, housing, employment, whatever)

Main heading: Other uses of the comparison

(Various discourse subheadings, e.g. The comparison with the Palestinian narrative; Uses in popular culture == selections from quote farm here)

I recognize this wouldn't satisfy your whole vision (e.g., to merge), at least not yet, but is it consistent with the alternative you've recommended? HG | Talk 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be an interesting approach to explore. The concern I have is that the scholarly debate, as you call it, it is only based on one source: Adam & Moodley, and framing their Seeking Mandela book as "The scholarly debate" would be undue weight. Are they any other scholars that have written on this analogy? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict insert) Jossi -- good question. First, G-Dett has supplied a whole series of academic writings comparing Israel and South Africa (several don't use "apartheid" in the title at least). Second, even if he's wrong, then may A&M content will delimit the article size. But -- and this is crucial -- comparison means (I hope here!) "similarities and differences". In the scholarly section, we'd need to give a fair hearing to academic sources that emphasize distinctions or question the A&M claims. HG | Talk 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC) (I'll go look for G-Dett's diff.)

I have proposed something similar in the past, and in fact Adam and Moodley do precisely this.

Carter might have given wider notability to the subject, but it has been in use since Oslo was a draft, both because of the then relatively recent event s in South Africa, and because Fatah/Arafat themselves spoke of "bantustans" when referring to the first proposals around Oslo. I think a big problem this article in particular has is that people have chosen to turn it into a battlefield for their respective POVs and are ignoring the significant amount of scholarly work around it, that covers many fields.

I think we can move forward much better by adopting the Adam and Moodley model, getting rid of the "Allegations" naming it Israel and apartheid-era South Africa or some such, and then sitting down an coming up with a good bibliography from the either extreme to people like Bumara and Adam and Moodley. I really think it would be a great addition to encyclopedic knowledge on political science, international relations, and ethnic conflict, in particular the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Lastly, I oppose merger into any articles because this debate is unique: these are not simple allegations (as some seek to turn the article into) but a complete body of debate that seeks to find (albeit possibly misguidedly) a solution that is as relatively successful as South Africa has been. That's very far from an epithet.

Yes, David Duke uses it as epithet, but Carter doesn't, and this is an incredibly important distinction that is lost in the battlefield of POV pushing.

I think naming this article "Allegations" was too broad a topic, and led to quotefarm, but renaming to what it should be, Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, will fix this, by not allowing simply epithets and unthoughful, polemical pieces, and allowing only things that constitute legitimate studies of the lessons from South Africa as they apply or do not apply to Israel.

This is not a human/civil rights, it is not about facts in the ground, it is about a debate that secondary sources establish as notable, and that many agree is important. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, I greatly respect your thinking. But it seems to me you are being a bit rigid here "I oppose merger into any articles because this debate is unique". Surely, we could imagine some higher order heading that would encompass this topic? Ok, let's say it's not human rights (no offense, Jossi). But 'apartheid' has a denotative meaning (e.g., segregation, discrimination) which might help us articulate such a heading? What if there were an article called "Criticisms on Israeli policies", I don't see why you'd rule out a merge out-of-hand, especially if it would help bring editor closer on how to handle the material. HG | Talk 04:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Maybe you could set aside the merger vs. segregated article <pun> for a bit, and jointly look at the gist of the article, what the content is doing, so that you can then find an appropriate location (whether as an subsection or article being a later and sometimes changing editorial choice). HG | Talk 04:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is why I now advocate "apartheid-era South Africa". I have always recognized here that "Israeli apartheid" is used as an epithet (in fact it has to do with how this page was first created!). This use comes to dominate this article, including the lead, whereas there is a much more wider body that studies this from a less polemical perspective... what Adam and Moodley call "pragmatic". So perhaps using "apartheid" can lead to confusion about the topic at hand. We do a disservice to our readers if we are not giving this topic its own article. We do not put Nigger under Racial epithets, we have Nigger. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What other scholarly sources exist on the subject, besides Adam and Moodley? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent for space) Genealogies of Conflict: Class, Identity, and State in Palestine/Israel and South Africa, Talking with the Enemy : Negotiation and Threat Perception in South Africa and Israel/Palestine, Peace Building in Northern Ireland, Israel and South Africa: Transition, Transformation and Reconciliation, God's Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster, Mobilizing for Peace: Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, and South Africa, Undercutting Sanctions: Israel, the U.S. and South Africa, and so on, as well as other books exploring the ethically controversial dimensions of the analogy we're more familiar with: Israel and South Africa: Legal Systems of Settler Domination, Security, terrorism, and torture: Detainees' rights in South Africa and Israel : a comparative study, Israel, South Africa, and the West, Israel And South Africa (from G-Dett above) HG | Talk 04:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi (G-Dett's bibliography might be a bit one-sided, but it does represent a wide variety of POVs in those sources) of course there are many sources. When I speak about using th Adam and Moodley model, I do so form the perspective of they being a solid secondary source, who people from all POV have expressed respect. I am trying, in other words, to find common ground.

But they are not by far the only source, nor are they even the definitive source. Tanya Reinhart on one side of the POV, Benny Morris on the other, and so on. It is in a debate much more notable academically than New Antisemitism is, althoguht some actors get repeated.

What I also like about Adam and Moodley is that their structure precisely seeks to cut through the epithets and polemics - while still touching upon them - and go to the meat of the matter: Is Israel a settler state, almost 60 years into its founding? Is the two-state solution actually a form of Bantustan? They come out saying probably not to these questions, and argue eloquently if not for Zionism, at least for the understanding of what motivates Zionism (maybe a mirror image of former Revisionist Zionist Uri Avnery's sympathy for Arafat's Fatah?). In other words, they are perfect as a basis for NPOV. And their bibliography is invaluable for this topic, as it ranges the spectrum with solid, notable sources Thanks!--Cerejota 04:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are as many sources as HG has submitted, then it should be an interesting exercise summarizing these viewpoints contained in these books. It will not be easy, but most certainly worth the effort. We just need a good NPOV title to calm the spirits around here, and then roll-the-sleeves and get to work... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, as you probably know, I've tried wordsmithing a few NPOV titles (eg one above). If we can hold the merger question in abeyance for the time being, I think you can motivate people to work on the NPOV name. However, I would highlight that this represents a bit of a shift, a flexibility on your part, to step aside from your Merge proposal (and its successes) and focus only on the NPOV title for now. If so, I can imagine it's frustrating, so more power to you! HG | Talk

Jossi: What you do not like about Israel and apartheid-era South Africa? It is both NPOV, and specific to the topic, and I think will evade quotefarming as it de-facto prevents inclusion of quotes or sources that merely mention israel and apartheid in the same sentence or paragraph. As to digging through sources and fixing, do not worry, it will actually be easy stuff. What I worry about is people claiming 3RR and in general being over vigilant instead of allowing productive edits under WP:IAR. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a terrible title. It reads as though the article is about Israel's foreign policy toward South Africa during the apartheid period. —ptk✰fgs 04:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

See Israel-South_Africa_relations#Israel_and_apartheid_South_Africa. Andyvphil 07:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! I've improved that subheading: Israel-South_Africa_relations#Israeli_relations_with_apartheid_South_Africa to retain the option above, or "Israeli policies compared to apartheid South Africa" or the like. thanks. HG | Talk 08:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed a topic that would be covered, as it is part of this debate (for example, it prompted a South African prime minister to compare the two countries). However, I understand your point... what about Israel and apartheid-era South Africa analogies? Debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa? I mean, I am pretty much sold that the best title - Israeli apartheid - is just an invitation to quotefarm, so I am looking for a title that is both not original research and direct and to the point. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the suggestions incorporating the word "debate" are the most promising. Convention on enwiki is to use the word debate in two ways most commonly: to refer to the competitive activity, and to frame articles on public political disputes. The risk of confusing this dispute with the competitive activity is minimal, and it avoids the problems with "allegations" in the present title. The other common way of framing an issue like this in enwiki titles is to use the word controversy, which doesn't really offer anything more here than "debate" except that it is denser in syllables.

I think the incorporation of "South Africa" in the title adds verbiage with no perceivable benefit. It is simple to make it extremely clear in the first sentence of the article that this dispute is over comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa; after all, that's the origin of the word's use here and other uses of "apartheid" in contemporary political discourse necessarily connote a comparison to South Africa. To expand that connotation in the title is unnecessary and would insult the reader, similarly to calling an article "Fender Stratocaster electric guitar" or "United States-Soviet Union Cold War" —ptk✰fgs 17:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A thoughtful and clear response. Let me say why I think "South Africa" will enable us to draw the widest support for a name change. I gather that much of the contestation over the past year concerns whether "Israeli apartheid" is a valid object of an article. This renaming would clarify that the Title itself neither asserts nor denies that such an object exists, and turns the connotation of SA comparison into an explicit title. Also, apartheid has 2 meanings (SA official policy; policies like SA). This would keep 'apartheid' in the title, but put it in the official SA meaning. If extra verbiage would settle down this editing controversy, some stylistic weaknesses are worth the gain in NPOV clarity. HG | Talk 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks PTK for joining the conversation. Let's concede for a second that it's a bit vague, would you consider it at least more neutral in wording? If so, NPOV is a higher value that vague, so wouldn't you concede that it's maybe preferable (though by no means ideal due to the potential misreading that you're concerned about)? Could you live with the title? Or, maybe you have other concerns about "Israel and apartheid-era South Africa"? HG | Talk 04:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's too vague. I would expect an article discussing Israel and its relations with apartheid-era South Africa under that heading. Tiamat 12:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Should titles be neutral?

BTW, I disagree with the implication that titles should be neutral, as per my policy based explanation. I want to change the title to avoid quotefarm and better article quality, not to satisfy POV-pushers. Besides, "allegation" is a WP:WTA. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, with due respect, I don't get it. NPOV applies to all of wikipedia, including titles. Plus, I thought you agreed with the way I worded G2 (on neutrality, above). Plus, WP:WTA on "allegation" is merely derivative of the need for neutrality, thus: "So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported -- These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and etc." Please, give this another thought and reconsider. HG | Talk 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, please re-read WP:NPOV and WP:NCON as quoted extensively by me above. They should answer your concerns. Both essentially say the same I have just say. If you didn't get me, then unfortunately you are not getting essential wikipedia policy. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP Naming Conflicts (NCON) should be settled through several criteria, including neutrality through the criterion of "3. Current self-identifying name of entity". However, group epithets by definition are not how the group wants to self-identify. Indeed, we have reliable sources on this point:

Today, the implied racism of the term is so strong that the use of <snip> in most situations is a social taboo. Many American magazines and newspapers will not even print the word in full, instead using n*gg*r, n**ger, n——, or simply "the N-word." -- from the WP article

For this reason, the article violates our core NPOV policy and needs to be given "a good NPOV title" such as the euphemisms that the article says is used in comparable media. ... We should not compromise our core principles. If a case is wrongly decided, it should be overturned, not used as precedent. In the real world, it can take decades and wars to overturn bad cases. But for some wrong decisions, we never rest, do we? ... Precedents are important, but precedents do not trump our core values (NPOV = pillar). Wrongly-decided decisions, no matter how large the majority, will in the end be overturned. Meanwhile, we can stick to NPOV and decline to accept such N-word decisions as grounds for our reasoning elswwhere. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 05:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that your are selectively interpreting WP:NPOV. It specifically states that naming should not be used to resolve POV conflicts. Thanks! --Cerejota 06:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I honor your willingness to patiently debate this point. With all due respect, (1) your own sources mention the self-identifying criterion, so how do you explain it's application to the n-word? (2) You may be reading too much into NCON insofar as it applies there or here. You've quoted this sentence from NCON: "WP:NPOV specifically says: If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors."

Your intepretation. You say that this means: "In other words, leave the controversial title, but explain it is controversial and why (which is subject to OR and RS rules)." (italics added) However, ...

Suggested rebuttal. First, those who call for a neutral title are NOT claiming that this will settle a POV dispute. Instead, it is proposed merely as one step in comprehensively resolving the dispute, which surely does need to extend throughout the editing of the body (OR, RS), as you say. Second, your interpretation ("leave the controversial title") ignores the continuation of the NOCN paragraph: "They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute." (bold added) By objective basis, the article then uses three criteria, including self-identification. The n-word article itself (per my blockquote above) gives the RS to reject the n-word as self-identification. Therefore, I submit that the n-word, Islamofa-ist and other articles titles have been wrongly decided and cannot stand as precedents.

We disagree on interpreting NCON, as I've tried to unpack your viewpoint, and I urge you to my interpretation serious consideration, if only to help me learn. HG | Talk 06:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting to work on an acceptable NPOV title

Jossi et alia, for the purposes of a "good NPOV title to calm the spirits around here" I'm wondering if you might consider the following ideas. First, that a minimalist way to achieve an NPOV alternative would be to find a SYNONYMOUS title, which retains the same basic meaning (thereby avoiding the misreadings Ptk-fgs mentioned)? Second, do you think you might be able to convince folks to live with (not their first choice) an NPOV title that might be awkward stylistically, yet can calm the spirits by being synonymous. (Shamelessly self-serving plug: I tried to construct a convincing argument for an NPOV synonym above, leading to principle P3. Could you look at this for a sec? Thanks!) HG | Talk 04:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel and apartheid-era South Africa analogies? Debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa?--Cerejota 05:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, though we apparently have different reasons to seek an NPOV title, let me comment briefly. I would be glad to try to explore a way to build broad agreement around either option above. I esp like how you've used "apartheid-era" to keep the problematic term in the title, yet have it modify the one place where it DOES satisfy the principle of self-determination! The differences lie in the terms "analogies" and "Debate".

Debate. I believe people on both (all) sides of the aisle would accept "Debate" without reservation as a neutral term in this context, based on what you all have found w/reliable sources. Whether to use it in the Title or a Subheading strikes me as an editorial decision, not a NPOV matter. If that's the topic of the article or subsection, fine.
Analogy. There are defects with the term "analogies" -- making for a less-than-ideal title. Yet, both sides might live with analogy as a roughly-NPOV term, though it certainly wouldn't be the first choice of those criticizing this article. The NPOV problem is this: analogy means partial resemblance or similarity, but the article really needs to fairly present the points-of-view of both scholars (& others) who see similarity, as well as those who see differences. Hence, analogy only reflects the similarity side. So that's why I deprecated analogy in the list of potential neutral terms for this article (above). Comparison is significantly better, because it's primary meaning refers to "similarities and differences." Thus it's use in scholarship (e.g., CompLit) -- however, the popular usage often is the second meaning, resemblance (alone). (College teachers will tell you that an assignment for a "comparison" will work far better if you remind students to deal with differences, too.) This second meaning is thereby tainted w/ some POV (like analogy). So far, the only "strongly neutral" wording I can suggest is "Similarities and differences" (awkward for titles). Does this reasoning resonate with you? Thanks. HG | Talk 06:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to throw cold water on the constructive work towards consensus, but "debate" implies a reasoned, procedural approach that, for me, simply doesn't fit the events.

As with "Islamofascism," people around the world are pretty much furious about this, whichever side they take, and are not, as far as I can tell, inclined to yield to a moderator. (Carter, for instance, refused to engage in a debate, or discussion, or whatever it was supposed to be, at Brandeis University.) For my money, it's a controversy. With strong parallels to the controversy over the use of the term "Islamofascism." BYT 12:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or The apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, thanks for throwing another option into the ring. Would you accept a Move to these 2 Titles, provided it didn't foreclose the option of a Merge later on?

- In terms of rolling up our sleeves to edit, I'm not sure "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" quite captures the scope. The debate isn't about their violent conflict, it's not just about their competing propaganda efforts, it's substantively about policies, well, how's this: "Israeli policy toward Palestinians in comparison with apartheid-era South Africa" ? (not for style, but for NPOV and our topic) HG | Talk 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Epithet issues

Cerejota writes, above:

I think this is why I now advocate "apartheid-era South Africa". I have always recognized here that "Israeli apartheid" is used as an epithet (in fact it has to do with how this page was first created!). This use comes to dominate this article, including the lead, whereas there is a much more wider body that studies this from a less polemical perspective... what Adam and Moodley call "pragmatic". So perhaps using "apartheid" can lead to confusion about the topic at hand. We do a disservice to our readers if we are not giving this topic its own article. We do not put Nigger under Racial epithets, we have Nigger. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why the fact that "Israeli apartheid" is used as an epithet means we should euphemize the article title, and I'm afraid a title involving "apartheid-era South Africa" would, for me, cross the border into euphemism.

Of course "Israeli apartheid" is an epithet. It's also a scholarly poli-sci controversy. Both are happening at the same time. The epithet sums up the controversy, and is manifestly notable. The polemics/name-calling and the parallel scholarly debate are Siamese twins. The article should cover them both.

[The "scholarly debate" twin is a midget, not an equal. Andyvphil 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)]

By the way, many of us were lectured repeatedly, and with varying levels of civility, on what I will call this "epithet shmepithet" point during the discussions about Islamofascism. We were assured the fact that an article title reflects an epithet is meaningless, because WP:NOTCENSORED.

And note, please, Offended Editors of the World (we were told), that the main article for "Nigger" is not Nigger (epithet), or Nigger (term), but Nigger. Same deal with Wop and Kike. No wiggling, please, we were instructed, and no euphemisms. Take your epithet straight, as it builds character for both you and the encyclopedia. And that was the position that carried the day.

