Talk:Israel and apartheid

Archives
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21

The debate on the two-state solution

I don't understand why this section is in the article. Doright 08:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Those who claim "apartheid" see the siatuation as if it is one country while actually it is two (one is occupied by the other) . Zeq 08:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, Zeq. If the Israeli's stopped occupying Palestine, where would they go? -- Kendrick7^talk 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is your argument that Israel, even within the Green line, is "occupying Palestine"? If so, that's a pretty radical view, generally only espoused by groups like Hamas. Perhaps you can clarify. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's one country divided by a civil war almost 60 years ago. It has never been "two countries", right? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The original mandate was partitioned in a U.N. vote; it was never a "country" before that, so there could hardly have been a civil war. Again, are you saying that Israel even within the Green line, is "occupying Palestine"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That was Zeq's choice of words; I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers by flipping his choice of terminology around to highlight its absurdity. The word "civil" in "civil war" means "city" not "country"; unless you want to say there were no cities in the '48 war? The Israeli side won the war but failed to win the peace. Hence the resulting creeping apartheid, which, before we get too far off topic, is the subject of the section under discussion which I contend belongs here just fine. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, Does it require an entire separate section to say that? Also, given the sections current introductory paragraph, do you agree that the section is more appropriately titled, "Allegations of Possible Future Israeli Apartheid?" It says: Some have also predicted that aspects of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan would also lead to apartheid-like conditions. These predictions are raised both by those who advocate a two-state solution and by those who advocate a one-state binational solution. These opponents of the plan generally agree with the principle of making territorial concessions, but object to the limited scope of the plan, which would leave much of the currently-occupied territory under some level of Israeli control. Doright 08:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't have "allegations" of a future event. You can only have - I don't know, predictions or something. Gatoclass 09:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that is among the reasons why I suspect the section does not belong in this article that is titled, "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Additionally, the debate on the two-state solution seems to be far beyond the scope of this article.Doright 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This section brings together sources who contend that the "two-state solution" is in practice bantuization (i.e. apartheid). Of course, there's no AFD on the two state solution where people says "it's just propaganda"; people don't notice propaganda when it's accepted as true. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence, so? Regarding your second sentence, huh?Doright 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So... what? Are you unfamiliar with the basic issues here? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that Israel with the Green line was a bantustan? Please make yourself more clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The section and the sources speak for themselves. -- 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, possibly, but they don't speak for you. Are you arguing that Israel with the Green line was a bantustan? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, it seems , to use your words, "absurd and offensive" to suggest I have a lack of familiarty with the basic issues and to use that as an excuse for your refusal to make an attempt at a coherent argument. Merely spouting disjointed and cryptic assertions is disruptive. Further, your continued failure to answer Jayjg's question challenges one's assumption of good faith.Doright 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

<rant>Israel loses either way in the eyes of the far-left. If it stays in the territories and creates checkpoints to check for bombs, it's "apartheid" in the territories. If it tries to build a wall to prevent the terrorists from getting in, Israel is an "apartheid" state. The basic mentality is that they don't like Israel, and calling something "racist" "fascist" or "apartheid" tends to work like a charm because of the connotations those words carry, regardless of whether they're true or not.</rant>--Urthogie 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Originally, in 1947, the deal by the UN was that Israel would be the result of partition of the British Mandate between two ethnic/religious groups. This has many strong established precedents in history, diplomacy, and international law; India and Pakistan resulted from a partition between Hindus and Muslims. --Sm8900 20:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, even beyond partition, Fridtjof Nansen, for example, won the Nobel Peace Prize for pushing the transfer of approximately 2 million people between Turkey and Greece based upon their ethnic/religious identification. For applying the same logic to this conflict a Jew in New York and former member of the Israeli Knesset got a bullet in his head shot by a co-conspirator in the World Trade Center Bombing named El Sayyid Nosair and was demonized by much of the world.Doright 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pasted From Article

The debate on the two-state solution

See also: Israel's unilateral disengagement plan#Pro-withdrawal criticism

Some have also predicted that aspects of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan would also lead to apartheid-like conditions. These predictions are raised both by those who advocate a two-state solution and by those who advocate a one-state binational solution. These opponents of the plan generally agree with the principle of making territorial concessions, but object to the limited scope of the plan, which would leave much of the currently-occupied territory under some level of Israeli control.

• Desmond Tutu has advocated a two-state solution, saying, "Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or - I hope - to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders."

• In January 2004, Ahmed Qureia, then the Palestinian Prime Minister, said that the building of the West Bank barrier, and the associated Israeli absorption of parts of the West Bank, constituted "an apartheid solution to put the Palestinians in cantons." He predicted that Israel's unilateralism could prompt an end to the Palestinian efforts towards a two-state solution, and instead shift favour towards a one-state solution.

• When asked for comment on Qureia's statement, Colin Powell, then U.S. Secretary of State, responded by affirming U.S. commitment to a two-state solution while saying, "I don't believe that we can accept a situation that results in anything that one might characterize as apartheid or Bantuism."

• Ehud Olmert, then Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, commented in April 2004 that, "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."

• An academic paper by Professor Oren Yiftachel Chair of the Geography Department at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev predicted that Israel unilateral disengagement plan will result in "creeping apartheid" in the West Bank, Gaza, and in Israel itself. Yiftachel argues that, "Needless to say, the reality of apartheid existed for decades in Israel/Palestine, but this is the first time a Prime Minister spells out clearly the strengthening of this reality as a long-term political platform.". Yiftachel argued that the plan would entrench a situation that can be described as "neither two states nor one," separating Israelis from Palestinians without giving Palestinians true sovereignty.

• Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli political scientist and the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, predicted that the interim disengagement plan would become permanent, with the West Bank barrier entrenching both the isolation of Palestinian communities and the existence of Israeli settlements. He warned that Israel is moving towards the model of apartheid South Africa through the creation of "Bantustan" like conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

• The Economist, in an article on the debate over withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, asserted that "Keeping the occupied land will force on Israel the impossible choice of being either an apartheid state, or a binational one with Jews as a minority."

Doright 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Should go under the territories section I think--Urthogie 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not clear on why it is here? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, why is any of this here?Doright 06:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Propose rename