I was assured by scores of passionate editors -- most oddly silent now -- that the only criteria to be considered was notability, and that how a group self-described, or wanted to be described, was utterly beside the point. If we insist on WP:IAR, let us at least ignore them consistently. BYT 12:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT -- To keep the Talk page cohesive, it's often better to reply to somebody immediately after their comment or in an existing section, like Should titles be neutral?, above. Otherwise, we may get slapped with a Repeating Argument ticket. (Feel free to move this comment with yours, thanks!) Also: Me, my family and friends are deeply hurt ("Offended") by these words and, in order to be civil please don't use the actual N-word. I don't take my epithets straight, thank you. Ok, back to your points:

I agree with you on the principle of self-description (G3 above). I think you also agree, despite your sardonic tone, that the neutrality pillar should be applied consistently, not ignored consistently.
Yes, the WP:NOTCENSORED counter-argument. So, what's our response? First, we might concede that at least one instance of the offensive terms may be used to clarify any chosen euphemisms, or with proper weight mentioned occasionally in the text. Second, perhaps a strong rejoinder is found directly in WP:NOTCENSORED itself, which cites its own exceptions including neutrality: "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view) ...." This clearly demonstrates to your interlocutors that the NPOV pillar may trump the NOTCENSORED policy as need be. Thanks for raising this issue. HG | Talk 13:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between Islamofacism that is a political epithet or political classification of unnamed people or organizations in the title of an article, and apartheid as an epithet used against a whole country in the title. The comparison is unfair an asymmetrical. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unnamed people or organizations"? You're kidding, right? BYT 14:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. That article does not single-out an entire country, as this one does. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than singling out a country, Islamofascism paints one billion Muslims with the same brush. No comparison though, eh? Tiamat 07:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Islamofascism or Islamism does not equal Islam. <<-armon->> 01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Per BYT above (and Urthogie further above, or somewhere anyway), I would be happy with Israeli "apartheid" controversy, scare quotes and all. As this is an IAR moment, I am not keen to do the same with Islamofascism. If others want to pursue a change of this sort for Islamofascism, that is their business, but I would urge everyone to abstain from linkage – that is, from making their support for changes to this page contingent on changes to other pages. To pursue linkage or "system-wide NPOV" is to repeat (albeit in lesser form) the WP:POINTishness that got us into this mess in the first place.

While I accept BYT's reasoning that this is more of a controversy than a debate, I would point him to Cerejota's comments above, and mine elsewhere on this page (and HG's talk page), regarding what Cerejota calls the "wider body [of work] that studies this from a less polemical perspective." The subject of this article isn't purely or even primarily a food fight; though given the stoked passions of all of us contributing to this page, and the internet source bias of Wikipedians more generally, we have tended to emphasize the food fight disproportionately. The bombshell reverberations of Carter's book have also brought this food fight to the fore; his being a U.S. president and Nobel laureate, and one whose rhetoric and persona are heavily coded as Christian, and the way he implicitly draws upon these forms of moral authority as he levels the charge of "apartheid" in the very title of a prominent book – all these factors seem to have conspired to create heightened controversy. My analysis of the Carter controversy is open to dispute, of course, but the fact is, comparisons between South Africa and Israel were a commonplace among Israel-watchers on all parts of the political spectrum long before Carter. It would be difficult to imagine a mainstream commentator more pro-Israel, pro-Likud, pro-Sharon, etc., than William Safire, and yet here he is 1985:

...[I]f you enjoy the cognitive dissonance that comes with trying to hold contradictory beliefs at the same time, try this: How can defenders of Israel's right to Judea and Samaria, where Arabs outnumber Jews 10 to 1, call for "one man, one vote" in South Africa, where non-whites outnumber whites four to one? Part of the American agony over policy toward Pretoria is the exposure of our internal inconsistencies...

Safire then goes on to extol the virtues of realism and pragmatism latent in such forms of "cognitive dissonance." No one has ever accused Safire of trading in anti-Israel "epithets" (!) If we're not moths to the hottest flames of rhetoric, and if we resist the pull of recentism, this article can have a larger, more interesting and nuanced subject than we've yet covered.--G-Dett 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I'd like to see the kernel of the Safire quote in the article, as an example of the ZA analogy used legitimately. How about it? Andyvphil 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Regarding legitimacy, I'm not sure Safire gleefully riding shotgun in Ariel Sharon's helicopter over "Judea and Samaria" has any more of it than the peanut farmer and the celebrity defense attorney having their food fight at Brandeis. But the quote is indicative of how common the analogy has been at times, all over the political spectrum. I've found something like 15 separate instances of Thomas Friedman using it since 2000 (yes, the same Friedman who has been described by the New York Review of Books as America's most influential mainstream pundit/commentator on the Middle East). That's more times in print than Carter himself. I really do think Carter's being not only not Jewish but downright redolent with a certain brand of rural sourthern Christian-ness has had the effect of pushing the analogy over the line from controversial to radioactive – but that's a story for another day. Yes, the article could benefit from the Safire example and other, more carefully selected examples. I've been sort of holding off from editing it til we figure out our coordinates and future course here. I am however contemplating writing a dummy article, more descriptive and summative with regards to the analytical and polemical dimensions of the analogy, and less he-said-she-said. Just to have around as a point of reference.--G-Dett 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to like Safire to notice that he is using a legitimate comparison. The peanut farmer, not so much so. And I'm still hoping you'll fix up Zbig. Andyvphil 22:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Some maybe consider the terms "XXX apartheid" as epithets, but if those terms are here to stay, then I think each term should be properly defined, just to avoid any confusion. I pasted all definitions from the "xxx apartheid" articles into one Apartheid/Temporary and let's see what is missing or what is wrong. For example, in the Brazil article the term is wrongly defined. There are no allegations to existence of this word, everyone in Brazil is using it and no one takes offence, but there is no analogy to South Africa, because such policy doesn't exist and never did. It's just another idiom meaning something else. I didn't change nothing in the texts but replaced "allegations of XXX apartheid draw..." by "XXX apartheid is the allegation which draws...". Feel free to fix whatever you think should be done. Maybe it helps to reach the middle ground. greg park avenue 16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Title: "Israeli apartheid" Controversy?

Just a quick comment-- shouldn't both words of the phrase be in quotes? "Israeli apartheid" debate? Or is there something lost by quoting the entire phrase?--User:Urthogie 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That would make it look like a fixed phrase, like "war on terror" or "axis of evil," when it fact there are many variations.--G-Dett 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Or like "Who is not with us, is against us" greg park avenue 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says we're babysitters of Israel? Jimmy Carter didn't bother to protect Israel with ~~parentheses~~ quotation marks while using the word "apartheid". So why should we? And no one cares when the term "Brazilian apartheid" comes along. greg park avenue 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has higher standards than Jimmy Carter. BTW, there is no good title, but I would be ok with "Israeli apartheid" controversy (or "Apartheid Israel" controvery). Israeli apartheid does not work because, unlike Nigger, it is not universally admitted to be an epithet. Nigger (epithet) would be redundant. Israeli apartheid (epithet) is contested. E.g., Carter says apartheid is Israel's policy in the occupied territories -- he may only be pretending not to understand the semantic overload, but he is not admitting to either epithet or analogy. Andyvphil 20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I already endorsed the 'controversy' and the 'similarities and differences' version, without restrictions. But inverted commas are not allowed in the titles of the articles. So what you gonna do about it? OK, I go along if these are used in subtitles, but you cannot single out Israel and leave the other countries in the cold. Everyone would laugh at that. greg park avenue 21:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's a software problem... Well, quotes are unusable in web page names too, so do the same kind of workaround: _Apartheid Israel_ controversy. And I have no objection to fixing all instances. Andyvphil 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You got my blessing. Just make sure it includes the whole packet. The best deal in town (Wikiville?) I say. BTW, the big question remains - Does have anyone any idea how to get around this ... eh, a little software problem? I must confess, ain't got none at all. greg park avenue 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: If we could have it, to whom would "Israeli apartheid" Controversy be unacceptable? Please speak up. Andyvphil 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How's "Dirty Jew" controversy or "Dirty Gypsy" controversy? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Dirty Jew, like Nigger is unambiguously an epithet. Many of those who use "Israeli apartheid" or its cognates purport to be fairly describing reality. I already said this. Did you miss it? Andyvphil 09:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better example would be "Allegations of Israeli fascism" or "Nazi Israel" analogy. One could create a rather large article that has all sorts of interesting and notable people comparing Israelis to Nazis, Sharon to Hitler, etc. Now, such an article would most likely a) be a platform for expressing anti-Zionist and antisemtic views b) consist essentially of acres of quote farm and c) violate NOR and the all-important WP:SYNTH. But since the present article does all that in spades, I'm not sure where any objections would come from. IronDuke 21:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I am being quoted...

...let me lay it out clearly.

For me it has always been clear that "allegations" is a WP:WTA, and those who insist including it are putting their POV in front of what the community as a whole finds reasonable. This is my only contention with the title as it stands. It violates a guideline thats stems directly, and is an extension of WP:NPOV. Israeli apartheid doesn't do this, and deletionist arguments against Israeli apartheid are entirely POV driven. They should let the article exist in peace (After a record four legitimate AfDs survived, I doubt it will be deleted), and concentrate on ensuring that it remains NPOV in presentation, reliably and verifiably sourced, and with no original research.
I had supported Israeli apartheid as per Nigger. However, in the interest of compromise, I expressed support for Israeli apartheid analogy et al. I know come to realize this is an error, see below.
My most important argument in this page has been the quotefarm issue. Quotefarm, contrary to the narrow definition given by some, is not just an over-reliance on direct quotes, but also the use of a non-encyclopedic sourcing format, in which anything that contains a word is included, regardless of narrative coherence. While this is ok during the start of articles, in which sources By becoming essentially a collection of quotes of people using the analogy, we are significantly decreasing article quality. This also has the danger of WP:SYNTH. This is a very real concern, as deletionists in particular seem to focus on inserting random quotes in order to then use it as arguments in AfDs (a quick browse of the previous AfDs will show this).
Hence, we need a more specific title, like Debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa that clearly limits and defines the what the article is about, and diminishes the temptation for quotefarm, and protects the article from WP:POINT insertion of WP:SYNTH material. Israeli apartheid should be kept as a redirect, but it is to broad a title, in too broad terms. Pallywood, for example, while sharing many things with this article, does have a simplicity and directness that a complex, multi-layered debate like that on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa doesn't have. A complex issue on which some of the voices in the debate themselves negate the debate, cannot have a simple, quotefarm-bait title like Israeli apartheid.
This is why I still push for the Adam & Moodley's "Seeking Mandela" model. They are a monumental source in this debate, in that they treat both sides with respect, and prove beyond a doubt the notoriety and encyclopedic value of this article. Their relevance has been accepted by both sides of the POV, and hence they provide a useful secondary source to build a good framework. That their conclusion is that the analogy is a bad one, is something for the actual article, however, the framework is as neutral as one can get, and its very comprehensive. It shows the complex relationships, origins, polemics, actions, facts-on-the-ground, and even proposed solutions to the conflict. It connects the dots. Other sources also do this, but this is the only to which no significant NPOV objections have been raised, and hence ideal.

I write this because this is basically because all I see is variations on theme, where what we need is a radical reworking of the purpose, state and title of this article. It must be moved away definitely from its origin as an anti-Israeli rant, it must abandon quotefarm (and the "Desmond Carter" fetish), and it must change into a title that sources verify, and is not in violation of WP:WTA but clearly and without weasel-wording describes what it is about. Thanks! --Cerejota 23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A&M are all about drawing lessons from the ZA experience for Israel's situation. By all means take A&M and stick them in an article called Debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa. I will be happy to see it appropriately linked to from this article. But the phenomenon addressed by this article is not a debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa. The phenomenon addressed by this article is that the word "apartheid" is applied to Israel ("Apartheid Israel") or to its actions and policies ("Apartheid wall", "Israeli apartheid", "guilty of the crime of apartheid", etc.) as if apartheid had a well-defined meaning outside its ZA roots but without any consistency in applying the term to similar (or more similar to historical ZA) situations. No serious examination of apartheid-era South Africa is involved and that phrase has no place in the title. Andyvphil 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This article, under whatever title, is a POV fork and is inherently POV. Most of it is OR as well, and what isn't should be in the article on the Israeli-Arab conflict. And by the way, "Allegations" is not a word to avoid according to WP:WTA. 6SJ7 00:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a POV fork, insofar as it cannot possibly be coherently placed as a small section of another article. It will either overtake other content, result in needing to become a subpage, or be artificially kept small and unimportant. I think the latter suits a certain POV just fine, but that is no reason: The notability, variety, verifiability of sources demonstrates this. Your contention that it is OR is likewise completely unfounded. You provide no evidence of non-WP:POINT OR, no evidence of lack of notability (in the face of a dozen or so primary and secondary sources by notable academics and political figures). Your unfounded opinion is in fact the only real OR around here.

Now, you are incorrect on "allegations" not being WP:WTA, please see WP:WTA#So-called.2C_soi-disant.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported. If Israel were being formally accused of the crime of apartheid, perhaps "allegations" might be used, but it isn't. Use of "allegations" immediately qualifies the rest of the words, which is precisely what WP:WTA, as an extension of WP:NPOV seeks that we do not do. Present the situation as is, let the reader decide. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hard to believe I'm saying this, but 6SJ7 is right. You are confusing "allegations" with "alleged" and are further failing to note that even "alleged" is "different from the [others]" in that it is only sometimes to be avoided.

Alleged (along with allegedly) ...[is] different from the foregoing in that [it is] generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity — they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear. (emphasis added)

The content of the article is exactly to make the identity of the allegers clear, so there is no need in policy to avoid the word. Andyvphil 00:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil, that's a highly original interpretation, one I already addressed: the part you quote clearly applies to its use in the journalistic sense. Not a single secondary source uses the term "allegation" because there is no formal process involved, as Israel has not been accused of the crime of apartheid.

The word can be used as way to not make forceful statements against accused or to weasel word, here it is clearly being used as a weasel word (although the worse example in wikipedia is Zionism and racism allegations). I suggest you try to understand the spirit of WP:WTA, which in this case is to provide clarity of topic under WP:NCON. "Allegations" is bad word for titles, that it is in part responsible for quotefarm mess. Thanks! --Cerejota 04:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Andyvphil, I find it interesting that you ignore everything I stated and proposed, except the title stuff. To be clear: Is it that you like the article as it is? What substantive edits if any do you feel it needs? Thanks!--Cerejota 05:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Then delete the word and call the article "Israeli Apartheid". Stand back and watch the pro-Israeli bloc howl in protest. Tarc 06:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And while Israeli apartheid would by far be a better title, for this very reason me and others have provided many others reasonable alternatives. Thanks!--Cerejota 17:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the allowed use of "alleged" is not limited to the journalistic. See the "for instance" in the quoted text. The policy is quite clear that "alleged" can be used when the identity of the alleger is specified, and I see no weaseling in the sentence, e.g., "Carter alleges that the Israeli policy in the occupied territories is apartheid." I'm not in love with the formulation, but there is no policy issue.

Nor am I in love with the article as it exists. It lacks shape. And I would prefer a historical narrative. But the "quotefarm" tags are misguided. The range of accusations is broad, and many need to be quoted. And A&M are mostly irrelevant, which I've already said (indeed, have been saying for many months), and which is why I am not engaged by your suggestions. Andyvphil 09:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with a historical narrative is that it doesn't exists anywhere. There is a historical narrative of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because these can be amply sourced... we have been down this road before: WP:OR is verboten, period. You might want that, but it doesn't exist outside of you wanting it.

As to A&M being irrelevant, care to elaborate? All I get from you is one-liners against A&M as a source, but no elaboration Have you read the book? Do you understand was it is about? Have you followed it sources around? Before Carter arrived on the scene, they were the most debated, cited, and discussed of all the sources we use, and is certainly notable. I think you are letting your POV affect your judgment in this question... It is not a neutral source, nor is it the only one, but is notable and provides a structure that is not WP:OR. That said, what non-OR structure would you suggest?

As to "allegations", it is dangerously approaching a debate that should be had in the talk page of WP:WTA, not here, however besides policy reasons, I have also stated other objections I have for the use of the term, which you haven't addressed. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "one-liners against A&M as a source". I have no objection to using A&M as a source -- on a subject to which they are relevant. Quoting self, "A&M are all about drawing lessons from the ZA experience for Israel's situation. By all means take A&M and stick them in an article called Debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa..." That also answers your question, "Do you understand was it is about?" I read the part of A&M that is available online some time ago, and it left me profoundly uninterested in the rest, since the excerpt was quite enough to convince me that they are simply wrong to think the ZA resolution has any relevance. Andyvphil 05:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If this article was about that book, I would agree. But it is not. It can be argued that this article cannot be but OR, when taken out of the context of that book and Carter's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil writes;

But the phenomenon addressed by this article is not a debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa. The phenomenon addressed by this article is that the word "apartheid" is applied to Israel ("Apartheid Israel") or to its actions and policies ("Apartheid wall", "Israeli apartheid", "guilty of the crime of apartheid", etc.) as if apartheid had a well-defined meaning outside its ZA roots but without any consistency in applying the term to similar (or more similar to historical ZA) situations.

Hear, hear. I would only add what I suspect people have heard enough of, that the analogue between a (dormant) historical phenomenon and a present-tense series of events is, again, eerily reminiscent of what was decided at Islamofascism.

Rightly or wrongly, those of us who pointed out that ACTUAL HISTORICAL fascism (i.e., fusion of corporate and state sectors, heavy nationalism/xenophobia, racism) was wackily different from the Sunnah of the Prophet, were overruled.

The fact that large numbers of people who neither understood or cared about such academic niceties WERE EQUATING the two -- THAT, we were told, was what the article was about, "And yes, if you want, you can quote history and political science scholars who disagree."

I believe it will be up to responsible editors with an interest in responsible presentation of the facts to make sure the content here doesn't get as twisted as the content there has gotten, whatever the naming decision here ends up being. BYT 11:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

a bit long winded, but seems to cover all the bases...

Here are some proposals:

Controversy over the Israeli apartheid analogy
Israeli apartheid analogy debate
Israeli apartheid analogy controversy

No quotes would be used. This actually sounds mildly encyclopedic, and would lead the article towards a discussion of the controversy rather than a quotefarm of allegations and multiparagraph quotes on the palestinian struggle that mention the word "apartheid". We could have a simple section called "Examples" which provided the various uses of the analogy, and then lead into an indepth discussion of its use by secondary sources.

I oppose merely using Israeli apartheid analogy as Mackan suggested earlier because this would have an article in which the entire Middle East Conflict was reduced to "apartheid", and then a pro vs con of that POV. The real notability of this article comes from the allegation itself.--User:Urthogie 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the first of these best, with "the" dropped. They're all about equivalent content-wise, but "analogy debate" and "analogy controversy" sound sorta wacky to my ears.--G-Dett 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I second Israeli apartheid analogy debate, although Israeli apartheid debate is shorter, and we could use the lead to explain the use of "apartheid" as analogy - but can live with Israeli apartheid analogy debate if it moves things forward. "Debate" is better than "controversy", in that it directs us to a favor academic comparisons and responses (ie "debate") rather than political hyperbole and polemics (ie "controversy"), which is at the root of the quotefarm. "Controversy" leaves it open for any commentator to be included, which puts us in the same place as before, and besides this isn't an specific controversy, but rather a debate within a wider controversy, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I also think we should move quotes to wikiquote:Allegations of Israeli apartheid, rather than delete them. I also reassert A&M's "Seeking Mandela"'s model as good model to structure the contents. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with the direction this is taking. I thought we were discussion the article title first, and I see editors already preempting how the article will be written under the new name. We have this article in its current state: we need first to name it properly and leave the discussion on how to structure it for later. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

These are the titles I propose:

The apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or
The apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: I think artificially separating content and title is not right. Changing the title without changing the contents is a cosmetic change, while most of the objections raised by non-deletionists to this article have little to do with the title, and much to do with content. You have quotefarm issues, neutrality issues, bias issues, and most importantly, structural narrative issues. While titles can help with providing focus, they are less important than actual contents.

As to your suggestions, I liked Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (without "The" - that is almost never used in titles), but find it a bit too long, yet it precisely and neutrally describes what this article should be about, I can't object in that sense. Maybe a bit too originally researchy, but we already decided that the one title that is not original research, Israeli apartheid is a bad title - (see why I don't like "controversy" above).

So if Uthorgie agrees, we could amend this to be about discussing a move to Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? We fling titles around but I would like to act on these suggestions... Thanks!--Cerejota 21:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I'm dubious about "debate." Have people ruled out "Israeli apartheid" controversy or Israeli "apartheid" controversy? 22:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

How about not doing anything?

Why do anything? "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" isn't a great title, but most of the alternatives are worse. --John Nagle 21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not only a bad title. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it invites quotefarm, polemics, original research, POV forking, and all kinds of other bad stuff. Specificity in titles is a good idea, "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is not specific. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Apartheid" is a system imposed by a government that divides communities by IDs etc. That's what happens in Israel, and of course it applies much more in the Occupied Territories. The alternative descriptions fail to deal with the system as commonly described. PalestineRemembered 21:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Now you will also argue that some immigrants in the US suffer form apartheid as well. Not really. Apartheid in this context is a political term, nothing less nothing more. It has nothing to do with white South Africa's government policies≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a comparison of the present-day practices of Israel to the practices fo apartheid-era South Africa. How hard is that to understand? Very hard, given how often this circular argument arrives at this same point every few months or so. It is a valid article title for a valid and existing criticism of Israel. Tarc 23:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Political" is sometimes use as to mean "partisan" or "polemical", in their epithet form. The debate is political so far as it involves political question, changes, and proposals. Part of it includes evaluating current, in the ground, facts, but part of it is about what to do with facts, and also part of it is about how South Africa went from being a cesspool of racial and ethnic oppression, with levels of civil strife similar to that in Israel and the territories, to a point in which a foreign minister of Apartheid South Africa became a leader in the ANC. As I have said, I take issue with the reductionist viewpoints that seek to limit the debate to two polar opposites, and refuse to let the rainbow of differences shine. Not everyone who uses this analogy is anti-Zionist, not everyone who criticizes the analogy is a Zionist, and even more, not everyone analogizes in the same fashion: some like Desmond Tutu argue from a human rights perspective, others argue from a civil rights perspective, and so on and so forth. I do think that if this becomes a compromise to only allow the extremes - as suggest by the view above - to dominate discourse we will be just engaging in a covert form of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and doing grave harm to our encyclopedic mission. Thanks! --Cerejota 02:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The only battling going on really is by those who cannot stand to see the article exist, and failing repeated and repeated and repeated AfDs, seek to neuter the article and/or the title by any means available. Or create pointy forks like Chinese apartheid as fraudulent counterbalances. Others recognize that prominent public figures have likened Israeli practices in the OT to those of South Africa, and have created an article about such a notable allegation. It is really quite a simple matter once we slash through the rhetoric and hyperbole; the allegations have been made, the article covers the allegations and the counter-arguments against them, and the article title reflects that reality. Tarc 13:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A spectacular piece of original research, courtesy of G-Dett, in answer to her friend Andyvphil's desire for a historical narrative, a desire she shares, and which Cerejota sees as unquenchable because unsourceable – a narrative [to resume] still awaiting verification, but offering promise in the meantime to us and other like-minded Wikipedians

I am with Andyvphil in wanting a historical narrative. Cerejota, are you quite sure that "the problem with a historical narrative is that it doesn't exists anywhere"? That's not a rhetorical question; I'm wondering. It would be very surprising to me if it didn't. Just from reading around in articles (I have access to full-text historical databases of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc., as well as Lexis-Nexis) a historical evolution of the analogy is shaping up pretty crisply. Here it is, in all its originally synthetic glory: 1) the analogy was invoked occasionally before 1967, usually by either those who wished to shore up South Africa's moral credibility or those who wished to demolish Israel's. 2) After '67 (and especially after the early '70s) it became a more common rhetorical trope, its valence shifting from a criticism of Israel as an "apartheid state" to a criticism of the occupation as constituting a form of aparthied. According to the NYT, during this period the comparison became a "commonplace among Israeli moderates." But it was also employed more cynically among African nations who used it to rope in Arab nations into the struggle against apartheid. This is a very complex time for the analogy, as it appears to have been reinforced by Israel's close economic and military relations with South Africa; these close relations were often invoked by those employing the analogy. The stock Israeli and pro-Israeli responses were a) What hypocrisy. Everyone's doing business with South Africa, some more covertly than others, but as usual, we're getting singled out for it; and b) Half the world is boycotting us and all our neighbors want to destroy us – we aren't kicking our bedfellows out for eating crackers (in so many words). The analogy during this period gets cross-fertilized/cross-contaminated with the "Zionism is Racism" line, so Israeli moderates who invoke it at the time did so with the expected disclaimers. 3) In the late '80s and the lead-up to Oslo, the analogy became a rhetorical commonplace, as I've already indicated by quoting people like Safire using it. Naturally enough. It became a useful trope for those arguing for territorial compromise and/or separation from the vantage-point of realpolitik. 4) After the failure of Oslo and the beginning of the second intifada, the analogy was invoked as a warning (by people like Thomas Friedman) to those who were described as overly complacent about not negotiating with the Palestinians and allowing the settlements to progressively erase the border between Israel and the territories. You've got a major demographic problem in the offing if you sit on your heels, said Friedman and others. Also during this time, with the fall of apartheid and the seemingly miraculous resolution to the South African impasse, people like Adam & Moodley (I can't say this enough – there are many others thinking in this vein) began to look to SA as a positive model for Israel, in terms of how to approach settler-native dichotomies, how to transform a nation without "destroying" it, how to effect "peace and reconciliation", how to marshal an international moral consensus that doesn't demonize anyone or cause a backlash, etc., all the while acknowledging the essential differences between the two conflicts. 5) The peanut farmer arrives on the scene, and is met and tackled in the mud by the celebrity defense attorney, and a pack of major-media nitwits and thugs crowd in and the food fight begins in earnest.

Everything there is sourced/sourceable, but the synthesis is, for the moment, original to me. There are a number of books on Israel and South Africa, and I feel quite confident that some form of this skeleton history, at least stages 1-4, will be found among them.--G-Dett 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unbothered by the level of synthesis you propose, but you're a bit unclear on which analogy you're discussing. Safire, e.g., compared IL's & ZA's demographic situations but made no reference to apartheid... And wasn't it your position that "apartheid" applied to Israel need not be an analogy? Have you abandoned reliance on the authoritativeness of the OED (which said, I think, "also fig.,..." not that the second definition was figurative).Andyvphil 05:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, various confusions. Safire is talking about apartheid; what else? He uses the actual word later in the article, if that makes a difference...but I can't understand why it should. His rhetorical emphasis, like that of a great many who use the apartheid comparison, is demography, realpolitik, and moral/political pragmatism – as opposed to the leftist solidarity, ethical outrage, and/or straightforward pro-Palestinianism of a great many others who use it. I rely on the OED's "authoritativeness" for how the English language is used, not how it should be used. It offers, incidentally, three definitions of apartheid, not two: (i) the narrow historical term for SA's former system of government, (ii) the general political term for systems of government premised on separate rights and privileges for segments of the population, and (iii) metaphorical uses like the "cultural apartheid" of black radio or the "nuclear apartheid" separating the men from the boys when it comes to international relations or whatever. My point in bringing that up earlier was to refute the silly idea that had taken hold of Wikipedia for several months (I am pleased to find it now fading and subsiding), the idea at the root of that gigantic WP:NOR-boondoggle mothership article Allegations of apartheid, that somehow instances of the use of the word "apartheid" according to its second and third dictionary definitions are perforce notable, even in the absence of any secondary sources commenting on that use or otherwise taking any note of it. As for whether use of the term implies a direct comparison with South Africa or not, that's decided by context, not by the OED, and it's an entirely separate issue from that of notability. From what I've read so far about the history of the "Israeli apartheid" meme, it usually involves a direct comparison, and is treated as such by the secondary sources who have given it so much attention. But that is neither here nor there when it comes to notability. It is the attentions of these secondary sources – the attentions themselves, and not their specific conclusions about whether an analogy is involved or just a hot-button political term – that have secured for us the notability of this topic for a Wikipedia article.--G-Dett 15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've lost track of where you gave the OED definition and would appreciate a diff. Also a cite for Safire.

The definitions in the OED provide a list of usages which is not the same as comprehensive guidance "for how the English language is used". Now, it is supported by a fairly comprehensive collection of citations which would be a good resource to determine "how the English language is used", but so far as I know that citation collection is only available internally. Now, there is no question that some English speakers use the word as if it means "ii) the general political term for systems of government premised on separate rights and privileges for segments of the population" and you may recall that before you provided the OED definitions I stated that the OED therefor ought to have included such a definition (a previous posting by another editor had claimed, falsely, that it did not). But my point is that the appearance of a definition in the OED does not mean that it is proper to use the word as if it were identical to that definition.

Thus Carter uses the word improperly despite the fact that his usage conforms to "definition ii", and indeed is the most prominent example of "definition ii" and thus the strongest argument for including "definition ii". He knows perfectly well that he is equating Israeli policies with racism even as he denies doing so. It's not, in this case, "decided by context" -- it's inherent in the word's semantic load. Dictionaries are ill-equipped to deal with this kind of two-faced usage.

And, no, at least in the quote you gave Safire is not talking about apartheid. He describes a demographic dilemma similar to that of Apartheid-era ZA, but the solution need not be apartheid. It could be expelling the arab population (ethnic cleansing is drastic, but not apartheid) or denying franchise (closer, but still no cigar).Andyvphil 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything there is sourced/sourceable, but the synthesis is, for the moment, original to me, so what do you proposed to do with this article, then? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to look through some actual books, printed on actual paper, and see if I can find a narrative of this sort. I'm feeling pretty sanguine about that. And in the meantime I'm not going to get too exercised about my possible preferences between Israeli apartheid debate controversy and Israel-South Africa comparison controversy debate about the Israel-Palestine conflict or whatever.--G-Dett 00:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember Timeline of Israeli apartheid? That's kind of where that was going. One could, perhaps, more simply divide the history into the early "epithet" period, and the post-First-Intifada separation program or "implementation" phase. But that would be original research, unless we get some better references. One key point is that quotes and comments in the article need to be dated. It makes a big difference whether something was said in 1974 or 2004. --John Nagle 02:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

During the timeline AfD I repeatedly asked for reliable secondary sources who supported a historical narrative (my own search has turned zilch), because I do agree a historical narrative is the most encyclopedic of narrative forms. Yet none have appeared. So as long as this is the case, WP:SYNTH baby, WP:SYNTH all the way...So my problem is not with the narrative per se, but the inability to come up with verifiability for it. In other words, we can verify the debate exists, we can provide narrative, but this historical perspective is only provided, to my knowledge, by stopthewall.org, and thats only for the wall, not the entire debate. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. Everything in the 1-2-3-4 narrative is sourced except the connective tissue. That is to say, if this article were to follow the ground rules for original research laid out by Allegations of French apartheid, we could put in my historical narrative now, today, as is (with the full citations of course), and the sourcing would be in every way superior to that of any of the other "apartheid" articles. Each of the 1, 2, 3, and 4 sections has strong secondary-source backing; i.e. there are numerous articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, et al describing the use of the comparison itself, in the terms I've laid out above – including, perhaps I need to stress, the bit about African nations invoking it cynically, the Israeli response to that, the prevalence of the comparison among Israeli moderates, the ubiquitous invocation of the analogy by South Africans, and so on. Mainstream media articles on the the analogy itself are downright abundant in the '70s and '80s. When I concede that this is a synthesis, I mean by my own rigorous standards. To take the example of South Africans using the analogy, by "synthesis" I do not mean that I've found enough examples of South Africans using it to make the generalization. I actually have secondary sources saying "Comparison with Israel has become an insistent theme in South Africa when people there discuss their country's actions." All I mean by "synthesis" is that I don't (yet) have any sources supplying the connective tissue between the major historical periods in question (before and after '67, before and after Oslo, before and after peace and reconciliation in SA, etc.) But let's keep things in perspective. The other "apartheid" articles don't even have secondary sources describing how the analogy is used, what its political valences and connotations are, etc., and we've got a motherlode of such sources for this article just waiting to be used. Connective tissue is a different matter. The France article deals with its lack of connective tissue by simply inventing it: "These debates also mirror earlier crises, particularly the 'headscarf affair' of 1989," "colonial apartheid in Algeria has been re-created in the cities of France," and so on – and obviously I don't intend for us to go down that route with this article. Given, however, the sheer volume of literature in the last four decades on the relationship – material and symbolic – between Israel and South Africa, I am quite confident that I will find sources for what connective tissue we need in order to assemble a robust historical narrative.--G-Dett 12:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I'd think all we really need is some historical narrative, though, not a single history incorporating all of the parts. If the concept of a "history of the comparison" exists, and all of the rest is sourced in some historical discussion, I believe that's about as stringent as any synth requirement gets. Mackan79 19:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly – thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to suggest WP:NOR required that we have a single source producing exactly our narrative. Only (i) good evidence that the comparison itself has been historicized by secondary sources, and (ii) sources for each main piece of connective tissue. E.g. we can't say the analogy really shifted gears after the fall of apartheid (in so many words) unless someone says that. At any rate, there's lots of stuff out there, and I think we really can take this article to the next stage, out of he-said-she-said and into something really interesting, informative, and (gasp!) not particularly incendiary.--G-Dett 22:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

List of candidates for a new title

It may be helpful to look at proposed new Article Names (Titles) in a systematic manner. This list is categorized according to their usage of the most contested word in the current title: apartheid. Apartheid has two meanings. (1st) The official self-described policy of South Africa. (2nd) Similar or analogous policies in other places.

In subgroup A, the (2nd) meaning of apartheid is used in the phrase "Israeli apartheid" and these titles presuppose or emphasize the claim that Israel has comparable policies. Conversely, the phrase may be merely an epithet. In the subgroup B, the word 'apartheid' is grammatically distanced from 'Israel'. Within subgroup B, 'apartheid' has either an ambiguous meaning (1st or 2nd), or explicitly the 2nd meaning as in "South African apartheid", or implicitly the 2nd thru the metonym of "South Africa." Within subgroup C of candidate titles, 'apartheid' is omitted from the title and article content would be subsumed under a rubric like human rights.

Feel free to add candidates to this list. Given that we may want to add brief explanations of each candidate title, the person who suggested the candidate is listed. Users are welcome to add themselves as a suggester.

(A) Keep the concept or epithet of 'Israeli apartheid' in the title

Note: The subgroup includes two quite different usages: the phrase as an epithet (see above) and as a point-of-view on how to conceptualize Israeli policies.

(A1) Retain the phrase Israeli apartheid

Israeli apartheid suggested by Tiamat 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC), BYT 17:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC), Cerejota 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Israeli apartheid analogy suggested by Tiamat 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Israeli apartheid analogy debate/controversy suggested by Urthogie User:Urthogie 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC), Cerejota 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Israeli apartheid controversy suggested by -G-Dett 00:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
"Israeli apartheid" controversy (epithet) suggested by Urthogie 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC), Andyvphil 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Israeli apartheid debate suggested by Tiamat 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"Israeli apartheid" debate (epithet) suggested by Urthogie 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Controversy over the Israeli apartheid analogy suggested by Urthogie User:Urthogie 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(A2) Find a more neutral substitute for Israeli "apartheid"

Israeli separation policies (Hafrada) -- Victor falk 13:08, 1 August 2007 in the Centralized discussion
(candidate titles using the term segregation)
Debate over the differential treatment of Palestinians in Israel (HG)

(B) Shift toward 'apartheid' as the self-described South Africa policy

(B1) Apartheid may be either 1st or 2nd meaning

Israel and apartheid suggested by Tiamat 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Debate on Israel and apartheid suggested by Tiamat 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Political debate about Israel and apartheid-like practices suggested by≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict suggested by ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC), Cerejota 21:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. suggested by ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(B2) Apartheid as official S.A. policy, explicit 2nd meaning

Debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa suggested by Cerejota 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Israel and apartheid-era South Africa suggested by Cerejota 03:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Israel and apartheid-era South Africa analogies suggested by Cerejota 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Similarities and differences between apartheid-era South Africa and Israeli policy suggested (via HG's options) by greg park avenue 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(B3) 'South Africa' as metonym for apartheid as its official S.A. policy

Similarities and differences between South Africa and Israel option suggested by HG 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Israel-South Africa analogy suggested by G-Dett 00:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(C) Omit 'apartheid' from title and use a broader rubric

Human rights in Israel -- see Centralized discussion
See also Jossi's merge proposal

Hope people find it useful to look at the range of candidate titles in this manner. Generally, I think that those who voted to Keep in AfDs tend to probably want candidates in subgroup (A), whereas those who voted to Delete probably want candidates in subgroup (C) (or in (A1) purely as an epithet). Where might common ground be found? It's my guess that to gain broad and stable agreement by both sides, we might want to focus on titles drawn from subgroup (B). Such a (B) title might not be anyone's first choice, but something everybody could live with. With agreement on a mutually-affirmed name, even if temporary, people could then work more cooperatively to apply WP policies to the content of the article (e.g., editing, keep, delete, merge, etc.).