to Allegation that Israel is still beating its wife -- Y not? 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. As though the article isn't ridiculous enough, now you want to rename it? I suppose that name would demonstrate just how completely unencyclopædic and unencyclopædizable the article, along with all the "Allegations of apartheid" articles, really is... Tomer^talk 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote, there is actually a serious suggestion for rename if you scroll up.--Urthogie 01:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Illegitimate Zionist entity apartheid is actually the best name; why hasn't that been suggested already? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we keep the post-AfD petulance to a minimum, please? Let's try to move forward from here. —Ashley Y 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, Ashley, that was pre-AfD-close petulance -- Y not? 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a better title; please address the issues, not the editor. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing the edit, not the editor. Thanks. —Ashley Y 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Petulance" is an emotional state; proposed titles don't have emotions. Please address the issues, not the editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find actions (such as your edit) can be petulant. Are you seriously suggesting renaming the article to "Illegitimate Zionist entity apartheid"? It rather looks like disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point to me. —Ashley Y 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You're making value judgments and assumptions about my Talk: page comment, rather than addressing their content. Please address the issues, not the editor. And yes, I think it would be a better name; the pejorative demonizing rhetoric "Illegitimate Zionist entity" is a perfect match for the pejorative demonizing rhetoric "apartheid". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm making a value judgement about your comment, yes. I offer no particular value judgement about you. There are no "issues" here, suggesting adding "pejorative demonizing rhetoric" just because you happen to believe something else is "pejorative demonizing rhetoric" is unhelpful and petulant, and violates the spirit of WP:POINT. —Ashley Y 03:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Claims that one can distinguish between "value judgments about comments" and value judgments about the people making them are specious. I'm suggesting a better title; I take it you don't agree it is better? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthologie, are you referring to the Israel apartheid analogy suggestion? I think that would be an improvement. —Ashley Y 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be much worse. It's not an analogy, it's a rhetorical allegation, usually without any thought or substance. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a false analogy that uses an appeal to emotion, a simple dry fact I put into the article lead here...which Ashley Y reverted here, characterizing my change to the lead as "POV"—a charge s/he has thus far declined to clarify. I am still waiting, albeit with increasing impatience... Tomer^talk 03:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not a "simple dry fact". —Ashley Y 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What part of it is my opinion? Tomer^talk 03:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That the analogy is false and an appeal to emotion. Some sources say it is, and other sources say it isn't. —Ashley Y 03:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some sources lie. According to the government of Egypt, Jews use muslim children's blood to make matza. That doesn't make it true, and saying it's not true isn't POV. The analogy is obviously and ridiculously false to anyone who knows anything at all about apartheid. The term was chosen quite deliberately in order to vilify Israel in the hopes that the Arabs' boycott of Israel would be picked up on by supporters of boycotting .za. Saying otherwise is deliberate intellectual dishonesty, not "maintaining neutrality". Tomer^talk 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Adams and Moodley ("experts writing scholarly works in their area of expertise, and backing it up with sources" apparently) refer to it as an analogy. Jayjg, do you disagree with them? —Ashley Y 03:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley are just about the only ones who use it as an analogy, and explore that analogy. Please note the use of the word "usually" in my comment. I suggested long ago that this article summarize the views of A&M, Pogrund, and perhaps one other, and leave it at that. That article would be about an analogy. This article is about rhetorical allegations, usually without thought or substance. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But from the quote given, Adam and Moodley refer to it as an analogy that other people are using. According to A&M, what is it that "the majority is incensed by"? —Ashley Y 03:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Those who are incensed realize that the people using the term are not making a real analogy, but rather merely mouthing mindless demonizing rhetoric. That is what incenses them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But that's your own OR and not what the source says. It simply refers to "the very analogy". Of course I don't think A&M are implying that it's a good analogy, only the rather plain fact that it's an analogy. —Ashley Y 03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you re-write the article from A&M's POV, then your argument might hold weight. As it is, there has been a concerted effort to de-value what A&M say; most of their opinion has moved from the top of the article to the very bottom, under "Other views". Why don't you fix that, and, while you're at it, delete the vast majority of the article; then we can discuss a more appropriate name for it. Oh, and while you're at it, you might consider cleaning up that doctored quote from Jimmy Carter; it would be better to delete his shallow meanderings altogether, but somehow I don't think you're up to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now "somehow I don't think you're up to that" is an example of addressing the editor rather than the issues. Since I haven't touched the Jimmy Carter quote, I'll leave it to someone else. In any case, I'm pretty sure that all the material that you object to is exactly what A&M are referring to as "the very analogy" that incenses people. —Ashley Y 04:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you weren't up to for it; Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy is tough. And considering that 6 of the main editors currently editing the article support the analogy, and 2 do not, the article is only going to sink further and further. Tomer is right. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not up for it would be the non-personal-attack way of putting it, but perhaps that's what you meant. If you want to make a change, go right ahead (per WP:BRD). —Ashley Y 04:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you had the opportunity to rise to the challenge, show you were a better editor than you seemed, but alas... As for me, I'm letting this festering mass sink under the weight of its own nearly incomprehensible rhetoric. I've contributed a bit to better articles on analogous topics, but this one appears beyond redemption. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A rather odd challenge to make, isn't it, to ask someone else to perform a reversion of an edit that "obviously doesn't make the article worse"? As for me, I'm letting the post-AfD petulance subside before making further suggestions here. —Ashley Y 04:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly odd to challenge someone to ensure that Wikipedia articles at least adhere to minimal standards by not doctoring quotes, but it's not surprising when they refuse to do even that, given their beliefs and previous editing record. I'm not sure what you can do about your post-AfD petulance; perhaps if you take a wikibreak the feeling will go away. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll be sure not to suggest adding any pejorative demonizing rhetoric in an attempt to prove a point, claim the word "analogy" doesn't really mean "analogy", mistake a judgement on a comment as a personal attack, or issue bogus "challenges" in the mean time. —Ashley Y 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Ashley, petulant post-AfD comments like the one you just made are unbecoming. You're obviously not up to the rigors of WP:NPOV right now; you might feel much better after a wikibreak. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, given your behaviour here after the AfD closed, I think a wikibreak of your own would be rather more appropriate. Tell you what, though, why don't you stay off just Middle-East related articles for awhile? Your new-found interest in Brazilian social issues might be worth exploring. —Ashley Y 05:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have strayed rather far from its original subject, no matter how seriously that subject was taken...and, in fact, no longer carries even the remotest pretense of having anything to do with the article at hand... Tomer^talk 05:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tomer. To get back on subject, I hope we might get a consensus on the idea that "analogy" doesn't necessarily imply good or bad analogy, and that the word is used equally by those who reject it. Pollak's article is a good example. —Ashley Y 05:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the subject was renaming the article. If you really wish to discuss the matter of analogies, legitimate or otherwise, I'm game...I'll readily agree that "analogy" doesn't pass judgement on the "goodness or badness"...but I maintain that this is a false analogy and that calling it one is neither POV nor OR. For the record, I am not opposed to an article about Israeli apartheid, but such an article should discuss the term, by whom it's used, and to what end it's used, it should not be a lengthy anti-Israel diatribe, which is what this "article" was when it was called by that name, and now is even more absurdly and unabashèdly so... It is categorically not an encyclopedia article, it is little more than a bloggish collection of anti-Israel politically and/or antisemitically-motivated crap. That it was kept after the latest AfD underscores a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia, but that's a discussion for another time and place. (Unlike JayJG, I happen to think the Allegations of Brazilian apartheid article needs to be nuked as well, and for analogous, if not the exact same, reasons...Although I frequently find myself in agreement with JayJG, had I known about the AfD there, I would have !voted exactly the opposite of what ended up being the majority.) Tomer^talk 06:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was proposing renaming it Israel apartheid analogy, mostly to include people in Adam & Moody's "third group which sees both similarities and differences", which includes many of the sources I believe. The word "allegations" suggests a more polarised true or false, whereas analogies can also be in between. The idea is to imply less with the title. —Ashley Y 06:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your proposal for eliminating POV from the article so-renamed? Right now it's such a mess of POV that it seems almost hopeless that it can be rescued, a hopelessness exascerbated as much by the title as by the POV-pushers the subject attracts. Tomer^talk 06:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This article by its title is all about points of view, both for and against. I know that was a big issue in the recent AfD, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. The important things here (per WP:NPOV) are that they are all presented fairly and without the implication that any of them are the truth. —Ashley Y 06:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to the rename to Human rights of Palestinians in the Israeli territories or Human rights in the Israeli territories. It was Gatoclass's idea originally, but I'm building on it.--Urthogie 02:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Israel Apartheid analogy is a very good suggestion (I can't remember if it was Ashley's or CJ's to begin with), to which if I'm not mistaken no one has voiced any serious objections. Illegitimate Zionist Entity Apartheid would be a very bad title, as it presents a bizarre synthesis based on the idiosyncratic views of one Wikipedian (an admin who swears up and down that his suggestion is serious) and not a single significant reliable source.

Human rights of Palestinians in the Israeli territories is a different and far broader topic than this article, but turning this article into a section within such a broader article is an interesting possibility.--G-Dett 17:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority and Human rights in Israel. Which one would you like to merge this into? -- Y not? 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither seems appropriate.--G-Dett 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, neither of them covers the territories. Would you support the whole idea of expanding the scope of this article to a complete rather than shallow discussion of the human rights in those regions? See above talk section for this suggestion.--Urthogie 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Doctored quotation

I note that on April 21 a quotation from Jimmy Carter was doctored and placed in the article. Given the current state of this article, it obviously doesn't make it worse; indeed, I doubt anything could. Still, has Wikipedia sunk so low that it now feels it has the right to add various bolding and emphasis to quotations? I'm hoping that even the supporters of this atrocious article will see the utter inappropriateness of this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit was to remove irrelevant material about the controversy over PPNA that Urthogie had transcribed from another Wiki article and replace it with examples of Carter actually making the allegation. The bolding doesn't misrepresent him, it merely emphasizes exactly where he does this, and the text states explicitly that the bolding is added. I am unaware of any policy discouraging this procedure, and deny that it is inappropriate. Andyvphil 14:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In other words, andy removed extensive pre-edited content which included reactions/criticisms to Carter in favor of a doctored quote.--Urthogie 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to doctor a quote, and put in emphasis that the author did not put into it? It's hard to believe you did it in the first place, much less justified it afterwards. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolding text in quotations where the bolding did not appear in the original is grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. You can bold the text when you're quoting someone in the context of writing an opinion piece, along with the appropriate note "emphasis mine", but Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be opinion pieces (see WP:NPOV) and when an editor makes alterations to quotations in order to support their interpretation of the important words therein, that constitutes a violation of both WP:SOAP and WP:NOR. Tomer^talk 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling this paean-to-anti-Israelism blog an "article" is intellectually dishonest. Tomer^talk 03:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-Israelism" is a propaganda word, and calling an article devoted mostly to debunking an argument a "paean" to that argument is borderline illiterate.

As for Andyvphil's bolding, calling it "doctoring" is sheer opportunism. It was a mistake and it's fixed now. The information he made the error of bolding was not POV-pushing spin by any stretch of the imagination, so invocations of WP:SOAP are also inappropriate. Andyvphil is unusual on this page in that his primary concern appears to be the intellectual coherence and integrity of the article, not its biases real or imagined. He's about the only one of us of whom it can be honestly said that it isn't entirely clear where his sympathies lie (from what I can make out they're different from mine). That's to his credit; give him a break already.--G-Dett 16:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Andyvphil's bolding, calling it "doctoring" is sheer opportunism. It was a mistake and it's fixed now. Not the last time I looked. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, it is now.--G-Dett 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The bolding was not, in my opinion, a mistake. Or an error. Or misleading. Or doctoring. Or original research. Or propaganda. Or inappropriate. I deny the validity of every complaint, individually and in their entirety, and will not hesitate to use this device in the future. To repeat, I provided a specimen of "of Carter actually making the allegation. The bolding doesn't misrepresent him, it merely emphasizes exactly where he does this, and the text states explicitly that the bolding is added."

I will give a bit of context. I believe I copied the quote from the Talk:Jimmy_Carter page where I had previously posted it in response to NYScholar's mainspace text on PPNA reading "Some of the book's critics...have interpreted the subtitle as an allegation of Israeli apartheid". I bolded Jimmy Carter's "this is the policy now being followed" to demonstrate that "some" and "interpreted" were weaseling -- Carter is not Zbig and his adoption of the allegation is unambiguous.

So, making that point is why I used bolding. Was it "doctoring"? I think not. It was immediately followed by "emphasis added" so that it was unambiguous that the highlighting of the phrase was an editorial choice, not Carter's. And decision on significance is a fundamental editorial function in writing an encyclopedia. You choose what to quote, what to replace with ellipses, and what to bold (using "emphasis added" or "emphasis in original", as appropriate -- I've never seen "emphasis mine" used anywhere). The misuse of these tools can be criticized, but the tools are perfectly appropriate to use.

Now... exactly what "POV" was I supposedly pushing by quoting Carter as I did? Andyvphil 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tomer that typographic emphasis is more native to argumentative essays, and even there it's supposed to be used sparingly. But this is a stylistic question only, and I don't know if Wikipedia has a clear protocol on this or not. Andyvphil used it here for the sake of clarity. His edit was obviously not motivated by POV; would that the same could be said of the grandstanding, opportunistic overreaction to it. --G-Dett 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, if you're referring to what I said as an "opportunistic overreaction", I can only assume that you're conflating my stated views on the article with my criticism of altering original quotes into something it's not. I did not address the quotation itself nor the specific alterations thereto, I only addressed the impropriety of altering original quotes "for emphasis" and attributing the emphasis to serve only the purpose of "clarity"—instead of leaving clarification of the quoted's attention ((intention is meant, I think -- avp)) to the person being quoted. If parts of the quotation are unimportant to the topic at hand, they should be elided and replace with ellipses. This is actually in the purview of WP:MOS. Tomer^talk 23:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Next time, just remove the bolding with an edit summary along the lines of Typographic emphasis (even when announced) isn't appropriate in Wikipedia, customary as it may be in other kinds of formal prose. "WP:SOAP" was insinuating, and "doctoring" was ridiculous.--G-Dett 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Did either of you actually read the section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style that Tomer/TShilo12 supplied? It turns out that my "grossly inappropriate" addition of emphasis is, as I said, a perfectly permissable procedure. The Wikipedia Manual of Style says I should have used italics rather than bolding, and I should have put "emphasis added" in square brackets rather than round, but WP:MOS#Italics_within_quotations completely exonerates me of the charge of "doctoring" the quote inappropriately. Sheesh. Andyvphil 14:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies Andyvphil. I assumed the vehemence of two administrators was at least rooted in some sort of Wikipedia style guideline. Frankly I am a bit surprised that Wikipedia doesn't discourage added emphasis, which I tend to think of as a feature of essayistic as opposed to encyclopedic prose. If you want me to self-revert I will, but maybe it's best to let the matter go.--G-Dett 16:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the MoS does discourage added emphasis, but it also allows it. I haven't encountered here the denial that I encountered at his eponymous page that Jimmy Carter was alleging present apartheid, so I can live without the italics for now. Thanks. Andyvphil 11:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I read it Andy, or I wouldn't have provided a link nearly as specific as the one I did. I still think it was unnecessary=>inappropriate to add any emphasis to Carter's quotation. As for "doctoring", that wasn't a charge I leveled, so don't try to beat me over the head with it. Tomer^talk 17:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was Jayjg who accused me of doctoring the quote and titled this section of the page accordingly. Since you chimed in to accuse me of doing something "grossly inappropriate", nowhere distanced yourself from his charge that I "doctored" the quote, and in the very posting which supplied the Style cite reiterated that I had committed an "impropriety" (presumably still gross), I naturally assumed that you agreed with him. Thanks for the clarification, belated though it is. Andyvphil 11:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your use of bolding was grossly inappropriate because it was utterly unnecessary. Just because the MOS permits it doesn't mean it's a good idea—the use of ellipses is far preferable, without necessitating the use of any kind of alteration to the emphasis provided in the original. Altering text to enforce what you perceive to be the most relevant part of what someone else said is POV and w/o substantiation, OR. Clarifying that the emphasis is added simply begs the question "why?" In this case it is either because you feel that "Carter meant..." or because you believe the readers of WP to be too unsophisticated to be able to understand Carter "as well as you do". That's SOAP. Tomer^talk 05:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The idea that the writer of an article is not allowed to have a point of view about the significance of what he quotes is literalist-Wikipedian idiocy. Elision and emphasis are simply tools. The fact that the MOS explicitly permits something that you feel free to denounce as "grossly inappropriate" without "address[ing] the quotation itself [or] the specific alterations thereto" indicates that your opinions on the subject can probably be safely ignored as FRINGE. Andyvphil 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be sure to remember this statement... Tomer^talk 05:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Andyvphil 23:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Brzezinski again?

Y, you've removed Brzezinski on the grounds that "'absence of a resolution ... is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid' is nowhere near an allegation of current apartheid."

This reasoning doesn't strike me as compelling; in fact it seems to me very close to a semantic game. The quote you mention was offered by Brzezinski as support for Carter's thesis. Brzezinski moreover has been drawing the parallel for years. In 1997, he said on PBS that the Israeli prime minister's

concept of "peace" is really very different from the concept of peace that labor embraced and which I suspect we support. His concept of peace is essentially a very close equivalent of what the white supremacist apartheid government in South Africa was proposing at one point for the Africans--a series of isolated--lands--broken up, not contiguous territory, essentially living in backward villages, surrounded by white islands of prosperity. This is the Likud image of solution for the Palestinian problem, and, therefore, when he's asked to stop building settlements, to stop engaging in actions which would make peace possible, instead of subverting them, he's being asked to change his policy, and he has no incentive to do that unless he feels that America will disown him, or unless the Israeli public disowns him.

In 2002 the Toronto Star reported that:

FOR YEARS, critics have compared Israeli policies in the occupied territories to the old South African apartheid system. Now more mainstream figures — such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Canadian-born former U.S. National Security Adviser, and South African anti-apartheid stalwarts Bishop Desmond Tutu and author Breyten Breytenbach — are drawing the parallel. Members of the 80,000-strong Jewish community in South Africa have joined the debate as well.

In a 2003 speech at the New American Strategies for Security and Peace conference in Washington, D.C., Brzezinski stressed that:

Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering. Indeed as some Israelis have lately pointed out, and I emphasize some Israelis have lately pointed out, increasingly the only prospect if this continues is Israel becoming increasingly like apartheid South Africa -- the minority dominating the majority, locked in a conflict from which there is no extraction. If we want to prevent this the United States above all else must identify itself with peace and help those who are the majority in Israel, who want peace and are prepared to accept peace.

Does it really make sense to leave Brzezinski out the list of those who employ the analogy?--G-Dett 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there online cites for these quotes? ... I'd like you to expand the Zbig paragraph to make his meaning clear. As you know, this is not the first time he's been misinterpreted... And there should be a mention of Mandela making the allegation.[1] (I know, "...Take a load off fanny...", but I don't have time, and I respect your editorship, even if you're wrong about apartheid, and bolding.) Andyvphil 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that. Thanks for the kind if qualified words. For my thoughts on the apartheid meme, see this. As far as I'm concerned, the debate isn't between those who think the analogy holds and those who don't; it's between those who use a certain metaphor and those who call them antisemites. That puts me on one "side" on this crazily contentious page, but I'm not actually a proponent of the analogy. I wish "occupation" was a word that sent moral shudders down people's spines like "terrorism" and "apartheid" do, so that flawed and misleading analogies didn't have to be invoked to focus the minds of the ignorant; and I wish the average person paid as much attention to serious scholars as they do to aging ex-presidents.--G-Dett 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I concede the point after seeing quotes 1 and 3. I'll revert myself. On the substantive point though, would granting the Palestinian people political independence in the territories remove this rhetorical stigma from Israel? Because they already have de facto independence in Gaza. I don't understand. -- Y not? 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors of this page don't care if Israel is in Gaza anymore. They think its still notable, even though Israel is in control only of airspace and has no ground presence.--Urthogie 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the evil "air apartheid".--Urthogie 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In my humble, completely POV opinion, they should capitualte, give the Palestinians a fair West Bank minus Jerusalem, build a big fat wall, revoke all their working rights, unplug their electric grid, and recognize their sovereignty. However, I don't think that such action would obviate this article. Which is too bad, but at least predictable. -- Y not? 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Even the two-state solution would be called "apartheid" by some of the crazies out there. But as far as this article in specific, there is a motion to move it to a larger scope article called Human rights in the Israeli territories or something like that. Scroll up you'll see.--Urthogie 19:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Y, you're asking me what I think, or what I think Brzezinski probably thinks? The former would seem to be irrelevant (though I'm happy to answer if you like), and the latter would just be speculation. On the whole, I think the majority of those who use the analogy have the territories in mind, not the so-called second-class citizenship of Arab Israelis. Different proponents of the analogy justify it in different ways, but I think its use across the board is nourished and sustained by vivid images of separation and domination – checkpoints, curfews, Jewish-only roads, separate access to land and water, isolated cantons, the West Bank barrier, especially in those places it deviates from the Green Line to include settlers while excluding their subjugated next-door neighbors – all the images, in short, that crystallize Golda Meir's dictum that Israel's "borders are determined by where Jews live, not where there is a line on a map." Inequalities will persist into any future era of Palestinian statehood, of course, but if you're asking me to speculate, I'd say that when borders are no longer amoeba-like and elastic, an invisible and mobile membrane conferring upon Jewish Israelis, wherever they may be between the river and the sea, different rights and privileges than the Palestinians in their midst, then the well-spring of apartheid metaphors, analogies, and rhetoric will dry up.

How any of this applies to Gaza right now I really don't know. If you're saying that those who employ the analogy have avoided the issue of Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal, I think you're probably right. Do you have a suggestion? Is there a particular Gaza-related passage that you think presents a problem, and if so how should we deal with it?--G-Dett 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How does it reinforce Meir's dictum when the israeli settlers are shut out on the other side as well? You're aware of pro-settler opposition to the wall? Some were worried that the pro-settler opposition would tear the country apart.

Also, there are no Jewish only roads, only Israeli only roads that non-Israelis can travel on with permits. Please stop permeating falsehoods. There's a lot of other things I could have addressed here but these were the most glaring omissions/falsehoods you just wrote.--Urthogie 21:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow the first point about Israeli settlers being "shut out on the other side as well." The path of the wall has been largely determined by the desire to incorporate as many settlers and as few Palestinians as possible, grabbing some land and natural resources for good measure. For many Palestinians this meant sudden loss of access to agricultural land, for others it meant being walled in on three sides (Qalqilyah), for still others it meant being stranded in between the Green line and the wall, non-citizens of Israel yet physically cut off from the West Bank. You're comparing this to – I assume – the settlers who had to abandon small and scattered illegal outposts (illegal, that is, even by Israeli definitions) and resign themselves to state compensation?