You may want to put a concise WP Policy rationale under each title. For instance, the exploratory grounds (G1-2) of neutrality and notability, and possibly self-identification (G3), would justify at least the titles in subgroup (B). Some folks have suggested alternative grounds for subgroup (B) names (e.g., Cerejota). So, feel free to edit this list. (Please keep the subgroups intact.)

Overall, perhaps the list is encouraging insofar as people are showing flexibility in acknowledging the need for a name change and their willingness to accept several alternatives, even if it's not their ideal choice. HG | Talk 03:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Responses to list of candidates for a new title

Note: Feel free to add candidates onto the list, in the appropriate subsection. Thanks. HG | Talk

Below, I've added a rough framework with main headings (TOC) for the article, as a trial balloon.HG | Talk 17:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My research (still preliminary) so far strongly suggests that a) high-quality (i.e. academic) secondary-source material on the Israeli "apartheid" analogy is voluminous and still largely untapped; and b) Israel-South Africa relations as a "broader rubric" for this article is every bit as appropriate as Human rights in the Palestinian territories.--G-Dett 15:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you really saying that a reader who wants to get to the bottom of what "Israeli apartheid" really means should be forwarded to an article about diplomatic relations between Israel and South Africa? BYT 15:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I think this should be a stand-alone article on the analogy itself; I always have and always will. I'm just saying that the extensive secondary sources on the analogy (once we move beyond the recentism of Google searches for polemical statements), more often discuss it as a function of Israel's historically close diplomatic, economic, military, and symbolic ties with South Africa than as merely a kind of proxy rhetoric for human-rights debates.--G-Dett 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Suggested by jossi... Thanks!--Cerejota 06:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks, see heading (B1) HG | Talk 14:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the best of the bunch:

Keeps the word "apartheid" which is what the article is about, and avoids the appearance of the form associated with the epithet "Israeli apartheid".
Specifies this is about "debate", which should minimize the appearance of random quotes, and help with quotefarm. "Controversy" is too broad, in my opinion.
Related to point one, the inclusion of "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" immediately contextualizes this debate correctly; this is much more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than about "apartheid".

That said, I thank HG for taking the effort to outline alternatives. I mostly agree with his portrayal of the POVs involved in the discussion. And I would like to hear from people why Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a good alternative? Thanks!--Cerejota 06:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

One man's view: Because a) it masks the phrase "Israeli apartheid," which is now manifestly notable, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and b) it implies a more reasoned, procedural discussion than is taking place globally.

Of HG's alternatives, I think group (A1) is the most promising. BYT 14:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT (Urthogie, etc) and Cerejota (G-Dett, etc) -- I'd like you all to think about an idea that tries to be responsive to your view about notability, and the notability views of other Users. What if we set up an article structure that allowed both the the reasoned discourse and epithet approaches under one roof. For instance, consider this article structure (but Title and headings are only examples, ok?) --

An NPOV title, probably from group (B) candidates, such as: "Comparisons of Israeli policy and apartheid-era South Africa"

Section w/ a heading such as: Comparative research on Israel and South Africa (Subsections by topic, e.g. housing, demographics)
Section w/ a heading such as: Comparisons drawn in popular discourse (Subsections by popular source, e.g. Carter)
Section w/ a heading such as: Apartheid as an epithet: The case of Israel (Info cited by BYT, et al.)

Please, please note this point -- I'm only saying that we can agree on some possible headings. After the article is renamed, maybe with agreed-upon headings, then it's up to various folks to prove that there are reliable and notable sources within each heading. Otherwise, any given section may be empty and eliminated. We simply give folks a framework, a level playing field, in which to demonstrate that they are right about notability, etc. Got it? So, the first step is to agree on the title and headings.

What does this mean for you, BYT or G-Dett, Cerejota? BYT works on section 3, and you can try to refute notability of other sections. Cerejota does same for section 1. It allows each of you to hopefully agree on a gracious compromise with Users who think they can find notability with other sections. Might you live with this kind of Naming compromise? Thanks for trying to find a solution that might satisfy opposing views, giving you all some stability to work on reliable sources, WP:UNDUE, etc. HG | Talk 15:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good efforts here, which are much appreciated. I think I'd need to know what you are proposing that we call the article. BYT 15:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

HG, I think your latest suggestion (directly above) is workable, one of the best things yet put forward.--G-Dett 15:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi suggested Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which I could work with. BYT 16:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I could work with either. I prefer HG's Comparisons of Israeli policy and apartheid-era South Africa because it strikes me as more supple and versatile, and better suited to presenting the different discursive dimensions of the analogy – as demonstrated by the prospective tripartite structure he lays out. Why, if I may ask, do you prefer Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? --G-Dett 16:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's more direct, because it's more accurate (for my money, it's not a debate, which implies structure and procedure; this discussion, as this page amply demonstrates, is messy) and because it's less academic-sounding, and thus more likely to resonate with a reader trying to figure out what all the fuss is about from the Carter flap. BYT 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are solid reasons; I'll give it some thought.--G-Dett 16:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I favour "Israeli apartheid debate" or "Israeli apartheid analogy" but would settle with the slightly POVish "Israeli apartheid controversy". Debate and controversy both concede in the title that the concept that there is an "Israeli apartheid" is contested. Titles compariing Israel with South Africa under apartheid are too restrictive since not all instances in which the "apartheid" term have been used are necessarily strictly analogous with South Africa. Introducing the term "epithet" in the title would "poison the well" by dismissing the analogy out of hand and imply it's illigitimate. Jossi's suggestions of "The apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" and "The apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" are possibilities but I don't see why they are preferable to the shorter "Israeli apartheid conflict", "Israeli apartheid debate" or "Israeli apartheid controversy" unless longer titles are seen as somehow better than shorter ones.

I don't like "Israel and apartheid" as the title could be misunderstood as referring to Israel's relations with apartheid-era South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. "Debate on apartheid and Israel" doesn't convey any additional meaning than "Israeli apartheid debate" ie it's wordier than necessary. Lothar of the Hill People 21:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concerns, however, lets be flexible. I think the sooner we move beyond the "Israeli apartheid" as a phrase (it will, presumably be kept as a redirect, so its validity as a search term remains) the better. A number of editors have stated this phrase is unacceptable to them, however, the title must contain "Israel" and "apartheid" for the topic of the article to remain the same. Hence Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, proposed by an editor from a pro-Israel POV, become enticing: they keep the topic clear and in context, and has a good chance of becoming consensus. I have said why I do not like "controversy" (it opens up quotefarm all over again), but I won't object to Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if this moves things forward.

I think, Jossi's proposal of Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the best title change proposal I have seen here, period. I have repeatedly stated why Israeli apartheid is a better title, but this is impossible to generate consensus for (its been a year people, it won't happen!!!). I do not understand why people do not want to move things forward regarding the title. I am starting a straw poll. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Props

Props to whoever began this important article. I'm not surprised it's been a repeated target for deletion, given the ongoing presence of a persistent cabal of zionist editors here at the website. I haven't read it this piece in its entirety, but a quick skim and noting the attempt to present both sides -- that's a good thing.

One thing that someone might want to include is the whole business of an analysis of just what a settler colony is (e.g., Rhodesia, South Africa, Israel) and how, particularly on the African continent, European settler colonies have colluded to maintain hegemony over their indigenous populations.

With regard to the tendency of occupying authorities toward increasing land acquisition/usurpation, one might mention the startling precentage (90 percent, I believe) of Israeli settlements that sprawl beyond their authorized boundaries -- and that's not even including the settlements that are illegal to begin with, consigning Palestinians to what are, in effect, bantustans.

Please keep me alerted to any attempts to delete or propagandize this article. I'd definitely like to weigh in. deeceevoice 19:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I get you a twinkie too? Better go hide, the cabal might be after you :) --Tom 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Make it a chocolate cupcake--but I'm no good at hiding. deeceevoice 20:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of your comments were unnecessarily inflammatory. Please consider refactoring these, unless you want me or others to do it for you.≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Best just to leave them for the record, imho. --Tom 19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but we do not need that kind of language given the contention. It is divisive and uncivil. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments were not intentionally offensive. The very clear fact is there is a group of editors on wikipedia who are most certainly zionist, who have a history of working in concert to twist/skew, censor, and apparently in this case, obliterate -- use whatever term you like -- articles which examine anti-zionist or pro-Palestinian issues/subject matter. deeceevoice 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

An Arbitration case has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop. --John Nagle 19:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Strawpoll on title

Straw polls are non-binding, and only serve to illustrate state of consensus.

Please vote in order of preference:

Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Keep current or others to be discussed

Please do not propose new one here, this poll is not intended to be final, and there is a thread for discussion. Look at my vote for how I propose to vote (yes, straw polls ARE votes).

2, 1, 3 --Cerejota 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
3, 1. It's not a debate. --Andyvphil 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll objection

Please don't run yet another meaningless "straw poll". This issue is currently in arbitration. --John Nagle 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is for behavior, not content. Thanks! --Cerejota 02:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. All of these distractions, from straw polls to AfDs to DRVs, should be put on hold as a show of good faith while the ArbCom case runs its course. I urge to you with draw it, and failing that, for others to decline to participate. Tarc 02:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not favor straw polls. But note that having an ArbCom case related to user conduct, does not mean that interested editors should stop collaborating on this or any other related article. We are making good progress, and that is what counts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi, even on the straw polling: It just that I am very close on being bold, and wanted to see where consensus is... However, this "lets wait for ArbCom" attitude I think is harmful to making progress on content. I also take issue that continuing to edit is failing to assume good faith, when it is quite the contrary: it assumes that ArbCom will not rule on anything that should be controlled by the community. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Jossi

In the brief time that I've been away from this page, User:Jossi has put forward a new proposal for ending our controversy: renaming Allegations of Israeli apartheid as either Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This proposal has some points in its favour, and is worthy of consideration. I have serious concerns about the ramifications of this change, however, and cannot yet give it my assent.

The problem with the title, "Apartheid [controversy/debate] in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", is that it could subtly shift the focus of the article -- from the "Israeli apartheid" analogy to one in which allegations of "Israeli apartheid" and allegations of "Palestinian apartheid" are put on an equal footing. I worry that some editors could be tempted to use the new title as a means of highlighting a few scattered literary references to "Palestinian apartheid", and arguing that these deserve equal space with the far more copious literary references to "Israeli apartheid". This would be a serious error.

Rightly or wrongly, the "Israeli apartheid" analogy has been used by many diverse sources; the "Palestinian apartheid" analogy has not ... and it would not be appropriate for us to designate a new title for this article, if the title would for all intents and purposes foster the creation of an Allegations of Palestinian apartheid article, existing in the same space as the current "AoIa". I will make no comment on whether or not Jossi could have envisioned this outcome when making this proposal.

I hope that other contributors will address this concern. CJCurrie 00:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, CJCurrie. I have not seen any such "Allegations of Palestinian apartheid", so I do not understand the concern. In any case, I think that good progress is being made, and it will be a pity to throw that away on the basis of a possible problem down the line, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no Palestinian apartheid debate, in fact this is the first time I have heard of such a thing, and I read Haaretz and Ynews daily. I think you are WP:CRYSTALballing it too much. If editors try to push OR, then we will edit, and we will see.

However, if such a "Palestinian apartheid debate", verified by secondary sources, exists, I see no reason why it cannot share the same article with a "Israeli apartheid debate": they would be related debates, prima facie. Let the sources speak, I say.

P.S. Please participate in the straw poll I started. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not heard of a "Palestinian apartheid" debate either, but it wouldn't surprise me if a few isolated statements have been made by some authors. Again, I'm concerned that changing the article title to Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could lead some editors to highlight those statements. CJCurrie 03:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I for one object the quotefarm completely because we already have strong secondary sources to provide narrative structure, so I would strongly oppose the inclusion of orphan primary source quotes without context, and hopefully would other editors. I will repeat that the only way this phantom "Palestinian apartheid" could be included is if secondary sources support it. I understand your fears, but I think they cannot be resolved before hand: this is the ancyclopedia anyone can edit, after all.

However, I do not understand your fears as an objection to title change. Why would you rather continue to have this sorry excuse of a title, and the whole quotefarm issue it creates, than move it to a more appropriate title, based on an abstract fear? I simply cannot understand that position, and believe me, I have a great capacity to get on the other person's shoes. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have the title changed to Israeli apartheid analogy, which would alleviate the current problems without running the risk of shifting the article's focus. CJCurrie 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That does not work for me CJ. It is not just an "analogy", it is a political debate in the context of a political conflict, and quite a controversial one at that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the article cannot be titled Israeli apartheid debate? Forgive me if this has already been discussed; I cannot recall offhand. CJCurrie 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason, or at least my reason, is that it is lacks context, which is related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That is why there is a proposal to name the article as a debate framed in that context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(out of indent to get out of the corner) See CJ? I also agree with you that Israeli apartheid analogy might be better (it is shorter, for one), but I think Jossi's position on context is a legitimate one, as it would put the article on a firm footing as one of a series of articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc. I think it is the best we can hope for in terms of looking for a good title that gets consensus moving. If we get you on board, I think we can convince people this is a good idea, and have a solution in a short time frame. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Analogy" gives the impression that Carter, the most recent and by far most prominent lightning rod on this, was speaking analogously or metaphorically about the term "apartheid," and that is not true. WP should not endorse this (polemically driven) POV. BYT 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I this article was about Carter's views, I would agree with you. But it is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not about Carter. It's about the fallout from an ongoing naming controversy arising directly from documented segregation-driven human rights abuses.

Learning about that naming controversy, and about the language that both laymen and scholars have used to describe it, is what is, as we speak, driving people to find out what all the fuss is, and look up this article.

If we were to imply to those readers that notable people (scholarly and otherwise) are all insisting that this is an analogy, rather than a statement of objective fact (or an epithet), we would be, I'm afraid, shilling for one side. And that's out of bounds.

If we did that, we would be hard-wiring into the article title the POV of apologists eager to distance Israel from the (ample) negative PR of actually (as opposed to metaphorically or via analogue) being associated with the word "apartheid."

We would, in the title, be insisting to the reader that the verbiage of the Israeli government's critics is uniformly metaphorical, allegorical, analogic, and so on -- anything but what it actually is, namely direct and specific as a description of what they feel is actually, not analagously or metaphorically, taking place on the ground: Apartheid.

This news account does not speak of a "metaphorical apartheid wall" or an "allegorical apartheid wall," but rather, frankly, of an "apartheid wall." It later reads: "An Israeli human rights organization has described segregation of West Bank roads by the military as apartheid." Not metaphorical apartheid. Not analagous apartheid. Apartheid. Period.

Now, you can argue that that description is inaccurate, and if that's how you feel I encourage you to do so in the article, but you can't say that Israel's critics are all speaking with poetic, metaphorical, or analogue-driven distance when they use the word "apartheid," because they're not.

As fascinating as apologists can be, and I grant they are sometimes extremely entertaining, they do not get to determine WP naming policy, or spin the article in favor of one POV in a major global controversy.

Would we ever even think about an article called Evolution analogy because apologists for Creationism were more comfortable with that title?

How about just Israeli apartheid and be done with it? That's pretty direct, perfectly encyclopedic, and befitting a manifestly notable term. BYT 18:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nb: Your (Guardian) "news account" is a deadlink. Re: Israeli apartheid; have you changed your position in favor of deleting Islamofacism? Andyvphil 20:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid debate or Israeli apartheid controversy would more accurately reflect the fact that there does exist a significant viewpoint which does not accept the claims. —ptk✰fgs 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We can head-but at nauseum BYT, but that does not move us an inch forward. There have been multiple proposals that may address everybody's concern, in particular Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hope you can see the benefit of moving forward with some of these proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, as per your statement segregation-driven human rights abuses,you may want to agree to move the material to the Human rights in Israel article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: The human rights merge you suggest above. Could I get your direct comment on these cites [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], which seem to me to establish notability for the term "Israeli apartheid," and thus a separate article? (One of the papers cited is the Jerusalem Post. I missed your comment on this last time.)
Re: Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- again, I would be happy to work with you on that article. Personally, I don't foresee problems with fanciful titles such as Allegations of Palestinian Apartheid, given the pending ArbCom case. BYT 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just hope we can avoid stating our personal views and engaging in polemics, so that we can end up with a good article that describe all viewpoints on this controversy. Some ground-rules such at that one, in addition to a commitment to civility and to keeping cool while editing, would make it possible. But it will require not a small degree of self-discipline. Personally, I am not interested in editing this (or any other article for that matter), unless such ground-rules are established and agreed upon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, on all fronts. Are other editors willing to participate here? BYT 20:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota tries to be bold

I am going to be extremely bold. But I am itching for it. I am changing the title to Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and then redirecting a bunch of the other proposals. Please do not revert without discussion, and AGF on my actions. I got the boldbug in me! Thanks!--Cerejota 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that you don't. I don't believe people's lack of participation here is acceptance that any of these are a great idea, but a willingness to see where the discussion goes. Boldness in this context does not strike me as a good idea. Mackan79 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. BYT 20:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC) <comment moved so as to clarify who I was talking to -- BYT>

For that reason. I will ignore the the "admin" request... I wont revert back, because my intent is not to edit war, but it seems I misread you. Consensus favors the bold, not the timid. Do you think a formulation favored in its variations by editors around all the POVs is not do able? Are we going to get procedural over content? We all agree "alleghations" is a crappy title. We all agree certain titles are total no-nos. Lets go with the ones that give us a glimmer of hope. I am itching to bring about a real article that is not a quotefarm, and as Jossi and others have said, we can't get there until the title is solved. So lets solved it! AGF!!! AGF!!! AGF!!! Thanks!--Cerejota 20:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm personally luke-warm on the idea, which I agree is better in some ways. Still, I think some input here is necessary. There are reasonable people on each side of this; a little time to consider the matter shouldn't hurt. Mackan79 21:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on, we can always change it back later if someone comes up with a better thing. I am, if something can unite BYT and the Talented Mr. Sefringle, thats gots to be some good shait! If you can come up with something better, we can all consider it. If it serves you as solace, I am also lukewarm to it, but it is WAY better than anything we have come up with as an alternative to Israeli apartheid, and that includes half a dozen of my proposals. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a far more neutral title, and it is time we compromise on this issue, even if the israel bashers do not wish to. The intents of all sides are quite clear. I would prefer deletion, but this title is at least neutral.--Sefringle^Talk 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would offer "israel bashers" is far from a civil and productive characterization... Please do not ruin the love fest... :D Thanks!--Cerejota 20:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Believe me- there is no love when large groups of people (or countries) are being accused of apartheid. This very article is an attack against zionists, Israelies, Jews, and anyone who may sympatize with their cause.--Sefringle^Talk 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota -- in your Spartan boldness :) you have perhaps overlooked the fact that after days of butting heads, Jossi and I have found common ground in the proposed title Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Comments? BYT 20:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Then lets do it. As you can see, I put it as a redirect. BTW I am not Jossi, although I am sure this was an unintentional typo (so I am refactoring)... SAY THE WORD. Just say it. I will bear the grunt of the cat calls of being the First Ever(tm) Ultra-Zionist Israel Hater... Lets. Push. Things. Forward. Thanks!!!--Cerejota 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can move to [[Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and may the wiki gods protect me from harm), but we will need to fix a large number of double-redirects. Better, will be to temporarily delete the previous article name, make the move and then re-redirect to the new name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK -- "WORD"! :)

Of the three of us, Jossi, I personally think it makes the most sense for you to make this move, and the other two to stand in front of you while people throw debris. Jossi, shall we have a go at this? BYT 21:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not. As stated by myself and others, these things are not a good idea to undertake while arbitration is underway. Not to mention that Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a rather milquetoast attempt to mitigate the controversy over Israel's apartheid-ish actions over the years. Tarc 21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The arbCom case can continue while editors here are trying to find some common ground and move forward. The move to a different name has already been done and can be left as is, or be undone. Our choice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, I get the feeling many people might appreciate a constructive, collaborative outcome here. BYT 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to wait for arbcom, I'm simply not sure the change needs to be done immediately. Perhaps people are already aware of the discussion and aren't commenting, but a few hours to comment wouldn't strike me as a bad thing. If the back and forth continues, on the other hand, then we haven't really accomplished anything. Can we agree to a few hours, or a few more comments? Otherwise, I'd also generally prefer "debate" to "controversy," which is just a bit too cluttered in my view. Mackan79 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can wait. There is no rush. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer 'Israeli Apartheid' controversy, but won't howl over either version of your proposal. Andyvphil 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that, too, (having come up with it) :), but consensus for forward movement now appears to be leaning toward Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (unsiged, by BrandonYusufToropov)

Are single inverted commas also a (software?) problem? Andyvphil 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota -- I applaud your intuition to be bold and your sense of urgency in improving the title. Since a move might be seen as somewhat premature, based on limited input, perhaps it would make sense to try this: Choose 3 good candidates from subgroups B1, B2 and B3 above. (you've got one from B1 so far.) Write up a concise rationale for each. Maybe put in the main headings showing the breadth of topics (applicable to any candidate; such as my headings above, with both scholarly and epithet subsections). Then you can decide whether to do a WP:Straw poll or solicit input some other way. Anyway, Cerejota, it'd great for me to drop in briefly, while on the road, and see such enthusiasm for improving the title. Good luck, HG | Talk 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC) (PS forgot to log in. Keeping people in a collaborative conversation may require more patience, since they might be irritated by unilateral action. But I do agree w/Mackan79 that we needn't necessarily wait for ArbCom.]

(I think this is HG) OK, I was about to go ~~supernova~~ bold again, but I think your suggestion makes sense. Thanks! --Cerejota 00:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer Israeli 'apartheid' analogy or Israeli 'apartheid' debate. Both are more concise and elegant than Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the only reason put forward for preferring the latter is that it gives "context." Which is the context for which? Is the I/P conflict the context for the "apartheid" epithet? Or are apartheid conditions the context for the current state of the I/P conflict? Context is rarely spelled out in titles, and it's a good thing too, given how contentious it can be to define. Consider the subtle spin New antisemitism in the Middle East conflict would put on its subject. At any rate, what's wrong with Israeli 'apartheid' analogy or any of its variants?--G-Dett 00:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's the debate within Israel that concerns us I think you want the first single quote before "Israeli" rather than after. Andyvphil 02:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with them. I prefer them myself. However, you of all people must realize that the dialog of the last few days has been among the best that have been had in these talk pages. And a large part of this dialog has to do with a willingness to hear others who do not share our own POVs. And I think it is pretty much clear that a great number of editors who would otherwise not object the notability, verifiability and encyclopedic value of what this article should be about, object for a variety of reasons, but most importantly reasons of a perceived or real bias, the inclusion in the title of the phrase "Israeli apartheid". It is not just that it is insulting, but they feel it is and unfair representation of the issues.

Furthermore, I have also become convinced that variations of "Israeli apartheid" muddies the topic, and opens the door for quote farming, WP:SYNTH and other random cruft and POV pushing by editors of all sides.

So basically what I am asking of people who agree with titles that titles that include "Israeli apartheid" If Sefringle, who we all agree hasn't been exactly the model of compromise, is willing to entertain the notion of the words "Apartheid" and "Israel" in the title, even if separated by articles and nouns, the least you and those who share your POV can do is respond in kind. After all, this is not a WP:SOAPBOX and I am sure all of us can find a space where we can engage in the actual controversy or debate, rather than trying to build an encyclopedic entry about it. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's still a real question what exactly is wrong with the simpler versions. Opposing "Israeli apartheid" I can see, since that title could be read to endorse the topic. "Israeli apartheid debate" or "Israeli apartheid analogy" clearly don't. Unless someone can articulate a problem with the simpler titles, then, it's hard to see how a more convoluted version is called for. I still haven't even heard an attempt to differentiate this article from those like Pallywood and Arabs and antisemitism, despite the discussion about systemic NPOV. The problem is we're getting into political negotiation here rather than considering what is actually compliant with standard policies, which may be tempting but isn't likely to reach a solid result. Mackan79 05:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Either "Apartheid controversy..." or "Apartheid debate..." is a better title than the current title... which, given my overall opinion of this article, isn't saying much. Obviously I do not think this is a permanent solution. I am just saying that these two titles are better than the current one. G-Dett's suggestions are worse than the current title. 6SJ7 04:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackan: I think you are overlooking a glaring issue with the policies around naming: as long as there is notability, and the topic is clear, and no weasel words are used, it is pretty much a political decision of the community. This is not the case with the actual contents of an article, which should always follow RS, V, and NPOV, along with MoS. So your objection would be absolute truth if we had relatively unambiguous naming conventions, but we do not. This might be a systemic issue, and I am hitting this topic at Factory farming, however, to a much larger extent than content, names are indeed a political decision of the community, within certain constrains. So you are objecting the way wikipedia works, which is entirely okay, but belongs in a completely different place in wikipedia. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid analogy

Has this been suggested as a title? Anyways, this is SO beyond a mess with NO hope of pleasing everybody, grrrr. Good luck! --Tom 14:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole "analogy" thing really, really doesn't work for me. (See above.) Critics of Israel are not making analogies or posing elaborate metaphors. They are saying apartheid is happening, on the ground, in three dimensions, in the real world.

We actually were close to a breakthrough on this yesterday, I thought. Lots of different views, but Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems least inclined to send editors of good faith into paroxysms. Personally, it's not my first choice, but I could work with it. BYT 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed.

There is less an analogy than a reality.

But summarizing the human rights in Israel to a real apartheid is PoVed.

The other side has its own arguments to balance this PoV : [16].

Both must be introduced and developed. Alithien 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Israeli apartheid analogy is the best option by far, for the simple reason that this is the formulation secondary sources tend to use, whether or not they are sympathetic to the analogy itself.

Even our heroes Adam & Moodley use this formulation:

The most ardent and radical advocate of the apartheid analogy since the 1980s is Uri Davis, although virtually all left critics of Israel use the South Africa comparison in one way or another.

And here's another scholarly source on the subject:

Other writers have used the concept [of Israel as a colonial-settler state] to argue that Israel developed along a similar trajectory to Apartheid South Africa, with the Zionism-Apartheid analogy becoming a highly controversial part of international diplomacy in the 1970s and 1980s.

That last is Israel: Challenges to Identity, Democracy and the State, by Emma Murphy and Clive Jones, Routledge, 2001. Note that this formulation, the "apartheid analogy," is also used by the analogy's most vociferous critics, such as Joel Pollack in "The Trouble With the Apartheid Analogy."

In their endnote for the passage quoted above, Jones and Murphy give a helpful bibliography of those who have either used the analogy or written about it:

Maxime Rodinson, Israel: a Colonial Settler State (1973)

Samih Farsoun, “Settler Colonialism and Herrenvolk Democracy” in Stevens and Elmissiri (eds), Israel and South Africa: The Progression of a Relationship (1977)
Uri Davis, Israel: An Apartheid State (1987)
CAABU, Israel and South Africa: Zionism and Apartheid (1986)
Locke and Steward, Bantustan Gaza (1985)
Stevens, “Israel and South Africa: A Comparative Study in Racism and Settler Colonialism” in Kayyali (ed), Zionism, Imperialism, and Racism (1979)
Jabbour, Settler Colonialism in Southern Africa and the Middle East (1970)
Baruch Kimmerling, Zionism and Territory (1983)

The secondary sources, not only those I've quoted up above but the great preponderance of those I've researched, describe the analogy as an analogy, as a mode of analysis drawing strong historical and political parallels between South Africa and Israel. In doing so they do not prejudge the "realities" so described, and neither need we. I am very receptive to and grateful for the contributions BYT has made to this discussion, but the dichotomy he sets up between analogies and reality – between "elaborate metaphors" on the one hand, and events "happening, on the ground, in three dimensions, in the real world," on the other – is a false one. People devise mental structures such as analogies because they think they correspond in some fundamental way to reality. And when we name these mental structures by their name ("analogies"), we neither endorse them nor cast aspersions on their veracity.--G-Dett 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

ok. There are sources that cliam it is a situation of apartheid.

And here is a "compendium" of sources that claim that human rights are fully respected in Israel (and -of course would say the source- it is not an apartheid state...) : [17]

So, how to introduce all this material in respecting NPoV in the content and in the title of the article...

I fear there is no room for the word apartheid when talking about the "reality".

(this reminds me the debates between physicists about the notion of reality)...

Regards, Alithien 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this and the more I consider Israeli apartheid and The only democracy of the Middle East should be dealt both exactly the same way, for what they are : something wikipedia cannot live with. Alithien 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've argued for quite some time that Israeli apartheid analogy is the most appropriate title for this article. As I understand it, there are two basic objections to his title: (i) some regard it as inaccurate, as some sources have alleged "literal apartheid" instead of drawing an analogy, and (ii) others decry a lack of context. Neither of these objections strikes me as sufficient to reject the title: (i) the sources that allege "literal apartheid" are obviously drawing a parallel between Israel and the former South Africa; whether this is technically an "analogy" is as a semantic distinction at best, and (ii) the necessary context can surely be provided in the lede. CJCurrie 03:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello CJCurrie,

I precise that I absolutely don't mind with any (sourced) information relating the "Israeli apartheid" and that I think they should be used as material in the article.

When I complain about the lack of context, it is because the choice of a title can prevent to introduce other material given other views of the matter of the situation and balance the view one can have of a situation.

The name must enable the introduction of any material related to a topic and its contrary or the points that balance the topic.

Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflit offers this thanks to the words controversy and reminding the use of the words take place in the (famous) Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Human Rights in Israel + Israel apartheid (epithet) offers this because Human Rights can be respected or not and is a wide topic where many thinks can be discussed and explained to give a global view to a complex problem.
Allegations of Israeli apartheid doesn't offer the opportunity because it gives the answer to the question, that Israeli apartheid would be a reality, which, from some point of views, is not true
If think Israeli apartheid offer this but I renounce to try to convince people how it could.

Regards, Alithien 07:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A suggested approach to analyze options (take two)

Hi. I'm honored that you're looking into the discussion model I've suggested. As Tiamut says, though, my proposal isn't quite represented above. Let me try to restate it. First, it is important to do more than mere voting (see straw poll). Let's figure out how to persuade people to accept an option that's not their first choice, otherwise we'll remain at a standoff. That's why we started with WP Policy grounds (G1-3, way above) that explain the need as well as the criteria for changing the title. So, when offering options, please write up the concise WP Policy grounds for each. (It's ok to give alternative grounds.) Second, we don't want people to simply vote against the options -- engage them in conversation, ask them: What Policy grounds would allow them to reject the candidate titles? What alternative name(s) would they suggest?

Here are the types of Titles that I'd suggest asking people to accept, even if it's not their ideal choice (or choose others from each type, see List of candidates, above):

(B1-type) The apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the like
(B2-type) Comparisons of apartheid-era South Africa and Israeli policy or the like
(B3-type) Similarities and differences between South Africa and Israel or the like

As explained above, such titles form a middle-ground between those who would like:

(A-type) Israeli apartheid controversy, vs.
(C-type) Human rights in Israel

Since I seriously doubt you'll find long-lasting broad agreement with either A or C-type titles, I see little benefit in polling on these. Encourage everybody to move toward B-types. Nevertheless, you might still appeal to C-type folks by reminding them that a new Title could still eventually be merged. In addition, you might still appeal to some A-types by showing how the retitled article would still deal with the phrase "Israeli apartheid". Do this by giving examples of article headings such as:

Title (e.g., from above list Comparisons of apartheid-era South Africa and Israeli policy)
Section such as: Comparative research on Israel and South Africa (Subsections by topic, e.g. housing, demographics)
Section such as: Comparisons drawn in popular discourse (Subsections by popular source, e.g. Carter, Palestinian narrative)
Section such as: Apartheid as an epithet: The case of Israel

Finally, I think the Move should be done only as a Requested Move WP:RM process, which would allow for broader discussion.

I applaud folks for trying so hard to find a common ground that eveyone can live with. Stick with it and be patient, give others a chance to talk through the exploratory reasoning with you. (I'll try to check in again before my next flight or on Friday. My moniker is HG not HC, btw, thanks!) Good luck! HG | Talk 15:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cards on the table time: I really don't see the payoff in posing as a viable solution an article title that does not address the notability of the phrase "Israeli apartheid."

Washington Post says: [18]

Salon.com says:[19]

BBC says: [20]

New York Times says:[21]

Jerusalem Post says:[22]

Haaretz says:[23]

Every single solitary time we lose sight of this notability issue, I am going to bring it back up and be specific about it, whether or not that is popular.

I'm a little mystified about why you keep proposing B3 at such length, given that we have discussed it extensively and are on the verge of finding common ground on something else.

I agree this should be a requested move, though. BYT 15:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, HG, but it does not work for me. I think that the originally proposed Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a name that may gain traction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to "cards on the table" above:

Washington Post is about Carter's book, and uses apartheid in scare quotes
Salon.com, sorry but I do not consider that an RS for this subject
BBC, speaks of a UN rights envoy that compares the occupation with Apartheid
New York Time, is also about Carter's viewpoint, and also uses apartheid in scare quotes
Jerusalem Post, reports on a 'Apartheid week' (also scare quotes) held by a Palestinian Society in Oxford
Haaretz, is also about Carter and about his accusations

Therefore, Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a most suitable title to describe this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

<smile> -- mutual pact for steely self-discipline, remember? Anyway, I agree with your conclusion. BYT 16:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that contextualizing it within the Palestinian-Isralei conflict is necessary. I also think that it is necessary to speak of this subject as a controversy, because it is. And we cannot avoid using the term on the tile (or on a merged section at the Human rights article), because that is what the controversy is about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I share fully this analysis too. But let's see if the pooling will lead to same mind as us :-)

nb: the above mentionned quotes from newspaper justify in my mind the existence of Israeli apartheid (expression)... Alithien 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But the content is not about the expression, but about the controversy of using the expression in the political context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jossi. BYT 17:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the content is about one PoV in the controversy and the use of a title such as israeli apartheid prevents to introduce any other PoV and so is not NPoV...

That is also the weakness of Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflit in comparison with Human rights in Israel. The first title prevents some PoV's to be introduced in the article and maybe some facts could be given, not really linked with apartheid, but that should be given to balance the article and have a full and fair image of the matter of the human rights situation in Israel where the discriminations againts the arab israeli (eg) are one aspect (only). Alithien 18:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this ignores the manifest notability of the phrase, a notability that requires direct examination even if we were to explore it only as an epithet, which no one is proposing.

Reality-based discussions in Israel and Terms utilized to describe events and concepts in the Middle East would presumably be, technically, just as relevant to this discussion as Human rights in Israel, which you are proposing.

But our goal here is not to cover all possible aspects of the human rights situation, or any other situation, in Israel. Our job is to come up with a name for this article, which addresses the specific phenomenon of people directly associating "apartheid" with "Israel."

That is happening. That's the reality.

This news article, accessed today, describes a boycott of Israeli "apartheid herbs" (no scare quotes, note, but good old quote quotes that I'm using to reflect someone else's speeech) that is currently underway in Germany. Source: JTA, "the definitive, trusted global source of breaking news, investigative reporting, in-depth analysis, opinon and features on current events and issues of interest to the Jewish people." BYT 22:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not surprising that some left-wing groups (quote from the article you linked), describe these products as "apartheid herbs". Another proof that the use of the term is a political one, designed to advance a certain political view. As such, it cannot but be described in the political context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and within the controversy raised by such comparisons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brandon.

If it is reality that some people see apartheid in the situation of human rights in Israel, it is also true other see human rights are respected [24].

For wikipedia, all these have valuable points of views and all show a different face of reality.