As for the second point, surely you know that Arab-Israelis are de facto prevented from living in the settlements, and that West Bank Palestinians are not given permits to drive on the roads in question? Bear in mind that my post attended to things as they are seen by proponents of the apartheid analogy – "vivid images of separation and domination" that crystallize Meir's dictum, not legal policies as phrased and framed by their authors and apologists.--G-Dett 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not prepared for an in-depth discussion of the West Bank, but just want to point two things out:

1. My second point was about roads, not settlements. You repeated a falsehood you read somewhere (counterpunch? an opinion editorial?) about Israel's so-called "Jewish-only roads", and you didn't admit it in your reply. This isn't exactly a trivial mistake.
2. I don't support the settlers, by the way. They're essentially the Jewish version of Islamists.-Urthogie 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I know your point was about the roads; so was my rebuttal. Arab-Israelis are excluded from the settlements indirectly, through things like "nationality," military service, etc. The roads in question connect the settlements to each other and to Israel proper; they are for the Jewish settlers. You are aware, I take it, that Jim Crow laws never mentioned the blacks they disenfranchised? The distinction you point out is pretty trivial indeed, and ignoring it was no mistake.--G-Dett 22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Your only reply has been along the lines of: "Arab-Israelis aren't allowed in far right Jewish Fundamentalist settlements." Well, duh. I called you on your claim that there is a "Jewish road" policy-- there isn't, and you made up a racist Israeli policy out of thin air. "Ignoring it was no mistake", huh? seems like backtracking to me.
2. Jim Crow laws did specify blacks. Take for example marraige laws which specified which races could marry each other. (Israeli road laws, in contrast, deal with nationality, not with race or religion.) But hey, if it gets you points for criticizing Israel, and invoking anti-racist struggles, I suppose it makes sense for you to say it, right? Lemme guess, you won't admit you're wrong on this point either? Another intentional ignorance?--Urthogie 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, you're right that some Jim Crow laws specified race. Others – such as the "grandfather clause," literacy tests, and poll taxes from which those who had voted in pre-Civil-War elections were exempt – were designed to disenfranchise blacks without specifying them; the point was to get around the equal-protection amendments to the constitution. I'm not sure if you are genuinely unaware of the analogues in Israeli society regarding Arabs, or are clinging to misleading technicalities in a spirit of deniability; your persistent evasion of the obvious connection between who can live in settlements and who can use settlement roads would suggest the latter. Feel free to have the last word here, but if you want to continue this dialogue perhaps our user pages would be a more appropriate venue. As someone is no doubt about to admonish us, Wikipedia isn't usenet.--G-Dett 23:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

True, I'll continue on your talk page.--Urthogie 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

An idea from Gatoclass

From the AFD:

I'm beginning to favour the creation of Political status of the Palestinian people in Israel or something similar - Zleitzen

[response from Gatoclass] In theory not a bad idea I suppose, but in practice, the vaguer the topic, the more subject the article becomes to bloat. This is especially true, I find, of articles on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, where everyone seems to want to have the last word.

I guess I might support a change in name of the article if a suitable name could be found, but I can see a name like "Political status of the Palestinian people in Israel" soon turning into a content jungle. Perhaps "Human rights of Palestinians under Israel occupation"? Something like that might keep the focus reasonably narrow. Indeed, it would probably enable getting rid of all the material in the article that is currently devoted to the apartheid analogy within Israel itself, which might be an advantage.

At the same time, it would allow for a seamless expansion of content into areas such as property law, home demolitions and other Israeli practices which may not strictly have been used in the apartheid analogy itself (although I'm sure they have been). Perhaps there could also be a companion article entitled "Human rights of Israeli Arabs" or "Human rights of minorities in Israel" dealing with the situation there.

Before I'd agree to such a name change though, I think it might be useful to have some sort of agreement with the regular pro-Israeli contributors about the content and structure of such an article. We really do need to avoid as many acrimonious disputes as we can manage, and a prior agreement might be a good way to achieve that.

How about we all acknowledge that no matter what this article looks like it's something that wouldn't appear in Brittanica as an individual article even if Brittanica had an infinite number of man hours. Can we remember for a second that "notability" is a criteria for having an article but not a requirement to have one? Can we ask for a second if this article honestly adds to the sum of world knowledge? Or if it even could..?

How about we begin discussing, as Gatoclass suggests, some articles this could be merged into. It is my view that everything in this article could fit quite well under the following:

• Human_rights_in_Israel#Israel.27s_record:_human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories (It could be expanded into its own article called Human rights in the Israeli territories, or something like that)
• Human rights in Israel
• Arab-Israeli
• Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict
• Israel and the United Nations
• Boycott of Israel
• International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict
• West Bank
• Israeli West Bank Barrier
• Nationality and Entry into Israel Law
• West Bank closures
• Academic boycotts of Israel

I understand that many pro-Allegation or semi pro-Allegation editors here are wary of this proposal. But perhaps if you joined in with me (you surely outnumber me as far as editors of this page who agree with me vs those who don't) in discussing alternatives, we could stop wasting hours on this page and actually enlighten people on the many-faceted nature of the conflicts. I'm not saying we jump into this. I know I've edited too fast at many times, and sometimes rudely. But here we have a chance to break through this bullshit and actually map out how we plan to organize this material into other articles. It could be a very organized process, and we could temporarily devote a /sidepage to doing it..

Feel free to shoot this idea down, but consider the opprotunity here first.--Urthogie 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing a merger with other articles. I think my proposal speaks for itself.

The fact is, the name of this article has attracted a great deal of hostility and I don't think the resulting article is very successful. But more importantly, I'm not sure that looking at the situation in the territories through the narrow prism of one particular perspective is a very useful approach anyhow. I do think the apartheid perspective is a very important one, but it isn't the only perspective and trying to make it so tends to distort, and in some ways actually limit, the debate. Gatoclass 02:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess the question then to phrase Gato correctly is-- who here supports renaming the article to Human rights in the Israeli territories or Human rights of Palestinians in the Israeli territories, and putting irrelevant stuff into other articles? This would have the effect of adding a necessary page to Wikipedia, and also eliminating an edit war magnet.--Urthogie 02:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I specifically said in my original suggestion that before we start taking votes, I would want some sort of agreement on the content and structure of the new articles or articles. I don't want just a cosmetic name change and then the renewal of the same edit wars we've already had. The name change is contingent on the agreement over structure. I'm certainly not going to vote for a name change without such an agreement, because that just opens the door for a whole new edit war over appropriate content for the new article. Gatoclass 02:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this as a structure:

• Background
• Settlements
• West Bank barrier
• Military activity
• Pass Laws
• Views on the settlements

• Support
• Opposition
• Mixed

What do you think of that?--Urthogie 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not really keen on that structure at all.

I think before responding at length I would have to sit down and give considerable thought as to layout and content. I can't do that overnight. I'll try and get back to you over this in the next few days. Gatoclass 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, may I ask why you're not keen on this suggested set up though?--Urthogie 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: User_talk:Gatoclass § rename_proposal, and User_talk:Urthogie § rename_proposal

your input is needed-- all of you!

After several back and forths Gatoclass we have come to a proposed solution to this all. And your input is needed:

So how about we call the article, Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories or simply Israel and the Palestinian territories? The structure could be this:

• Property law
• Violence
• Public services

• Water
• Etc.

• West Bank barrier
• Israeli military activity

• Roadblocks and checkpoints
• Detention and torture
• House demolitions
• Targeted assassinations

• Views

• Criticism (this would include allegations of apartheid)
• Support
• Mixed

• International law

This seems pretty solid, then, no? Please give your input--Urthogie 16:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on. I didn't agree to "Israeli policy in the occupied territories". I just said it might make a viable alternative to "Palestinian human rights in the..." or "Human rights in..." or whatever. But I'm undecided about which title might be best. Gatoclass 17:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well ok, what are the various issues regarding the suggested names Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories or Israel and the Palestinian territories, respectively?--Urthogie 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to this idea; I'm just not sure a complete move would be the natural result. We had discussed two articles earlier, which seems like it may still be the best option, in which case this one could in large part then link to and summarize the material from that broader article. For one thing, I'm not sure how this discussion would really fit into the other article. You suggest a place, but the discussion there would presumably be very limited, and would be somewhat distracting if it became a large focus. In truth, I think there are several reasons why a separate article on the apartheid analogy makes sense. Creating an actual article on the situation (as opposed to the analogy) would potentially relieve much of the pressure here, though. Either way, the creation of such a more general article would certainly be appropriate, at least to clarify that this is not the generalized discussion of conditions in the territories.

As far as the names, I like the new suggestions, since it's not really just about human rights. Mackan79 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also open to the idea, with qualifications already well articulated by Mackan.--G-Dett 18:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well this proposed rename has no real meaning if this article is kept. The whole point of this compromise was to steer clear of having a page that looked at the issues through the prism of one view-- that of "israeli apartheid." If this compromise didn't involve a page rename, this whole conversation wouldn't have begun in the first place-- someone would have just created the page and there'd have been no discussion. It's a proposed rename and expansion.

Let me clarify, to address g-dett's and mackans' criticisms in this regard, though. Yes, this page fulfills notability prerequisites. However, my argument is not that it doesn't adhere to policy, but simply that we shouldn't have such a page. A serious encyclopedia would never include an article just on an allegation, rather it would discuss that allegation in a larger context. Think about it-- would Encyclopedia Brittanica, Encyclopedia Judaica, or Encyclopedia Islamica (not sure what there's is called) have an article on this allegation, even if they had all the free time in the world? I think not.

So, to summarize-- notability is a requirement for existence but not a requirement to exist. The decision is up to all of us which configuration we'll decide on, but I think the current name of the article doesn't accomplish anything enyclopedia's are meant to accomplish.

In regard to Mackan's comments about the allegation being too limited in the article... this is indeed an issue we need to sort out in advance. To what extent would the allegations find a place in the article? What portion of the criticism section would they take up? Would they deserve their own section? These are all unanswered questions, but I think we can sort them out if we all agree that a new, better article can be created from the ashes of this one.--Urthogie 18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have several reactions:

• This is a significant shift in the topical focus, i.e., from political rhetoric to a substantive political issue. I'm ok with it, but let's be clear that's what we're doing.
• The way I see it, there is a topic related to the conditions for Palestinians in places they've been concentrated, which include the West Bank and Gaza, but also Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and other places.
• A subset is the humanitarian and civil rights issues related to Palestinians in politically disputed territories, i.e., the West Bank (Gaza is no longer disputed). These issues are a result of several forces, including but not limited to Israel's policy.
• In other words, my positions are these:
  • If we're going to write about the humanitarian and political situation for Palestinians (to the extent that they are affected by their identity as Palestinians), then we should discuss it for all Palestinians.
  • If we're going to write about the conditions for Palestinians on the West Bank, then we should discuss all the factors that affect their condition so as to provide a full context.
• I think there is a separate but related topic about the administration of the West Bank, but I suspect that's covered by other articles.

--Leifern 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I'd think that we should have one article on the living conditions of the entire Palestinian diaspora, and the subset of that-- the situation in the settlements-- should have its own article as well, per Wikipedia:Summary style.--Urthogie 18:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem is this: you can always generalize to something less controversial, but sometimes controversial issues require coverage too. The best analogy I could come up with in all of this is a concept like United states hegemony. There too, a controversial phrase which basically amounts to an allegation. There too, an unclear line between concept and rhetoric. There too, a concept which targets a specifc institution, and a concept which is totally disputed. So would the proper result be a redirect to American foreign policy? If you look, you see the redirect there is to American Empire. That is, basically the same idea, with a slightly less pointed title. Of course one can only draw so much, but I think it illustrates a point: yes, we want to avoid pointed titles to the extent it is feasible to do so, but not at the expense of erasing highly notable topics.

Unfortunately, this case is even harder, because the word and concept of apartheid are so closely tied together (and possibly because American Empire, by luck, happens to sometimes mean something less disputed). I think, ultimately, that's why "Allegations of" was the best thing people could come up with. Of course, it can't neutralize the fact that this is a negative statement about Israel, but neither does American Empire.

That said, moving the primary discussion of conditions to this new article would seem to accomplish much of your objective, for reasons previously noted, particularly if we then adopted a more encyclopedic approach here. Would it not be worth a start? You can always push for the deletion of this one if you can show that it really is an unnecessary fork. Mackan79 20:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

BAD IDEA. This article should be called Israeli Apartheid. Let's not try to hide, bury, or deny the allegations of Apartheid against Israel, made by people such as Desmond Tutu and other South African anti-apartheid experts, plus many others. That is what the reader comes here to learn about. I believe that people are trying to delete the word Apartheid as applied to Israel for POV reasons (trying to rename the article), when it's clear that the word has been directly applied to Israel by South Africans and many others, including a American President. There are other places to write about human rights problems, laws, etc. in the West Bank, this article is about Israeli Apartheid and the allegations of it. Let's keep to the subject, and no renaming please. Thanks.Kritt 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kritt, there is no Israeli apartheid. There is simply no reasonable basis to make such an assertion. That some people make the comparison for political purposes does not make it so, and that some people virulently hateful to Israel hope that the allegation would stick, does not make it so. We can do down this garden lane as many times as you like, but I want to take note that you want this article to confirm your opinion. --Leifern 18:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There would seem to be a lot of material appropriate for Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories that isn't covered here. And vice versa: the allegations of apartheid for inside Israel referred to in this article wouldn't be covered there. This looks like a separate article to me, rather than a move of this one. —Ashley Y 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, there is a topic related to the conditions for Palestinians in places they've been concentrated, which include the West Bank and Gaza, but also Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and other places - Leifern

I think that is a valid point, but I'm not sure they should be in the same article. Is-Pal articles tend to be on the long side, and trying to cover this much ground may not be wise. I would certainly support a link from one to the other though. Gatoclass 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We just had yet another AfD, the conclusion was "no consensus" and that closes the issue for at least a few months. No moves or name changes. --John Nagle 07:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I wasn't proposing such. What I originally said is that I thought maybe this topic would be better served by actually describing the conditions that Palestinians live in, rather than just collecting a bunch of quotes from people who just happen to have used the word "apartheid" to describe them. And I'm still inclined to think that.

But IMO the article would have to be up and running for a few weeks before one could really judge whether it was appropriate to merge or keep this article. So even if the project was started tomorrow, it would probably be quite some time before such a decision could be made. Gatoclass 12:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not "closed for at least a few months". The no consensus was that 30 people thought the present way of handling this issue was sufficient, 32 felt it was unsatisfactory. Meaning that this will be pursued relentlessly until a resolution is sought that presents these kinds of articles in the manner that benefits readers and this encyclopedia. At the moment, this article is having a negative impact on articles throughout wikipedia. A solution must be found here, that will in the future protect subjects that can be impacted by systemic bias in favour of dominant available sources. Once articles are allowed to merely be a list of "allegations" with desperate attempts to counter the allegations, it is the presentation of Muslim and Arab subjects in the middle east that will perhaps suffer more than any other. Ultimately, there is no neutral reply to the never ending stream of allegations that spew from the US state department and US media against declared enemies. Only attempts to present issues in a rounded manner taking account of structural causes can be applied.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it a bit disturbing that this article seems to lack a definition of apartheid. Every definition I've seen involves race. Carter's "apartheid that isn't racially based" seems to be a more poetic or rhetorical use of the term than anything else. It reminds me of Femi-natzis or Nicotine Natzis; it makes a point by comparison, but the term Natzi really doesn't apply. When you try to discuss it with it's proponents, the response usually seems to be a defensive "are you saying it's perfectly OK to treat people like this?" Which, of course, isn't what anyone was saying, nor that this is better, or worse, than apartheid, because that's not the point. If you call an anxiety attack a heart attack, you're wrong, just as you are if you call a stroke a heart attack; it makes no difference if an anxiety attack isn't as bad as a heart attack or if a stroke may be far worse; they are not the same, and any conversation about them must use correct and appropos terminology, especially in an encyclopedia.

A lot of what I see here isn't allegation as much as allegory; perhaps "comparisons to apartheid", valid or not, might be more accurate. What exists in these territories isn't apartheid, no matter how deplorable it may be, and no matter how many respected figures may have alluded to apartheid in their discourse or found the conditions remeniscent of apartheid, any more than a strip mine is a desert, or a desert is the surface of the moon. Wage slavery isn't the same as slavery, raping the environment isn't rape, and Israeli apartheid isn't actually apartheid. Rosencomet 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick straw poll

Assuming consensus was reached for how the article would be structured, would you support the renaming and expanding of this page to Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories? (make sure to explain why or why not)