We are not here to give the answer, only to present the different pov's a neutral way. Alithien 23:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't mind if you focus on "controversy" rather than "debate" for the B-1 type (as above). I'd be sufficiently pleased if most everyone could get by with either one. Take care. HG | Talk 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Either will work for me, but I was addressing concerns expressed that "debate" had connotations of "orderly discussion", connotations that IMO do not exist, but nevertheless it is perceived as such by some here. That is why I proposed the "controversy" version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If the choice is between Apartheid controversy... or Apartheid debate..., "controversy" seems more appropriate. There is no "debate" going on over this, but it is a controversy. Of course, why anyone would pay any attention to what people want to call the Israeli-Palestinian situation in Afrikaans, or write an article about it, continues to escape me. Compared to this article, the Seinfeld show was about something. 6SJ7 22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So, the "controversy" version it is, however, I still prefer "analogy". Controversy changes nothing, analogy would help clean up the article a lot from the useless entries like the theory based on just one reference only - by Adam, Heribert & Moodley, that there may be an analogy to apartheid inside the state of Israel, but anything is better than "allegations". Just in case I vote for B2/B3 version as better than "controversy" but worse than "analogy". greg park avenue 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Though not much worse than the current name (which I can continue to live with, btw),Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rather long winded and weasely. It's not as if "Israeli apartheid" and "Palestinian apartheid" had equal notability. The phenomenon the article addresses is 'Israeli apartheid' controversy (and, yes, those are scare quotes -- the distancing is appropriate in a title) and that's what it ought to be called. Andyvphil 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue about more than just notability. It is about NPOV, a concept this article has serious problems with.--Sefringle^Talk 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Israeli apartheid" controversy lacks the necessary context for NPOV. It is not just a controversy. It is a political one within the context of a political conflict. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"...in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" just adds unnecessary words, not additional context or NPOV. What other context could possibly apply? And inverted commas around "Israeli Apartheid" supply NPOV completely. Andyvphil 03:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, would you be willing to accept Israeli apartheid analogy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the article title? It's bulky and awkward, I grant, but it's the best compromise I can think of that takes into account your concerns about "context". (For my part, I don't understand why we cannot simply call the article Israeli apartheid analogy and explain the context in the lede). CJCurrie 03:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

CJ: I completely and absolutely applaud your intention and action in proposing that title, I think it is a great attempt of compromise and seeking dialog and solution. I have also come to terms with the fact that we will come up with a title that will be more made-by-committee than dashing encyclopedic prose. However, your actual suggestion leaves me longing for the familiarity of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", which does have the virtue of being easy to read. Yours has to be the ugliest title proposal of the dozens here. Seriously, I am not sure if it is even grammatically correct. Try harder man, try harder... ;) Thanks!--Cerejota 04:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my suggestion was intended to fall somewhere between flippant and serious ... and it was more an act of desperation than anything else. CJCurrie 04:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is taking a lot to move just one inch, and that is understandable given the politics involved. Not easy. I have moved away from my original proposal to merge {similar to what I did at Human rights in the People's Republic of China#Complaints_of_.22apartheid.22_toward_Tibetans and Human rights in the People's Republic of China#Apartheid_.22pass_system.22_in_treatment_of_migrant_workers, and would hope that others will make some compromises as well and accept Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflit so that we can move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, I think there's willingness to compromise all round. Whether that willingness is for an inch or a mile will depend on how you tap into it. What's been missing in that respect thus far is (a) an ample and detailed rationale for why the title needs to include "context," when (i) the standard approach on WP is to address context in the lead, rather than delimit it in the title, and (ii) when the context you're assigning does not appear to correspond well with that assigned to the subject by some important scholarly sources (one I cited above, for example, defines the analogy's most important context as "international diplomacy in the 1970s and 1980s"); and (b) an ample and detailed account of why Israeli apartheid analogy – by far the simplest title, and one which accurately describes the subject throughout its history and thus avoids the pitfalls of recentism, and one, most importantly, that is used by reliable sources on both sides of the political divide to refer to the subject at hand – is unsatisfactory, per policy. That last qualifier – per policy – is important; Mackan is not alone in feeling that consensus should mean more than an affable vote on pizza toppings, much as I like pizza, and keen as I am to encourage the recent affability around here.--G-Dett 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but given the past fracas around this, we need to make some adjustments that in my view are necessary to bring all involved to the table in a manner that moves us forward. There is no specific policy for the name of articles besides the need for NPOV. The idea is to find an article name that we can live with, not one that I would prefer. I would prefer this article be merged into other existing articles, but I could live with an article title that is factually accurate and that does not make a political statement, such as Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or something similar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Absent a response to the concerns I laid out above, I'm afraid I won't be able to support your proposal, and will work actively against it.--G-Dett 23:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a pity. I thought I provided a sensible response to your concerns. If I did not, please tell me what was missing from it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What's missing is a) and b). The things I outlined as still missing in my last post.--G-Dett 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Point (a) I explained that quite clearly in previous postings, but in a nutshell, the apartheid controversy does exist only in that context. It does not apply to other areas of Israel life. As for (b) that is an extension of (a). It is not just a controversy, but one related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your account of the context of the analogy is at odds with many of the scholarly secondary sources who have written about it. Providing detailed "context" in a title is unnecessary and unusual to begin with; when the context so assigned doesn't mesh well with the reliable sources, it becomes unacceptable.--G-Dett 14:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not follow. Are you saying that the analogy of "apartheid" is made in any other context than the Middle-East conflict? Seems to me that it is only in that context that this analogy is made. In any case, I disagree with the term "analogy". It is clear that it is a highly charged and controversial issue: There are those sources that say that there is analogy, and there are those that say that there isn't. Thus, we cannot call the article "Israeli aparthied analogy" because that would be asserting the POV that there is such an analogy, without saying that it is disputed, and quite violently. So, my proposal of a title that includes the term "controversy" is designed to address this point. We need an NPOV title, G-Dett. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Taking your second point first, I am not aware of any source that disputes that the analogy is an analogy. Bad analogies are still analogies. Even the sources of ours that are most disparaging about the analogy seem to realize this: hence Joel Pollak, who argues forcefully that this is a "false analogy," still calls it an analogy: "UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard invoked the Israel-apartheid analogy in his report on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories," he writes; he describes how he "asked [Yossi Beilin]] what he thought of the Israel-apartheid comparison"; he puzzles over how in spite of its fallaciousness, "opponents of Israel have persisted in their use of the analogy"; he observes that "Palestinians and especially Israelis come in all colours, but Dugard describes them as different races to make the apartheid analogy work". Another major source of ours who opposes the analogy, Benjamin Pogrund, writes "The analogy is used to legitimize and catalyze boycott initiatives such as those that were instituted against South Africa." Our own article opposes "those who use the analogy" to "those who reject the analogy"; we refers to our subject no less than 15 times as "the analogy," following our sources in this regard, which is exactly what our title should do. Never once does the article call into question – or present a source who calls into question – whether the analogy is an analogy in the first place. So I firmly resist you on this point; your sense of the connotations of the word "analogy" is highly idiosyncratic, or at least not shared or supported by any of our reliable sources, nor indeed by our article in its current form. "Controversy," which appears twice in our article, is a more prejudicial word, and it's also more restrictive. Would the Safire quote I gave above qualify as being about a controversy? Would a future OR strict constructionist be able to insist that the Safire quote doesn't belong in an article about a controversy?

Regarding your first point: yes, of course the Israeli apartheid analogy in all its manifestations has always related in some way to what you're now more broadly calling the "Middle East conflict." That broader formulation is a catch-all covering everything from international diplomacy to the Arab League's boycott to cold-war bi-polar alignments to pan-Arab nationalism to the last half-century of American foreign policy. If you want to title the article Israeli apartheid analogy in the Middle East conflict that would be OK with me, hand-holding and all. But the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is a narrower thing, a struggle that comprises the occupation, the terrorist attacks of the 1970s, the expansion and consolidation of the settlements, the first intifada, Oslo, the creation of Hamas, the second intifada, and so on – in short, a struggle between peoples over land, which has slowly supplanted what used to be called the "Arab-Israeli conflict," which was a wider thing that included wars between states. The "Middle East conflict" is, as I said, still wider.

As you know, I've been researching the scholarship and secondary-source material on the analogy, which incidentally was at its peak in the '70s and '80s. Many sources give its principal context as that of state diplomacy during that period. Still other sources apply the apartheid metaphor to the "second-class citizenship" of Israeli Arabs. Are Israeli Arabs part of "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"?

Finally, though I absolutely take you at your word when you say it's never occurred to you that Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might encourage editors to search for references to "Palestinian apartheid" and "balance" the article with them, that does remain a possibility. That is, in fact, exactly what's happening with House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict right now.--G-Dett 20:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not editing the House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article and I am not interested in it. I think that the title Israeli apartheid analogy in the Middle East conflict misses the fact that it is highly controversial analogy, but I may go along with it, pending other editors' comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom matter

By the way, here is the link for the Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. --Steve, Sm8900 19:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Strawpoll suggested by HG and slightly modified by Cerejota

(bumped up as way more relevant than some of the circular rehash of old WP:BATTLE stuff --Cerejota 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Based on these discussions, think these are the alternatives from "A","B", and "C" which have been most supported. I add a fourth to HG's list, which is "remain the same/other title".

Israeli apartheid controversy
Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Merge into Human rights in Israel
Remain the same or change to other title

I suggest we keep a preferential voting, as a first-past-post vote is esentially a POV poll. I will weight the vote in inverse order of preference: first = 4 points, second = 3 points, third = 2 points, fourth = 1.

Sorry but no. Only fair method is Condorcet See below ;-) Alithien 09:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And of course, this is a vote, but it is totally non-binding. It serves the purpose of gathering opinions of involved editors, and examine the grounds for consensus in an uncluttered environment.

Please follow the example format of my vote (although following my vote wouldn't be bad either ;-). Thanks!--Cerejota 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

NB: for analysis purposes, votes with format such as 1, X, X, X will be considered to be 1, 2 = 3 = 4 . Alithien 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is going to be one of the many Condorcet methods, there should be no problem adding new suggestions. —Ashley Y 05:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

5. Israeli apartheid analogy

Isn't this would-be "5" really just a variation of "1"? In any event, it seems pretty clear (without even knowing how to do a "Condorcet" count) that under any method that takes second and subsequent choices into account, "2" is the leader so far. It has placed either first or second from 11 of the 16 people so far. 6SJ7 06:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ~~not~~ a vote, please 6SJ7, don't be disruptive, let the thing flow... after all, you are for deletion.--Cerejota 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me, Cerejota. You used the words vote, voting etc. at least 3 times in this section. You were discussing vote counting procedures with Alithien. Now suddenly, because I, whose first choice would be deletion, weigh in on the conversation, I am being "disruptive"??? Because I discuss the exact same subject that you were discussing? What a joke! So much for AGF, I guess. I was trying to participate in your little process here, but I guess you are asserting ownership, to the point where you even get to choose the participants. I think you need to get over yourself. 6SJ7 06:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a typo dude. Your continual failure to assume good faith is amazing!--Cerejota 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think I was supposed to assume that you didn't mean to say "not"? I have to sympathize though, as I have accidently left the word "not" out of sentences where the omission potentially had much more serious real-life (and in some cases, personal) consequences than this. It is a common writing error, but believe me, nobody ever "assumes" it. 6SJ7 02:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi 6SJ7,

between 1,2 and 3, it is not so obvious which one will come out of the pool.

It seems there could be a circular preference : 2 is preferred to 3, which is preferred to 4, which is preferred to 2... This is also the advantage of Condorcet method for analysing results and trying to find compromise.

Nevertheless, whatever the result, there will be people who will not agree with the result and who will not agree this can be considered as a decision.

That's nevertheless one of the numerous way to find a compromise. Alithien 09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Votes:

2, 1, 4, 3 --Cerejota 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

3, 2, 1, 4 --Sefringle^Talk 02:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

4 (didn't get an answer to my query about single inverted commas), 1, 2; 3 over my dead body. --Andyvphil 02:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(Or, including 5: 4('Israeli Apartheid' Controversy),1,5,2; 3 is just revisiting deletion, and that's off the table. Andyvphil 10:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

3, 2, 1, 4 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
3, 2, 1, 4 Nevertheless I like much Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflit. Alithien 09:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
3, 2, 1, 4 <<-armon->> 10:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
4, 1, 2, 3 (with the caveat that I have reservations about the way this way the options have been structured and do not view these results as in any way binding - I am taking Cerejota's word that this is merely to assess where to take the discussion from here) Tiamat 12:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
3, 2, 1, 4 Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1, 2, 4, and the merge is still unviable. —ptk✰fgs 13:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
4, 1, X, X With the same caveats that this is non-binding and certainly non-reflective of consensus. Tarc 14:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1, 4, X, X, merge absolutely out of the question. BYT 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
4, 1, X, X With the caveat that this is non-binding and certainly non-reflective of consensus. I don't even know why we're considering this when there is an ArbCom going on over some of these articles. Merge is out of the question. PalestineRemembered 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
3, 2, 4, 1; that is assuming I understand what "4" means, and also with the reservation that there are other options that I would prefer to some of the ones listed here. I am just trying to work with the options that are here. 6SJ7 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
3, 2, 1, 4 My vote is None of the above; that the article shouldn’t have been created in the first place; because it only serves a political need! (that’s a nice way of putting it). But as none-of-the-above is not an option today, I have to choose among the lesser of four evils. Somebody has got to say it, so it might as well be me to say it: The emperor has no cloths; that's the analogy I see. Itzse 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
3, 2, 1, 4 I think there should be separate options for "keep the same title" or "change to some other title". I am totally against the current title. --Steve, Sm8900 16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
1, 2, X, X A merger is not acceptable given the scope and notability of the material and "allegations of" is unacceptable weaseling. Lothar of the Hill People 02:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
5, 1, 2, 4, 3. —Ashley Y 05:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
5, 1, 4. 2 and 3 over my dead body (warm and cold, respectively).--G-Dett 12:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
5, X, X, 1. Some parts of the article concerning the issue of "apartheid" inside Israel may be merged into the "human rights" article. greg park avenue 20:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
5, 1, 2, 4, 3 CJCurrie 02:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting X and other than the 4 options

As I stated, this is about these 4 options only, for the purpose of gauging consensus without clutter.

If your own suggestion isn't there, vote 4, this conversation is barely begining and we will get to it eventualy - or your option has already been discarded by many. Lets not be circular.

If an option is "over your dead body", I would ask you to seriously re-consider the productiveness of such a stance, however, I will analyze the votes for X based in comment. For example PalestineRemembered's vote above I will construe as 4,1,2,3. This is because he explicitly comments that merge is out of the question, and hence its his last choice, and the only choice remaining is "2". The reason it is important to vote for all is to numerically show a certain state of opinion. You might not like "2", but if enough people do, then its the time to express your opposition.

If you vote like Ashley Y, then I will move 4 to substitute the option. 4 covers any other option. There will be later polls. Try not to think so first-past-post, and consider this vote has no real consequence, but is intended to clarify something.

The point of making this non-binding is precisely to gather up unclutered opinions based on a framework that has brought some civility to the conversation. I am a bit saddened that a number of editors that have been involved have not voted, but this is their choice. Perhaps they are waiting on ArbCom, which will solve nothing regarding content, in particular because the ArbCom is not about this page, and hence a futile wait. I say we move forward, not in circles. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you read why this vote was started, you will see the "5" option was conciously left out, as under HG's model it had gathered less support than 1. I suggest people try to at least for once have some self-constrain. We are not ignoring you, we are trying to simplify. Thanks--Cerejota 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am holding fast to #5, for the simple reason that unlike any of the other options on the table, it's the phrase actually used by the secondary sources. It also appears to be completely neutral: sources ranging from those sympathetic to the analogy to those extremely hostile to it use this formulation when talking about it. #2 is unacceptable because it second-guesses the reliable sources.--G-Dett 12:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The arguments you use can be applied to "palestinian terrorism" but to talk about that, it is better to use the words "palestinian political violence" because it is (far) more neutral.

And it would be even better to title "palestinian political violence in the israeli-palestinian conflict" to give a context to the violence. And the ultimate and best choice is to talk about the "political violence in the israeli-palestinian conflict" because palestinians are not the only one to be violent and their violence is not independant of the one of other protagonists.

A title doesn't need to be Neutral BUT only neutral titles can enable to have neutral articles and NPoV is a basis of wikipedia. Alithien 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful post Alithien, but there is some confusion here. Wikipedia doesn't use the word "terrorism" for Palestinian political violence, and it doesn't use "apartheid" for the Israeli occupation, or for Israel's handling of demographic issues. These are not neutral words, so they are not used by Wikipedia as if they were neutral words. My arguments do not justify "Palestinian terrorism" as a title for an article on Palestinian political violence, because WP:NPOV requires that we use neutral words for things. If, however, you wanted to write an article about the characterization of Palestinian political violence as "terrorism" – what the implications of that characterization are, who disputes it, how it has been invoked in political and strategic discourse, and so on – my arguments would justify a plain title for such an article. Not a complicated, tendentious, or overly hand-holding title. A plain title reflective of how secondary sources writing about the characterization of Palestinian political violence as "terrorism" refer to their subject. I hope this distinction is clear, because it's an absolutely essential one.--G-Dett 13:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is also the key analogy, though, for raising the question: could we recontextualize Palestinian political violence as simply Political violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? That is actually what's being proposed here. I think this is also exactly the problem; indeed, it's one thing to place something in its proper context, but I think quite another to create context for something that the reliable sources don't provide. This may be the strongest argument for option 5. Mackan79 14:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

to G-Dett

Hi,

I understand your nuance and I fully agree with that one !

The distinction is critical !

Let's go on the reasonning and the analogy with terrorism

(1) With terrorism, the neutral title would become : "characterisation of terrorism as political violence". In practice, with "Israeli apartheid", what should be used ?

(2) As you write, with terrorism, we would not discuss to see if "facts" are terrorism or not but only deal with scholar who study WHY/HOW/WHEN the word terrorism is used to describe political violence.

Do you agree it means here the article then would only deal with WHY/HOW/WHEN "analogy apartheid" is used to describe the human right situation in Israel and in the occupied territories ?

Maybe I am wrong but I think there is absolutely no source for this analysis in the current material in the article. They are "primary sources" of people stating that what Israel does is "apartheid" but there is no source analysing WHY/HOW/WHEN the talk about apartheid instead of human rights denial...

I immediately say that I see a potential room for something in between but that is not easy because if it is too close to the fact, it requires a neutral title and neutral word and if it is too close to the social analysis, it requires a secondary source that talk about it (the accumulation of primary sources makes it look like a personnal research)

(3) Do you think we have a chance to use such nuances here on wikipedia ;-) ?

Alithien 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To Mackan79,

I am not an expert of the "apartheid analogy" but concerning the matter of the palestinian political violence that should be contextualised in political violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I can tell you that reliable secondary sources all explain and comment the escalation of violence between the Israeli and the Palestinian side ! (see. Eg Benny Morris, Righteous Victims). And in fact it is the way to recognize the sources are reliable and I underline we talk about secondary sources !