Yes

1. Gives better context than just discussing everything through the prism of a single "allegation." Seems to be a better way of teaching people about the actual things going on in the territories.--Urthogie 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
2. I think that is a better option. Regardless of anyone's POV, and Urthogie probably has a very different POV to mine, the reason given above is actually correct.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Yes. That can refelect the policy and ongoing debates and important issues, without sounding weighted towards any one side. --Sm8900 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
4. I'd support this. This makes it seem less like the allegations are "true," and would be inherently more NPOV. IronDuke 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Much better. More encyclopaedia and less political forum... -- Olve 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Me too. Must eliminate less-than-universally accepted position from title. -- Y not? 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
7. I'm not 100% convinced (perhaps 85%) but such title does sound like an article from an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is, isn't it? I don't think we post articles to show our opinions but rather the actual facts. I'd support it, yes. --JewBask 14:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Yes much more appropriate. Conclusions should not be part of the title. Fred Bauder 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Yes, way better title. I am not sure that the allegations of apartheid are notable at all, while the Israely policy on the Territories are certainly notable and very important. Great idea! Alex Bakharev 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Yes. While although I happen to think 'Israeli apartheid' is fair, 'Israeli policy in Palestinian territories' is equally fair. And if some editors feel that title is less POV-sounding, then I don't think it'd lose any quality in the restructuring. Bladestorm 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Yes. This will give the article a chance to develop into something that complies with the NPOV policy. Yevgeny Kats 15:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Second choice; first is Human rights in the Palestinian territories. Kla'quot 16:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Yes per nom. Allegations are hardly encyclopaedic anyway, will always smack of POV. Kla'quot suggestion is ok, too. --tickle me 17:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Yes per discussion above as well as many of my talk page comments over the past 11 months. Kla'quot's suggestion would be equally acceptable to me. I do think there are some POV issues and vagueness issues with the phrase "Palestinian territories", which have been discussed on at least one other page recently, but it would still be an improvement over what exists currently. 6SJ7 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Yes per nom, Olve and 6SJ7 Zeq 10:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
16. yes. Far less POV to call it this instead--Sefringle 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
17. Yes, per Fred. This would solve a lot of the problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
18. Yes. The term "Apartheid" shouldn't be in the title of articles other than those which refer directly to the South African regime. Noon 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
19. Yes Per nom. This would give the article a broader range, and avoid using a term which is not definite and unencyclopedic. Shlomke 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
20. Yes. Not preferable, but much better than the current title, which invites a lot of drivel. Tomer^talk 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
21. Yes. Nice, broad type of article that would be quite good. While I don't agree with the original intent of this article, an analysis of the history of Israeli military rule in the territories would be is somewhat more appropriate. I would also suggest extending the article to include the policies of both Egypt and Jordan towards the territories prior to 1967, as this was a key factor in determining what the territories are today. The Prince 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
22. Yes - less POV and more encyclopedic title. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
23. Yes Makes more sense in the general context. SV, Humus and Urthogie raise good points. JoshuaZ 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
24. Yes per Urthogie, Zleitzen, Olve, Fred Bauder, and SlimVirgin. Kla'quot's 1st choice is OK as well, but I think "Israeli policy" is a bit more specific than "Human rights". <<-armon->> 00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
25. Yes. If this article is going to continue to exist we should at least attempt to cut down on the divisiveness and the title is the best place to start.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
26. Yes. See the article Crime of Apartheid. The effort to "criminalize" "Apartheid" goes back to the Cold War and it was the "saintly" Soviets who pushed for a resolution (which was not accepted by the West) in the UN in 1973 (when their client Arab states lost the 1973 Yom Kippur War) against South African Apartheid, that they viewed as their next target in their struggle against the Western democracies. True apartheid came to an end in 1989 with the election of de Klerk to the presidency of South Africa and Apartheid was finally buried with the South African general election, 1994. But in 2002, like a dog that cannot let go of a bone, some members of the international community who could not rid themselves of Cold War terminology, established the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and officially criminalized Apartheid as a "sub-set" of "crimes against humanity" and began to "universalize" the term relying on earlier UN resolutions of 1973 and 1976. (So far the abuses of Communism in the USSR, Cambodia, and Red China have still not been condemned or classed as the real crimes against humanity which they are! Of course, no-one has the guts to condemn Islamofascism and regimes that support and practice it as the crime against humanity that it is, although the Trial of Saddam Hussein was a good start by the new Iraqi government!) So let's be very clear about this, that as of 2007, it is true that everyone agrees that crimes against humanity are evil and must be condemned and its practioners punished, but what to call those "crimes" and to know and admit that they are happening, regardless if "apartheid" slang is thrown about (often as a smokescreen for other evils), has still not dawned on many people, so that the choice of terminology, and particularly the word "apartheid" has not convinced everyone, including the USA and Israel, that those who wish to wield that word are motivated by anything more than anti-Israel and anti-USA hatred, and there is no one clear international position as many states are still debating this complex set of international laws meant to help humanity. The United States, amid bipartisan consensus, has stated that it does not intend to ratify the treaty creating the International Criminal Court. The United States argues that fear of prosecution by an independent prosecutor would restrain legitimate American discretion on foreign policy decisions, where these are already subject to adequate domestic constitutional checks. This impinges on the principle of national sovereignty, which the United States cannot be compelled to give up. Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed the Rome Statute. In 2002 it submitted a letter to the United Nations declaring that it did not intend to ratify the treaty, using the same wording as the similar letter from the United States, see States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court#Israel. In light of the complex political cross-currents and the fact that it is undeniable that the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has POV-advocates on all sides, it ill behooves Wikipedia to flash an article that "adopts" the term "Apartheid" for such an article when it is clearly subject to dispute, interpretaion and application in the international community. (The following I have written elsewhere and I am repeating it here:) The truth is that the word "apartheid" should never be used in any context except as it applies to its point of origin, South Africa itself! Apartheid was a unique form of racial segregation that existed in South Africa. It was not called "Nazism" (a unique political ideology in itself) and it was not called "Fascism" (although it had elements of it), but Apartheid a unique Afrikaans word that captured that ideology's origin's and connections with the Afrikaners who created it in South Africa ONLY! -- and NOT all Afrikaners supported it either, such as the famous Field Marshal Jan Smuts. (To really understand Apartheid's uniqueness, one would need to know more about Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd its chief proponent and architect, who eventually also became South Africa's Prime Minister democratically elected by the white electorate -- and how many supposedly well-informed and intellectual people have even a shred of knowledge about all of this?) The trend to play fast and loose with these labels and specific political terminology is recent and in this case is clearly meant to besmirch Israel and reeks of antisemitism, plain and simple. Let's take another example, such as Nazism, which is identified strictly with Nazi Germany and the Nazi Party and with any group that called itself by that name or wished to be openly combined with them, such as one sees in Category:Nazi parties, BUT at no time does any rational and reliable scholar call Spain under Franco Nazi Spain or his party the Falange as the Nazi Falange, no matter how many similarities there may have been. On the contrary, care is taken by NPOV writers and scholars to clarify that while the Falangists and the Nazis were Fascists, yet the Falangists are called Falangsist and not Nazis. Similarly, Italian fascism is not called Italian Nazism and the Italian Fascist National Party is not called the Nazi Fascist National Party or the Nazi National Party (no matter how many times Hitler and Mussolini got together and even signed treaties) because true scholars and historians do not play fast and loose with terminology to score points. Likewise, another of the closest of the Nazi's allies, Imperial Japan is not called Nazi Japan and they are not accused of Allegations of Japanese Nazism (no matter how wicked they may have been to other nations) simply because as scholars it is to our advantage NOT to mix labels and start "cursing out" those we dislike, as it does not help us in our quest for understanding, through accurate description and explanation, as to what the true nature of each movement and nation really was or is. Thus, in this case, articles about so-called "allegations" of "Apartheid" attributed to any state or party, not just Israel, make Wikipedia look silly and manipulated, and serve only to confuse and politicize as propaganda vehicles like so many pawns without brains not helping to create any clearer understanding of the unique issues and struggles that upderpin the complex and unique Arab-Israeli conflict and its sub-set, the equally complicated Israeli-Palestinian conflict which are the two true neutral model names for articles connected to them, see Category:Arab-Israeli conflict and Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's time to stop the reckless tomfoolery when it comes to abusing and bandying about the term Apartheid, and put it back where it belongs: in its South African cage ONLY! Thank you. IZAK 15:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
27. Yes, assuming that this article is needed at all, which I don't think so because it's just an emotional political issue that isn't going to be resolved in an encyclopedia style of factual conclusion and if anything deserves maybe one paragraph in some other article on Israel or Palestinians or the Middle East. --ChosidFrumBirth 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
28. Yes, excellent idea, would transform the article from propaganda point/counterpoint to elucidation of a serious encyclopedic topic. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
29. Yes, it isn't about apartheid at all. Not even a shred of an attempt to discuss the meaning of apartheid. --Redaktor 21:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
30. Yes due to WP:NPOV. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Yes -- an NPOV title will set the tone for an NPOV article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Yes as the current title is plainly not a NPOV. -- Dauster 11:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Yes - more encyclopedic and neutral title, non-ambiguous. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Yes - less POV. -- CasualFighter 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Counterproposal - what about Humanitarian and political issues for Palestinians on the West Bank?

To those reviewing this vote, please note that User:Leifern added the above sentence on a counterproposal at midnight on April 30 2007 after most of the NO votes listed below had been cast [2]. In other words, the no votes cast before that time were in response to the original proposal only. Those made afterward may or may not be responding to the original proposal due to potential confusion that may have ensued by the placement of this counterproposal here while voting was already underway on the original proposal. Tiamut 18:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds better, still not sure it is the best title ('issues'?!), but it is a marked improvement on the above proposal. --Coroebus 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No

1. The proposal amounts to deleting this article and merging some of its content into another article on a different subject. This is precisely the proposal of many of the delete proponents in the AfD that just closed a few days ago. It is grossly inappropriate for a cabal of editors to form here and proceed to do exactly the opposite of the result of the AfD. Andyvphil 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   Gatoclass didn't vote delete, nor did Mackan. Neither of them voted "no." Also, I've left messages at talk pages/emails of anti-Zionist and anti-Israel editors, and Palestinian editors (I even left a talk page message at your page). Please assume good faith, and if necessary, check my contribs.--Urthogie 15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   We just had an AfD and the outcome was to not delete this article. You've already archived my comment on this proposal two days ago, but my position remains the same: start up your new article if you want, but this title remains an article and not a redirect unless you get a different result from a sixth AfD on it. Andyvphil 15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   AFD's are not required to rename or redirect pages. The AFD by the way showed a majority having frustration with the limited scope and approach of this article (see Zleitzen's above comment). Gatoclass, for instance, did not vote to delete the article, but is open to the possibility of this rename.--Urthogie 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   You are not proposing to "rename" this article, you are proposing to completely change its subject. And you've expressed disinterest in starting an article on the new subject unless you can merge away this article. Well, Allegations of Israeli apartheid survived the Zleitzen-initiated 5th AfD, and this illegititmate attempt at deletion will also fail if I have anything to say about it. Andyvphil 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   You've been having your say about it, and I would only ask that you continue. But to think that you alone can decide community consensus regarding whether this article should be renamed and expanded in its subject matter or not is slightly delusional.--Urthogie 16:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   Quoting self: "It is grossly inappropriate for a cabal of editors to form here and proceed to do exactly the opposite of the result of the AfD." Not the only time you've tried this excuse for deleting an article without following AfD procedures, I see.[3] Andyvphil 12:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

   You have come to the strange conclusion that renaming and deleting are exactly the same, and now despite the fact that you have been shown that that is a false charge you persist in making it. Besides the obvious fact that it is a gross violation of WP:AGF, it is also quite foolish.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

   Quoting self, with added emphasis: "The(THIS) proposal amounts to deleting this article and merging some of its content into another article on a different subject. This is precisely the proposal of many of the delete proponents in the AfD that just closed a few days ago." Boy do I get tired of individuals who use AGF to insist I pretend to be stupid. Andyvphil 01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