Alithien 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion of votes and of poll

We have enough dead bodies already, don't you think? I do not think another one will make any difference or do any good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I love gallows humor... you after my heart you bawstard... ;) but lets keep poll clean, 'aight? Thanks!--Cerejota 05:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the options listed in number 4 should be listed separately. Changing the name of the title to something other than those proposed is very different than wanting to keep the title as is. Tiamat 10:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have followed why this strawpoll exist, it is because HC proposed a model for discussion, and then proposed a strawpoll based on that discussion. "4" is basically a vote against that discussion. As this is a non-binding poll, "4" is intended to allow those who strongly disagree with HC's model to express their dissatisfaction, or those who strongly believe in other title alternatives to say so. It is very important for everyone to participate because it will show more or less where we really are, without rhetoric and clutter. It is also nuanced to show that we are not monochromatic Manichaeist. Yes, it is biased towards HC's proposal, but this what the poll is about. If you feel strongly about it, you can vote "4" as your first choice... Thanks!--Cerejota 12:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think HG's proposal is fully represented here and the options presented are biased towards what those who want to delete the article will accept. Tiamat 12:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If anyone thinks this thing is representative of more than a handful of editors then they are seriously mistaken. Again, there is arbitration going on right now concerning all of these types of articles. Moving an article that has had a seriously bad history of move wars would be a show of bad faith and sense that the movers are more interested in their own POV than in getting anything done. Tarc 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration will not deal with the content dispute. Better lower your expectations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

All of this is far beyond simple content dispute, as you well know. Tarc 15:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Other options

Create an article entitled Israel and apartheid made up of sub-headings and/or links to main articles on Israel-South Africa relations, Israeli apartheid debate and Hafrada, among others. Tiamat 01:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can safely assure you that the majority of us do not support this option, based on our contributions. It is controversial and smacks of one-sidedness. Personally, I find it WP:SYNTHy and POV forky. Perhaps in the future we can work out other consensus about relationships with other topics, but I think it is too early to seriously discuss. I think we should stick to the HC proposal for now, and then move forward. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, melding Israel-South Africa relations with an article on Israeli policies within its borders is not a good idea. Lothar of the Hill People 03:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Have people considered Israeli apartheid (phrase)? I believe this was tried at least briefly. Two examples I found are American Empire (phrase) and Democrat Party (phrase). One issue we have here is how Wikipedia will deal with controversial issues as it continues to expand; developing patterns at some point could become useful. Mackan79 15:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, intriguing. Given that it has precedent elsewhere, this approach could have merit. Tarc 15:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree and this has been suggested before indeed but they are two different things :

Israeli apartheid (phrase) or Israel apartheid (item) that will deal with the use of the expression

Another article with should deal with what is related to the topic pro- contra- or neutral concerning everything around the israeli apartheid, which, I think is named "human rights". Alithien 15:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's sufficiently fixed into that form – i.e., "Israeli apartheid" – to present it as an article about a phrase. That would work for New antisemitism, War on terror, etc., but I don't think it would work here. I am also wary of opening the door for future editors to argue that sources using any of the many synonymous variant phrases could not be used in the article. Absurd as that may sound, there was a point in the history of this article when a very influential admin-editor was arguing that references to West Bank "bantustans," or to the "Bantustan solution" to the demographic problem in the occupied territories, could not be cited because this article was only about the word "apartheid."

The secondary sources who discuss this, including Adam & Moodley, seem to refer to it more often than not as the "apartheid analogy," and I'm still waiting for a good reason why we shouldn't join them.--G-Dett 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Because this is only 1 source. Why should we chose that one ?

There are many sources that state Hizbollah is a terrorist organisation. But everybody knows that the terrorist of one is the freedom's fighter of the other one.

for that reasion, articles are dealing this with titles with "political violence" because this is a common hat for both these realities. eg zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence.

Do you want we use Israeli struggle against terrorism and Palestinian terrorism(redirect) ?

Alithien 10:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

NB: from my mind only Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be neutral because the violence of one is in reaction of the violence of the other one and none can be described, explained and synthetised undependantly of the other one... Alithien 10:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not one source, Alithien. Lots of sources. Our subject for this article is not Israeli policies per se, it's the analogy that's been prominently invoked for almost a half-century now likening those policies to apartheid. That's our subject, and the secondary sources who write about this subject, both those mildly sympathetic to the analogy and those hostile to it, refer to it as the "apartheid analogy." It's a neutral term, it's simple, and it's widely sourced, and not one editor here has raised any policy-based objection to it.--G-Dett 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The name of the article was indeed "Israeli apartheid (phrase)" a few times in the very early days of the article. I moved it there myself, twice, the first time was on the day the article was created (though I was not the first one to move it there, which may give an indication of what the first day of this article was like.) However, the person who created the article, and others, insisted on "Israeli apartheid." Eventually "Allegations of..." won out. At this point, I do not find "Israeli apartheid (phrase)" to be acceptable anymore. 6SJ7 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok but why isn't it acceptable any more ?

What arguments convinced you ?

Alithien 10:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

About analysis method

Instead of attributing "points" to solution, the best way to analyse such votes of preference is to use Condorcet method, else the method will never be fair. Eg, in voting at 4th place for the solution we know that could challenge ours... Alithien 09:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this WP:CREEPY - I thought about Condorcet, but we should do that for a more formal poll... However getting people to abandon a first-past-post mentality and seek compromise is indeed precisely the point: to have to give a most favorite and least favorite opinion, and two in-between. This is most conducive to further, yet clarified, debate, than the increasingly circular arguments we have "enjoyed". Lets. Push. Things. Forward. Thanks! --Cerejota 12:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No,... it is not creepy. it is as simple as any other method to use Condorcet to analyse a result.

I will analyse the results with both methods. It will illustrate the difference.

Note without condorced, you cannot take some votes into considerations such as 4 X, X, X...

Alithien 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the point, to force people not to vote 4,X,X,X, in other words to express an non-nuanced preference. As I said, Condorcet will have to be used it we do ge into a more formal thing. It is creeppry because you are bringing about a procededural objection to what should be an informal process with little procedure. Thanks!--Cerejota 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No. There is no procedurial objection. Don't forget to assume good faith, guy.

We should analyse the poll using Condorced because it is fair and honnest method which is very simple.

And don't worry for the procedure I will do the job and we will go on the discussion with these results in hand. That could be intersting. Alithien 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy. At best, if there is a Condorcet winner, we can see if we can then find consensus around it. —Ashley Y 05:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Water gets you wet. At best, if you jump feet first into the pond, a few strands of hair might not get wet. --Cerejota 06:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So, it is already written that some people who will not agree with the result (whatever the method !) will claim that the result has no value...

And wp:principles is for them like ArbCom doesn't deal with content issues.

Do you understand now why many contributors involed in the dispute do not come to discuss here ?

You, good guys, are very young in the way content disputes are managed on the topics related to the Israeli-palestinian conflict !

And, this is "just" for a title. Let's not even imagine the real matter of balancing sourced information and respecting WP:UNDUE; an issue where only good sense and good will can solve the matter.

Alithien 07:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Temporary results - just for info

(with first 17 minds/votes) - don't hesitate to check

(1) Cerejota's method

option 1 : 3 + 2 + 6/3 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 4 + 3 = 44

option 2 : 4 + 3 + 6/3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 3/2 + 3/2 + 3/2 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 42.5

option 3 : 1 + 4 + 6/3 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 4 + 0* + 3/2 + 3/2 + 3/2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 3/2 + 0 = 42

option 4 : 2 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 3/2 + 1 = 34.5

option 5 : 0 + ... + 4 = 4

results : 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

(2) Condorcet's method

(1) vs (2) : (-5) -> 2 > 1

(1) vs (3) : (+1) -> 1 > 3

(1) vs (4) : (+7) -> 1 > 4

(2) vs (3) : (-3) -> 3 > 2

(2) vs (4) : (+7) -> 2 > 4

(3) vs (4) : (+1) -> 3 > 4

(any) vs (5) : (+16) -> any > 5

results : circular preferences 2 > 1 > 3 > 2 -> 1 = 2 = 3 > 4 > 5

nb: there exist methods to solve the circularity but they lead to different results

Alithien's mind

From my mind, Cerejota or Condorcet methods lead to the same result because 44 ~ 42.4 ~ 42 > 34.
Aware that "only" 17 people give their mind and maybe this sample is not representative of the community, I think the "pooling" confirms this is a very difficult debate and that wikipedia:voting is evil. Alithien 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

NPoV exercise

Which contributor will be able to synthetise the different arguments given by all parties concerning our matter in respecting WP:NPOV as if he would edit an article ? :-) Alithien 10:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents issues

Amin Dada

I would like to modify this :

Idi Amin Dada, the racist former dictator of Uganda who killed between 300,000 and 500,000 Ugandans, expelled 80,000 Uganda's Asians and died in forced exile in Saudi Arabia in 2003, compared Israel to South African apartheid in the United Nations General Assembly in 1975.^[1]

to this :

Idi Amin Dada, former dictator of Uganda, compared Israel to South African apartheid in the United Nations General Assembly in 1975.^[1]

Indeed, the principle of writing : "Mr X, who is very bad, ugly and and lier, thinks that blablabla" is typically not neutral. The same way as "Mr Y, this wonderful and unique guy in history, thinks that blablabla" will not be.
Such way of introducing information only tends to discredite it. Reader must be considered "clever enough" to understand by himself what credit he could give to Mr X or Mr Y. That is why I would suggest to limit the qualifications of Mr X or Mr Y to their profession.
Alithien 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. Such well-poisoning is against policy, so I've removed it per your suggestion. It's not as if Idi Amin is someone nobody's heard of. If Stalin is mentioned in passing do we need to mention, each time, that he killed more people than Hitler? Andyvphil 10:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Alithien 06:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The debate on the two-state solution

Rather than the two-state solution, I have the feeling that the material provided states the unilateral withdrawal could create a situation of apartheid... Shouldn't we title this : "unilateral withdrawal ? Alithien 09:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Better, "Palestine a Bantustan?"? Andyvphil 10:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is better... Maybe "unilateral withdrawal controversy".

Let's not give the answer in the question...

NB : I think understand your point :

if the article deals with an analogy with south africa, that is good
but in my mind, it cannot (not NPoV) so I would not choose this.

Even if you don't agree, do you see my point ? Alithien 06:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't understand your objection. The subject of the article is Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The particular subtype being addressed by this section is the allegation that Israeli policies are creating a Bantustan-like Palestine. The subject is neither the "two-state solution" nor "unilateral withdrawal", which are merely particular policies or names for policies. Other policies are also alleged to produce the "apartheid" result: "A Palestinian 'Bantustan'", which ought to be the title of the section. Andyvphil 08:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that if it is true that the article deals with an analogy of Israeli apartheid, it should not.

And I think this illustrate my point.

How do you want to deal with neutrality (in the sense of wikipedia) a paragraph that focus on the word Banthustan ?

Why not to use : Unlike apartheid, a securitary obligation ?

or even more sarcastic : Is palestinian terrorism the difference ?"

Even if you don't agree, don't you see a difference with unilateral withdrawal controversy"

I don't mind "inside" the word "Banthustan" is used (given it can be sourced) BUT I don't see how to introduce the other side point of view under that hat...

What would you think about an article titled : The only democracy in the Middle-East. It would share some material with this one but quite strangely, not everything.

Both would be a pov-fork of the same topic : human rights in Israel and the occupied territories (where the words "only democracy" and "apartheid" could of course be widely used !)

Alithien 09:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware that it's controversial to note that Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, but if you want to start an article on Israeli 'Democracy' I won't mind. Let a thousand flowers bloom... Anyway, it's the sources that allege the creation of a Palestinian Bantustan. The internal quote marks in "Palestinian 'Bantustan'" indicate that sources are being quoted and that "Palestinian Bantustan" is not in Wikipedia's voice. The way you "introduce the other side point of view" is not challenging: you quote the sources that say why it is not a Bantustan. ... This article is not a POV fork from human rights in Israel and the occupied territories because it doesn't have a different POV than that article. It has a different subject, and a neutral POV. Andyvphil 09:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you say but I don't understand all of the arguments you use for these "conclusion". Could please comment the following questions ?

(1) Are "allegations of Israeli apartheid" a part of the subject of "human rights in Israel and in the occupied territories" ? Do you agree that the fact some people consider Israel as an apartheid state is a part of their concerns about the respect of human rights in Israel and in the occupied territories ? If not, why ?

(2) Do you agree that when some talk about the "Palestinian Bantustans", they are talking about what others name the "occupied territories"?

(3) Do you agree that in the following examples, we have expressions used to describe different way of perception of the same reality :

(3a) "Sharon the butcher" and "Arik king of Israel" refer to "Ariel Sharon" but all three can be sourced, do exist and are used.

(3b) "Zionist entity" , "Jewish state", "apartheid state", "promised land", "only democracy in the Middle East" and "Israel" refer to the same reality and all these expressions can be sourced.

(4) When you write :

"The internal quote marks in "Palestinian 'Bantustan'" indicate that sources are being quoted and that "Palestinian Bantustan" is not in Wikipedia's voice.", what difference do you make with the example I give in (3). Cannot we use the same arguments as you with my examples?

(5) When you write :

"The internal quote marks in "Palestinian 'Bantustan'" indicate that sources are being quoted and that "Palestinian Bantustan" is not in Wikipedia's voice."

Do you agree not everybody in the world consider "Palestinian 'Bantustan" is a reality and that the analogy is pertinent?

Regards, Alithien 13:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) No, "allegations of Israeli apartheid" are not part of the subject of "human rights in Israel and in the occupied territories". It may be alleged that an Israeli act or policy is a violation of human rights and that that act or policy constitutes apartheid, but the latter claim is extraneous and irrelevant. Irrelevant, that is, to the other article, not this one.

(2) Yes. But see (3).

(3) These are not "different perceptions"; they serve different functions.

(4) "Ariel Sharon" and "Israel" don't need quotes. I don't see where "Jewish State" could need them either, but I might be shown an example. I would think "promised land" is almost always clearly a quote that doesn't need distancing quotes but often requires actual quotes. "[O]nly democracy in the Middle East" needs a minor caveat ot two to pass muster (I supplied "functioning" when I used it) and is imprecise as to meaning (The US is a Republic, not a Democracy, as Al Gore found out). Hard to see why or when I would use it as a title. The other three almost certainly require distancing quotes. But feel free to use my argument to justify putting them, distanced, in titles, when appropriate.

(5) "Palestinian Bantustan" is not an agreed reality but the analogy is certainly pertinent. To this article. Anyone who disagrees is obviously wrong. Andyvphil 07:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

but the analogy is certainly pertinent

Hmmm,

I think that only because of that there could be no compromise between us.

We simply understand NPoV a completely different way.

Alithien 08:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Many many many quotes, no synthesis

Globally speaking the article has reached the stage where a lot of material has been gathered. A think that, B thinks that, C thinks that, D thinks that, ...
Isn't it mure enough to try to synthetize the different arguments and facts used to explain why Israel would be an apartheid state or could become one and the arguments and facts used to explay why Israel is not or never intended to become one... ? Alithien 09:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The implication is that this article is about whether Israel practices apartheid. But serious defenses of that proposition are not a large proportion of this article's content. So this article must be about something else. And it cannot be organized as if it were something it is not. But see G-Dett's proposed historical organization above. Andyvphil 10:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

But we could synthetise the information in listing the analogies (with the arguments pro- and contra-) instead of listing many point of views on the general topic of apartheid.

NB: Nevertheless we will not move forward in that direction because an article that deals only - as I think you think it should - with the "analogy between Israel and apartheid" cannot respect NPoV.

Alithien 07:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Idea on whole issue

I have an idea for all of you. How about we open a whole category on criticisms targeting Israel. After all apartheid is not the only analogy used. Others have compared Israel to the Nazis, to Pol Pot, to vampire bats, to Britain in india, etc, etc. Why not give each of those an article? In other words, at what point do you step in and say, enough insulting analogies, let's just produce articles on simple facts? Otherwise, allowing the apartheid article takes us into exactly that kind of negative territory. --

Steve, Sm8900 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been numerous verifiable statements made by notable individuals comparing the apartheid policies of South Africa and the policies of Israel in the OT. Comparisons of Nazism come from, what I have seen, disreputable, non-notable sources and figures, analogous to the fringe opinion that the Holocaust is a myth. As far as I recall, I have never seen verifiable statements made by notable individuals comparing Israel to Pol Pot or to vampire bats. If you have the sources to substantiate such a claim, then by all means produce them. If not, as I suspect, then please stop wasting our time with frivolity. Tarc 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me; first, thanks for your reply, as the first part was very relevant and helpful; however, an analogy is not frivolity, so please don't label it as such. I do appreciate the overall constructive nature of your reply.

to answer the legitimate gist of your question, however, there are several people who label the Jews monkeys and various other epithets. I was not trying to offer a frivolous claim, merely to make a point through an analogy. I do appreciate your reply though, as it does at least help to address the issue somewhat; even though i stand by my original point, your reply does help to shed light on some of the underlying ideas here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again. The term is manifestly notable. The fact that it takes the form of an epithet, in addition to inspiring poli-sci debates, is, from all I can see, irrelevant.
Nigger takes us into "negative territory," as does as does Wop and countless other epithets. So what? The usage demands it.
No one is proposing that we wade into those articles and conform them to some editor's preconception of what constitutes proper decorum. They are notable -- and, I might add, not as newsworthy or documentable as the current example. BYT 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Case in point: This appeared in the San Francico Chronicle today:

"How does Israel's behavior toward Palestinians compare to former South Africa's treatment of blacks? It is similar or worse, say a number of South Africans, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, U.N. special rapporteur in the occupied territories John Dugard, and African National Congress member and government minister Ronnie Kasrils. The latter observed recently that apartheid South Africa never used fighter jets to attack ANC activists, and judged Israel's violent control of Palestinians as '10 times worse.'" ("Boycott movement targets Israel," George Bisharat, San Francisco Chronicle, 8/15/07) BYT 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that article makes an interesting point - there are many things *worse* than Apartheid, so much so that comparison is rather silly. I've never heard someone say "Pakistan's war against Bangladesh was like Apartheid, only worse: Apartheid South Africa never massacred hundreds of thousands of ANC activists!" Or "the Allies' bombing of Dresden was like Apartheid, only the Apartheid government never firebombed an entire city!" 41.243.91.62 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting the issue here is NPOV, not notability. You have your views, I have mine, but an insult is still an insult whether it comes from one person or a million people.--Sefringle^Talk 03:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What you find to be insulting has precisely zero relevance to the Wikipedia; the sooner you digest that fact, the happier your existence here will be. The commentaries on Israel's apartheid-like actions are both notable, verifiable, and sourceable. Whether they are necessarily true or not is in the eye of the beholder, and is not a criteria to exclude or include articles here. Period. Tarc 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to avoid the issue here, by saying it is irrelevant. If the issue was notability, this would be over by now. the issue is NPOV. The fact that everyone who voted the way you did in the afd's and move/merge surveys seems to be ignoring that little fact or showing no sympathy for the NPOV concerns in this article, and that might explain why no compromise is being reached.--Sefringle^Talk 03:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep harping that the article itself is inherently NPOV. As we've seen by now, this is a minority view that carries no water with the community. Just because most disagree with you does not make them wrong or mean that they are ignoring policy. Tarc 03:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, you have it backwards. In the first AfD there was a clear majority in favor of deleting the article. It just did not reach the 75 percent that was then thought to be the threshold for deletion. This article has been kept only because a relatively small number want to keep it, and Wikipedia policy is (or, at least, was) tilted in favor of keeping articles -- and is also tilted against second, third, etc. AfD's. 6SJ7 03:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7 AfDs are not votes, and ther eis no "75% threshold". I have been in less controversial AfDs where result was delete and 90% voted keep, because of obvious content policy violations. Happens all the time with fancruft. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

At present they are not votes (actually they are anarchy.) But this was not always the case, and there was a threshold. As you probably know, at one point it was called Votes for Deletion, and even after it was changed, the method did not completely change right away. The AfD I am talking about took place in May of 2006 -- a relatively long time ago, in Wikipedia's short timespan. 6SJ7 05:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In theory it is not a vote and the reason is to leave the opportunity to admins to prevent "coalitions of contributors" to rule the content of the encyclopaedia.