   I have no idea if you are pretending or not.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Move to Israeli apartheid. Kirby♥time 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
3. No. This isn't a rename, it's a rescope. User:Urthogie is also WP:CANVASsing for votes with the side who lost the last AFD. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   Check my contribs. I've contacted and emailed several users who voted keep. Such as Tarc (see below).--Urthogie 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Your contribs show you did canvas some AfD keep-voters, but perhaps Tarc was the only one not already active here. I don't mean to be cynical, but that seems like a CYA move. -- Kendrick7^talk

   Wikipedia:Assume good faith--Urthogie 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   I haven't checked edit histories for follow-through, but I notice Zleitzen offered to canvass.[4] Andyvphil 12:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

4. No - By hook or by crook I believe is the apropros term for those who have (repeatedly) failed to get their way via AfD and are now trying other means of asserting their POV. I concur with all of Andyvphil's concerns above. Tarc 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
5. No. "Renaming and expanding" is not what I proposed. My suggestion is, get an agreement on the new article, get it up and see if people find it satisfactory and if so, merge the best stuff from this article into a section in the new one. Gatoclass 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   You said earlier: "I guess I might support a change in name of the article if a suitable name could be found." Wouldn't this be more of an "Open to the possibility"?--Urthogie 17:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   In principle I'm inclined to support the idea of merging this page into a wider article on Palestinian human rights. I just think this particular proposal is the wrong way to go about it, that's all. Gatoclass 07:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

6. No. While I disagree entirely with the views presented in this article, they are just that, views. As the first commenter under "no" suggested, the proposal would change not only the title of the article, but its entire scope. I suggest that Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories, or something less pro-Arab POV, like Israeli policy towards Palestinians in Israel, would be a very valuable article, but it is still a separate topic from this one. So long as this article is written in an academic and objective fashion, describing the history of "allegations", so long as they are NOT presented as facts, I see no problem with keeping this article as a separate one. LordAmeth 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Definately not. This article has less to do with the reality on the ground and more to do with the usage of a political epithet. This motion is clearly an attempt to turn that political epithet into "the truth." This would be analogous to renaming the Allegations of Satanism in popular culture article to simply Satanism in popular culture or the Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials article to simply U.S. war criminals. --GHcool 21:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
8. No The proposed name change would exclude discussion of the state of Palestinians within Israeli borders. Much of the literature on "Israeli apartheid" concerns the treatment of Israeli Arabs; the move is clearly inappropriate, accordingly. CJCurrie 00:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

   We already have Human rights in Israel and Arab-Israeli.--Urthogie 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

   Human rights in Israel is a general article on the subject of human rights, dealing with everything from women's rights to gay rights to the rights of immigrants. It would be impossible to merge the material from "within the green line" to that page without creating a huge bulge in the middle of the article. This wouldn't solve our current dilemma; the material would just have to be spun off again. CJCurrie 01:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

9. No. This ends up being (whatever the motives of the participants) another deletion, hiding, masking, or burying of an aspect of alleged Israeli human rights violations in the Palestinian territories. See also the related info at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict. This article is a long breakout article from Allegations of apartheid. That article has survived a recent "article for deletion" (AFD) review. We need MORE articles on human rights violations, not less. Human rights violations by all sides. We need specific breakout articles for each of the many sides in conflicts in many nations and territories. See also: Portal:Human rights and Category:Human rights for ideas. There is way too much material in this article to merge it with another article. Why does Human rights in the Palestinian territories redirect to Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority? Why is there no separate page titled something like "Human rights under Israeli occupation"? Tewfik and Beit Or repeatedly deleted a long article on Israeli human rights violations. The admin Jayjg improperly backed them up. See Talk:Allegations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada for more info. The article survived an AFD. The closing AFD admin wrote: "No consensus. Keep, with strong encouragement to merge with Al-Aqsa Intifada on the basis of Wikipedia:Content forking." Someone deleted the article. I restored the article and tried changing the name to the more accurate name Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada. It was again deleted. Jayjg backed up the deletion and again redirected the new page name to al-Aqsa Intifada without any OK from normal wikipedia merge procedures. See: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. It says not to abruptly delete pages as part of a merge if the deletion is likely to be contested. Contested deletions require an "article for deletion" (AFD) discussion. The article was never merged. It is too long to merge. The original page is archived here. I did not write that page, but I now think the page is broad enough to become an article with this name: Human rights under Israeli occupation. The original page needs a lot of work. In the archived page I have started converting the links to reference links. The page could be a linked breakout article from this small article section: Human rights in Israel#Israel's record: human rights in the occupied territories. This Allegations of Israeli apartheid should be a link from the new breakout article, too. Another improper "AFD keep, merge, and delete" tactic facilitated by the admin Jayjg was recently stopped concerning this article: United States military aid to Israel. See the talk page for the relevant links to the deletion discussions, reviews, and incident reports for improper admin action: Talk:United States military aid to Israel. --Timeshifter 08:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
10. No. Yet another attempt to bias Wikipedia towards the views of right-wing Zionists. Asa 08:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
11. No This article is about the use of the term apartheid to describe Israeli policies via a vis the Palestinians - who uses it, why it is used and the reactions to its use. Trying to remove the actual term "apartheid" from the title, misleads the reader as to the content of the article. The words "allegations" should not be in the title, but the word "apartheid" definitely should be. For a potential re-naming option, consider "Israel and apartheid". Tiamut 09:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
12. No. Human rights in Israel#Israel's record: human rights in the occupied territories already exists. Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories would be just fine to create. Neither is genuinely about the accusations of apartheid, nor their substantiation, although the former does already have a subsection linking here. --Carwil 17:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
13. No It is about an epithet. I agree w/ GHcool and LordAmeth. Also compare w/ Islamofascism. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Yes, create an article titled "Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories". This article, however, stands on its own merit, and should remain named as it is. This, by the way, seems like at attempt to circumvent the AfD. Changing the title, which would then require changing the content to match the title, is really equivalent to deleting the article.--Ezeu 05:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
15. No The proposal is an attempt to delete this article by the back door. The most recent attempt to delete this article failed. It is bad form to try, yet again, to do the same thing. Let the focus be on improving the content of this article—on explaining the context of the accusations and the problems with the comparison—rather than on trying to make the article disappear. Bondegezou 09:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Definitely Not Just days after yet another failed AfD on this article, we get a proposal which would in effect bury the content in a mass of other information. I find it very hard to assume good faith here. The allegations have indeed been made, and by people in a position to know, including South Africans active in the struggle against apartheid, Israeli academics and activists, Palestinians and many others. The allegations do not all relate to Israeli practices in the 1967-occupied territories; indeed, the main theme of Uri Davis's books Israel:An Apartheid State and Apartheid Israel is the structured and institutionalised racism within the Israeli state itself. All of this would be lost in the proposed renaming. As I have noted before, I believe that the article would be better named Israeli Apartheid, but at least at present the title reflects the content. Let's keep it as it is, improve it, and drop all these attempts to delete or smother it. RolandR 15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong No Circumventing the Wiki's policies because attempts to delete have repeatedly failed is outrageous. The title of the article is "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", so we are discussing a non-issue here. Numerous scholars and analysts are using the term to describe the Zionist regime. Such a page needs to exists to illustrate those people's views on the matter. Lixy 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
18. No, it massively alters the scope of the article, I'd be happier with a different title with a more narrow field of reference. The main problem with the article is not the name, however, it is that it is appallingly written and too long, and this is the fault of both sides of the argument with their insistence on 'balancing' every pro- point with an anti- one, until the whole thing is a collection of quotes strung together in a barely coherent manner - such is the fate of most articles related to Palestine and Israel, and will continue to happen whatever the article gets called because some people regard their duty at wikipedia to be pushing propaganda for one side or other (cf. Pallywood for when unsubstantiated allegations that accord with a particular POV get the derogatory title and article scope they want). --Coroebus 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
19. No', because the proposed title would make one believe it is a discussion of something entirely different than the current title. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

    No, in the Strongest Possible Terms, see Allegations of Brazilian apartheid and Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid to see that pro-Israel editors are playing games and are attempting to deny the term Israeli Apartheid.Kritt 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

20. No, after considerable deliberation. We should write for the curious layperson, not the home-team's cheerleaders. "Israeli apartheid" is a concept with a great deal of currency in reliable sources, and this article does (or ought to do) what Wikipedia does well: sketch the parameters of a topic, including any associated controversy, list some prominent examples and provide a list of sources. This is an encyclopedia which tells you that Cheetos are "a crunchy, cheese-flavored snack made from extruded cornmeal." I've always known I love Cheetos but now I know why – it's because they, like all things lovely, are extruded. And there is solid, indeed ubiquitous precedent in the Israel-Palestine sections of Wikipedia for articles on controversial topics with arguably inherent and unavoidable POV-slants in their titles and purviews. Even Pallywood, which covers the use of a loaded term confined almost entirely to the right-wing blogosphere, is worth keeping if we keep that curious layman in mind. Ditto with New antisemitism, even if in its present state that article – almost as long as the Iliad and just as repetitive – might leave even the most alertly curious layman in a state of near-coma.--G-Dett 15:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
21. A good start. I like having the term "Palestinian" in the title. However, the proposed title doesn't take into account that what is practiced and what is policy may be different things. How about, Human rights in the Palestinian territories? Kla'quot 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (First choice Kla'quot 16:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

    Some users have raised the objection that this would have a limiting effect on the discussion. I would support this title too, and I think most editors here would too... but it's important I think that we don't let the house burn while trying to save the furniture, if you catch my drift.--Urthogie 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    I know what you mean. I've indicated first and second choices. Perhaps others will as well. Having another week of discussion isn't going to kill us, although sometimes it may feel that way. Kla'quot 16:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    I don't believe Human rights in the Palestian territories would be an acceptable repository for the information on this page. This article deals mostly with general human rights concerns in the Palestinian territories, and how the Palestinian Authority addresses issues of human rights. The "Israeli apartheid" material is largely outside its purview.