In practice, it is a vote and it will remain until there is neutral way is found to find the admin who closes the AfD.

Alithien 08:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

Verifiability not truth
What is so hard to understand about those three words?--Cerejota 04:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Has it been verified that Israel is an Apartheid country or has it been verified that there are those who say that it is an apartheid country?

Now who are those that say that it practices apartheid? In Wikipedia there are three core content policies; Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of them. Another core policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; that policy states:

"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle... NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)... This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors... Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three..."

The third core policy is Wikipedia:No original research but it should be based on "Reliable sources". Reliable sources doesn't mean that reliable sources say that there are some who say that Israel practices apartheid, that might be good in the article; but the name of an article or if the article should be created in the first place should be based on the "absolute and non-negotiable" principle of Wikipedia neutrality. Itzse 19:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Water gets you wet. We all know this. However, how do you explain Nigger? In any case, I offer to you that pretty much everypne here agrees with what you are saying. So what is your concrete proposal? Thanks! --Cerejota 01:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Nigger was a neutral article giving due respect to how most blacks feel about the usage of the term, and does not include the white supremists perspectives on why usage of "Nigger" is appropiate. This article does not give due respect to Israelies; in fact it is just the opposite. Instead, this article insults israel, and attempts to prove that the usage of the term is legitimate, and not just offensive. If the opposite were true, I might not have so many problems with this article title. But the vast majority of this article is just notable trash talk formed into an article. It gives undue weight to the palestinian viewpoint, segregates the responses to a small criticism section, and overall is just garbage.--Sefringle^Talk 02:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle is correct on the comparison with the article on the N-word (I don't feel like spelling it out, just as I don't say it.) I may have pointed this out before, but when the comparison was first made here to the N-word article awhile back, I read that article for the first time and was rather surprised by what I found. In the space of a very short, two-sentence intro, we learn that the N-word is "pejorative", a "racial slur", and has "negative connotations." Three criticisms of the use of the word, right there in the intro, and all correct, of course. Compare that to this article. In the early days, people tried to get words like "epithet" into the intro, and this provoked howls of protest, revert wars, etc. to the point where these words were compromised out of the intro. More recently, I tried to get the fact that the use of the term apartheid is "controversial" into the intro here, and I couldn't even succeed with something as innocuous and obviously correct as that. I was told we had to let the readers "draw their own conclusions." But we don't do that with the N-word; we tell the reader how it is straight out, in detail, forthrightly and honestly. One of the perpetual problems with this article is the enforced absence of such forthrightness and honesty. 6SJ7 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly : "One of the perpetual problems with this article is the enforced absence of such forthrightness and honesty".

Let's keep in mind also the real controversial aspect of the subject and the fact there is no obvious solution to the matter.

A second "perpetual problem" is that there are too many people involved. Therefore very few take time to read and understand others'arguments and discussions cannot be productive. Look at this page : this is a mess and there are 22 23 other pages of archives ! :-(

Alithien 08:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an obvious solution to the matter. Call the article Israeli apartheid. Then write the article itself sensitively and with discretion, as at Nigger. That takes care of the manifest notability of an epithet, as well as the political and historical disputes. And of course there is ample precedent.

The reason people don't want to do that, though, is that such a move would be too openly critical of Israel. And apparently there's some hidden by-law here that no article title can embarrass Israel.

By the way -- this is from today's Jerusalem Post -- and the only quotes are those designating what the speaker actually said, not "scare quotes":

An Israeli scholar has firmly rejected comments by controversial UK Liberal Democrat politician Jenny Tonge, who recently accused Israel of driving the Palestinians to their current impoverished situation and claimed that this issue was being used to fuel Islamic extremism. <snip, and here is Tonge's quote:> "I am not anti-Semitic, but I am appalled by the racist, apartheid state of Israel. I use the word 'apartheid' in its literal sense; it means separation, because that is what is going on."

<bolding added> BYT 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No article title should assert an opinion as fact. And yes, some people use the term to characterize Israels' treatment of Palestinians. And yes, others vigorously deny it. We have a controversy here, and a political charged situation. Thus, the title needs to reflect the content: Apartheid analogy/controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that title is so horrifyingly long and cumbersome that I can't even take it seriously. You're not literally recommending Apartheid analogy/controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are you? —ptk✰fgs 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I think the reasoning you used to get where you're now sitting should be applied just as eloquently on some other article titles, but that's another discussion.

I can certainly work with the title Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It's been many, many days now, and this is the best idea anyone has come up with, in my view. Are there other (serious) contenders? If not, shall we act on this? Or is there yet another telephone-book-sized summary of possible semantic category options for everybody to wade through? BYT 14:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

While I respect the proposal, I still feel it takes compromise beyond where it is useful for anyone. Last time we turned this into an "allegation," thereby charging the entire article into "are they guilty or are they not?" Here we would turn it into a major component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This seems to me more of the same. I actually tried this in the lead some time ago, in a similar effort to provide some context,[25] only for people to point out the bolstering effect and lack of relevance. Maybe that's now seen as ok; it simply strikes me as an unnecessary political compromise. With all of the articles placing Arabs,[26] Palestinians,[27][28] and Islam[29][30][31] in less than positive light, I'd think we could accept that this is what happens when commentary reaches a certain threshold. I'd think we would also recognize that Wikipedia, unlike an Encylopedia Britannica, just doesn't make the effort on a systemic basis to avoid tackling controversial characterizations at face value. In this context, a simple title like Israeli apartheid analogy seems to me extremely appropriate. If it isn't perfect, it's far more perfect than the majority of the articles listed above, while addressing the fair concern regarding any possible misperceptions. I'm still unable to see why we would clutter up a title that seems to meet all our basic standards. Mackan79 15:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackan -- with respect, was Tonge, above, using an analogy? Or did she go to great pains to stress the literal nature of her use of the word "apartheid"?

Was Jimmy Carter using an analogy? Where's the citation for that?

There are dozens of notable people who are being quite literal about this.

You mention Islamofascism as a parallel. We explicitly rejected Islamofascism (term) there, because, as you point out, usage passed a certain threshold. What would be a more direct parallel with Islamofascism? (I don't think Islamofascism analogy would ever fly.) BYT 15:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So call it Israeli apartheid and be done with it. Tarc 15:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, BYT, about your concern, which is partly why I preferred "Israel apartheid debate." If I can say, this is also why I think it's a viable compromise, though. "Debate" also has weaknesses, in that it isn't all really a debate, and this similarly reframes the issue. "Controversy" has similar problems, while also potentially marginalizing the whole thing. "Israeli apartheid," while solving these issues, fails to clarify whether this is a characterization or an agreed upon reality, which seems important with a country and a controversial idea. We can't solve all of these; I'm also persuaded by G-Dett's showing that several scholars have used the term, however, which presents an option apart from our wrangling. The fact that these discuss the general topic as an "analogy" would then be the basis for including Tonge and others in the article, where of course we could clarify exactly what they say. Mackan79 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79: If I may ask -- what, exactly, are the problems you foresee with "controversy"? We use it elsewhere on similarly contentious topics. [32] [33] [34] Is there any real-world argument to be made that this subject is not controversial? And is the term's use as an epithet not part of the article you envision? BYT 19:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely opposed to "controvery", it simply adds another layer that seems not entirely necessary. This may also be subjective, but I'm slightly bothered by the ambiguity as to what exactly is the controversy: is it the use of the term, or the (alleged) fact of Israeli apartheid? In the first case you're making the article about the controversy surrounding use of the term, as if that is the only notable aspect. In the other, it's just a slightly odd choice of words, and potentially off-putting to either side. Again, I'm not totally opposed to it, I'm just inclined to think that if reliable sources have referred to it as an analogy, then that may be the way to go. As far as scope, I'm not imagining this would change in either case, and certainly think the controversy would be discussed in either article. Mackan79 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79: "Analogy" has a distancing effect that somehow gives the impression that no one of note thinks, or few people of note think, apartheid is actually taking place. It really, really doesn't work for me.
It is far more demonstrably true that there is a controversy than it is true that people are analogizing situations.
Re: "Is it the use of the term, or the (alleged) fact of" X -- this question has a surrealistically nostalgic ring to me, and resonates intriguingly with past disputes. What did we decide in similar situations?
The title jossi and I are proposing is not perfect, but it at least has parallels in the titles of similarly contentious articles.
Again, and specifically, because I'm not sure I got your answer on this: Is the term's use as an epithet not part of the article you envision? That is clearly part of the controversy, and a reason, in my view, to consider including "controversy" in the title if we are loath, for unnamed or unnameable reasons, to call the article what it should be called, namely Israeli apartheid. BYT 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, know why? Because all those articles with "controversy" in the title are derivatives of the main article - George W. Bush, Aspartame, Global warming. But there is no main article on Israeli apartheid; there is not even an article on Apartheid. Controversy means theory, but theory of what? Allegations is still worse. You cannot even contradict these by the facts like these already in Wikipedia, for example the facts and policies mentioned in the Israel Defense Forces article, but only by other allegations. It's crazy, at least for me. greg park avenue 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair points, though I don't know that "every"" X controversy" article has a main article "X." Note this one. What do you think the article should be called? BYT 21:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Over here in Wikipedia it shall be titled Essjay affair. In a matter of fact, it's not a theory, like the theory about Bush dropping out from the Army because, as he has been accused of, to have the right connections (it was never proved, just speculation), just another Wikistory or scandal, which even made it to New Yorker, but this one any administrator or user can prove. greg park avenue 21:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I have no idea what you're getting at.

Anyway, there's no separate article for Essjay.

What do you think this article, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, should be called? BYT 21:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, you asked above, "Was Jimmy Carter using an analogy? Where's the citation for that?" Here are some citations – again, from all over the political spectrum:

Haaretz 's chief U.S. correspondent, Shmuel Rosner: "Notes on Carter's 'apartheid' analogy". [35]
The ADL's "talking points" on Carter's book: "In the book, Carter employs the apartheid analogy to accuse Israel of inhumane tactics within the occupied territories, including the use of a security fence and checkpoints. In doing so, he ignores two important realities..." [36]
Gil Troy's "On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy", History News Network. "Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point." [37]
Tony Karon (South African journalist based in New York, senior editor at TIME.com): "Israeli affirmation of Carter’s use of the apartheid analogy, as well as affirmation of the same over the years by such icons of the anti-apartheid struggle as Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, are simply inconvenient truths for those looking to trash Carter for his use of the analogy."
Norman Finkelstein: "Apartheid Analogy: No aspect of Carter's book has evoked more outrage than its identification of Israeli policy in the Occupied Palestinian Territory with apartheid. Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post called it 'foolish and unfair,' the Boston Globe editorialized that it was 'irresponsibly provocative,' while the New York Times reported that Jewish groups condemned it as 'dangerous and anti-Semitic.' In fact the comparison is a commonplace among informed commentators."
"Indictment or Challenge?: Jimmy Carter tendentiously equates Israel with apartheid South Africa, but his warning to Israel isn't wrong," Sasha Polakow-Suransky, The American Prospect: "The implied analogy in the title between contemporary Israel and the old South Africa drew a chorus of denunciations from Jewish groups and inspired rumors that publication was delayed until after the midterm elections, lest the book alienate Jewish Democrats and send them voting for Republicans in droves...Carter's book lends credibility to an analogy that was until now seen by many as the propaganda of a radical fringe...While the apartheid analogy is inexact, the Palestinian population is expanding faster than the Jewish population and Israel will soon face a choice between an apartheid-style social order in which a Jewish minority rules over several million disenfranchised Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza or a two-state solution in which those Palestinians live independently outside Israeli control."

That's quite a range, and there's lots more. It really is the phrase by which sources of every kind refer to the Carter comparison, and to our subject in general. Sorry to be such a broken record, but this really ought to be a no-brainer. It's the common term, it's neutral, it's general and unrestrictive, and it's ubiquitous.--G-Dett 22:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "controversy" as an alternative. Is what almost everyone calls "the apartheid analogy" controversial? Yes, usually. But its notability is not restricted to the controversy it's generated. Adam & Moodley didn't devote a book to the analogy because it's controversial. William Safire and Thomas Friedman don't invoke it because it's controversial (nor did they generate controversy when they invoked it, interestingly). Was Star Wars a blockbuster? Is Shakespeare a genius? Was Sophia Lauren a sex symbol? Yes and yes and yes, but we don't have Star Wars (blockbuster film), William Shakespeare: genius, or Sophia Lauren, daaaaamn, woman, you the bomb, although that last has a certain ring to it.--G-Dett 22:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you switch to "Essjay affair", you don't need any separate article on "Essjay", you'll be just recording an event. Regarding the Israeli article in question, I would first publish the precise definition of Apartheid omitting all the story od South Africa, but including all other meanings of this word in common use, and then rename the "Allegations" article to Analogy to apartheid in Israel or something like that. Analogy is a mathematical term, no one can do much damage to this one. Theory of apartheid in Israel would be my next best guess, it's almost the same like the "controversy" version, but sounds better to me, more precise. Controversy invites any kind of propaganda and allegations, theory needs some scientific background and scholar references only, otherwise the word is useless. greg park avenue 22:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But no one calls it a "theory," which is a much more semantically strict term, whereas lots of sources, perhaps most of our sources, not to mention our article, call it an "analogy." In all the bitter, intractable edit wars this article has gone through, no one has ever edit-warred over its repeated use of the term "analogy," which is sort of a surprising fact at first blush. After a little reflection it's less surprising, given that each "side"'s sources use the term equally.--G-Dett 22:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, G.D., if no one calls it theory, the term is not notable, but it has same meaning as controversy, and that's why I suspect not many notable persons call it controversy eihter. So, "Apartheid analogy in Israel" or so it is then. Hope, we got status quo now. Let big shots make their mind before the first snow. greg park avenue 22:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid's "literal sense" (or lack of one)

I use the word 'apartheid' in its literal sense; it means separation, because that is what is going on. -- Jenny Tonge Jerusalem Post "Mackan -- with respect, was Tonge, above, using an analogy? Or did she go to great pains to stress the literal nature of her use of the word 'apartheid'? " - BYT

BYT, She says she's being literal, but that's not the truth no matter how baldly she says it. (Same with Carter.) Otherwise, why didn't she use "separation"? Andyvphil 21:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

'cause "separaton" word has many meanings. Husband-wife thing, for instance. greg park avenue 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) a·part·heid [uh-pahrt-heyt, -hahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. (in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid policy of segregation of the nonwhite population. 2. any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.

She seems to me to using Sense Two, above. Literally. BYT 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not run around in circles any more than we can help. Quoting self, "the appearance of a definition in the OED does not mean that it is proper to use the word as if it were identical to that definition."(see above) Applies to dictionary.com too. And, since G-Dett has supplied the (exactly accurate) Gil Troy quote, let me make the point about Carter too: "Carter has defended his title, by using 'Apartheid' as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial." This exactly parallels Tonge's disingenuosness. Carter did not look in a thesaurus for a synonym for "apartness" any more than Tonge looked in one for "separation". They both assert literalness but are rightly seen to be implying analogy. Andyvphil 22:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me express my unqualified agreement with Andyvphil, that "the appearance of a definition in the OED does not mean that it is proper to use the word as if it were identical to that definition." I fear that my insertion of the OED into this has muddied waters I had hoped to clarify. The dictionary definition is only relevant in the absence of secondary sources; this article is chock-a-block with secondary sources. Where there are no secondary sources (as is the case, say, with Allegations of apartheid), then it's original research to classify every primary-source instance of the word "apartheid" as an "allegation" that "draws an analogy," an analogy that is somehow intrinsically notable. Sometimes it's not, it doesn't, and it isn't. ("Nuclear apartheid" anyone?) To hammer this home, I pointed out that the dictionary definition of "apartheid" was broad and inclusive. This broad, inclusive definition is not a guide to proper usage – Andyvphil couldn't be righter about that – but the extent to which the term has become assimilated into our lexicon as a general term is an indication that we can't proceed on the assumption that each and every use of it is perforce notable. When we have scores of sources referring to it as an "analogy," however, our job as Wikipedians is done, and we don't need to drag the OED into the matter.--G-Dett 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unwilling to use these pages to discuss the subject, or to engage in debates or polemics about the subject. I am only interested in discussing the article, how to name it, how to make it more compatible with pour core content policies. My understanding is that these pages are to be used for that purpose and that purpose only. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Pollack, Joel. "The trouble with the apartheid analogy." Business Day. 2 March 2007. 10 March 2007.

[Pollack-1] Pollack, Joel. "The trouble with the apartheid analogy." Business Day. 2 March 2007. 10 March 2007.

[1]