    I believe Israeli apartheid analogy would be the best possible compromise at this stage. CJCurrie 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    I certainly think the "allegations" must go. The days of the "allegations" articles are over. Having disliked them, then learnt to live with them as a way of taking the edge of some of the worst POV pages, I am now convinced that it is a terrible concept that has damaged wikipedia. Regarding the "Analogy" title, I don't really like the idea of an article which is framed by an "analogy". We need context. The details of this situation in Israel are important. That people have compared this situation to apartheid is notable and should be mentioned, but that is as far as it goes.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    I've never understood why you think of this article as comparable to the other "Allegations" articles.--G-Dett 03:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

22. Move this article. Then start another Israeli Apartheid article, this time on the use of the term alone. I suggested this many, many months ago. I got shouted down. I will again. So it goes. Hornplease 11:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    An article will migrate in the direction of its title. I believe this article used to be called Apartheid Outside South Africa or somesuch and it is only partway to where it's going... Anyway, if Israeli Apartheid appears it won't stay limited to use of the term. Andyvphil 01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

23. Weak no. I personally believe that any attacks of Israel as an apartheid state should be relegated to the Timeline of antisemitism page. Speaking in terms of other peoples' histories, I don't think anybody is warranted to attack Israel for anything. That being said, ex-president Jimbo and other prominent evil/brainwashed people have lent their credence to this ridiculous view, making it just that...an accusation of apartheid just like the other "accusation of apartheid" pages. And there's already a "IP conflict" page. --Yodamace1 11:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
24. No - articles such as this are a credit to WP. Comparable articles at Allegations of Brazilian apartheid and Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid contain good, thought-provoking information, exactly what we should encourage and regular visitors will appreciate. PalestineRemembered 10:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I'm sorry, you have to be kidding. A straw poll on who is "open to the possibility"? I'm happy to discuss the issue, but not in the context of ridiculous polls.

I will say I disagree with much of the reasoning above. If the concern here is that a substantive issue is being covered through a partisan prism, then I absolutely agree that a neutral article should be created on the conditions. The question we have here is whether there is also a notable discussion of the "apartheid" debate. As I said above, I'm not even sure that discussion would be entirely appropriate in an article on the conditions in the territories. What are we really talking about here, a single paragraph? In any case, I have no idea how a straw poll of this sort is supposed to help the discussion. Mackan79 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's meant to show there's interest in the possibility of a rename. It in no way indicates people are completely ready to rename it, say today. As far the allegation of apartheid, I think it deserves more than just one paragraph in the proposed article, perhaps even a section. We can discuss this specific point further once we gauge how much interest their is even in the idea of renaming in the first place. I'll make this promise to you Mackan-- there should be no actual renaming until the question of the allegation's place in the article is settled, and we have consensus with you. I want to make sure you're happy with this because you're one of the most reasonable editors on this page.--Urthogie 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've adjusted the poll question per your comment. it's obvious that the "yes" is a support here.--Urthogie 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe we had just started a conversation in which a number of people were offering to consider ways of dealing with this. I don't believe jumping into a straw poll of this sort helps that conversation. I also don't believe you can change the wording after 11 people voted that they would "consider" this. In my view, the proper thing to do here is to start the other article in either case. At the least, this would ultimately allow a future refocus and reduction of this article. At the same time, that article will necessarily be of a completely different structure than this one, perhaps something like we have here. That being the case, I'm not sure why we would immediately "rename" this one into what would ultimately be one section of another article. As I said, I'm open to this discussion, but hope it can proceed as such. Mackan79 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, look at the "yes votes". They support the move explicitly. Can you find a single one which even suggests the possibility they are not interested in this move in their reason's for voting "yes"? I can't. My guess is that voting patterns won't change even now that I've made this fix to the wording of the question.

But like you say, an immediate rename will not occur, even if this vote was 100 to 0 in favor of renaming. Wikipedia is not democracy, and no one is disputing that. This is just meant to see what level of interest there is behind this possibility. Apparently, a lot.--Urthogie 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, I appreciate the time and good-faith effort you've put into the layout of a possible article on Israeli Policy in the Palestinian Territories. I think Mackan's analysis however is spot on. If "allegations of Israeli apartheid" becomes a section within that article, it is going to become a distraction, and we'll have not only the usual NPOV issues but likely also a serious case of WP:Undue Weight. While emphasizing your evident good faith in suggesting this, if support for your proposal is motivated by the desire to simply get rid of this article, I think it will be resisted (perhaps unfairly and unthinkingly, but there's just been so much game-playing and self-evident bad faith in the various plots against this article, most spectacularly in the clutch of ridiculous spinoffs and the creation of a faux "parent article"). If, on the other hand, support for your proposal is motivated by a desire to have the substantive human-rights issues that lay behind the apartheid meme examined elsewhere, and have this article deal strictly with the use of the analogy through various lenses (moral, historical, pragmatic, etc.), and the debate and controversy it has animated for decades now among journalists, pundits, and scholars, then I think you'll find a lot of support for it. --G-Dett 15:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean, we've talked to each other about middle east politics. You know that while I'm pro-Israeli I'm also pro-Palestinian, that I oppose the settlements just as I oppose the terrorism. In other words, I'm a centrist, if we are to go by polls of Palestinians, Israelis, and people of other nations who all put their support behind the two-state solution, oppose settlements, oppose terrorism, etc.

But even if I didn't oppose the settlements and I had far-right or far-left views, it would still be my goal to have an in-depth discussion of the situation in the territories, which of course would include the views of mainstream political sources such as Jimmy Carter and, unfortunately, Norman Finkelstein.

Now, of course, many mainstream sources make this allegation so it has a place in that article, although we have to decide to what extent. I propose that we should start a new talk page section devoted to deciding the placement of the allegations in the new article. this way we can avoid pointless feuds over what/who should be included and where.

But note that I started this poll not to skirt that issue but rather to show that the general idea of renaming this page to give more context has support, even among those who think the allegation is "fair."--Urthogie 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm with Mackan on this. Thrash out some sort of agreement on what goes into the other article, get it up for a few weeks and see how it works out, and then, if it deals adequately with the plight of the Palestinians, merge the main points from this article into that one.

Because quite frankly I really don't think there's a lot here that's informative anyway. We just have a bunch of quotes from various people who use the word "apartheid", but not much discussion about why they are employing the analogy. IMO, the article should be focused on the why, not the who. That's kind of how I see it. Gatoclass 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This straw poll was on the idea of renaming and expanding, though, so it may be the case that we don't take your suggested approach. I'm not saying this straw poll decides anything, but it does indicate that the idea of simply creating a separate page is not necessarily the way to go.--Urthogie 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The question I see here is pretty simple: does a page on the conditions preclude a page on the analogy? All along, I think there has actually been an unexplored middle ground, which was to turn this into two separate pages. That is, have a page on the conditions, and then a reduced page on the analogy itself, something which was last mentioned here. At this point, I will even go further and say who knows, maybe an article on the conditions will effectively cover the analogy. In any case, it still seems like the right place to start. Personally I'd recomend simply creating the article, though we could also start it in userspace if for some reason that's better. The idea that we should start by eliminating this page, though, following the two lengthy AfD's, doesn't seem correct. I'd suggest a more incremental approach is much more likely to get the sort of broader concensus that would let this settle down. Mackan79 18:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass's analysis is accurate and his/her approach is best I believe. Set the new article running.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 19:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

One problem with renaming is that the article is one of a set of "Allegations of ... apartheid", which includes Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid and Allegations of Brazilian apartheid. If this were to be renamed (which seems highly unlikely given the debate above), what would the other ones become?

My main issue with the title is that "Allegations" is the biggest weasel word there is. Whilst the article contains references to back it up, the title standing alone contains WP:Words to avoid. I don't have a better option, but I think that needs to be addressed. Number 57 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a weasel word; I think it's an important element in keeping this article NPOV. To take a few examples, Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate is not listed under "Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge", and Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations includes the word "accusations", not being listed as "Apollo Moon Landing hoax", a title which would indicate that the landing was actually a hoax. Allegations or accusations or conspiracy theories are theories, ideas, not facts, and should be represented and discussed as such. LordAmeth 09:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate analogies, as "Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge" isnt a verbal trope; the phrase itself is notable in this case, though not in that. A better comparison is Allegations of Islamofascism - but wait....Hornplease 12:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Special cases, etc.

So it's interesting to note that once I suggested that we create one or several articles that describe and discuss the plight of Palestinians in all the places they can be found, along with the various causes for their situation, only one thought this was a reasonable idea. The others quickly returned to the subject of singling out one interpretation of Israeli policy. I can't help but conclude that this is a clear indication of how little some editors care about Palestinians or creating a good encyclopedia compared to how much they care about demonizing and vilifying Israel. It's worth reflecting upon, for the majority of editors who may have differences in opinion but want the same thing, both for the Palestinians and Wikipedia. --Leifern 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all this trouble, and yet there's still no article on the world's smallest violin. sniff -- Kendrick7^talk 19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when is the Palestinian diaspora a small violin?--Urthogie 19:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to take that comment, but I certainly don't think any refugees' conditions are to be trivialized. --Leifern 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought your comment was interesting. I was partly responding to you in noting that we can always generalize to try to make things less controversial, like the article on American Empire could be incorporated into the one on American foreign policy. Ultimately, I think it's pretty clear that the Palestinian situation in the West Bank is not one that would generally be discussed with conditions in other surrounding countries, though an article on that topic could also certainly be created. Mackan79 20:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with writing an article about the conditions for Palestinians on the West Bank; but I think it should deal comprehensively with all the factors that affect their well-being (or lack thereof), not just those that someone might arguably blame Israel for. And when the article is about a rhetorical device used to overstate Israel's motivations, it loses credibility entirely. I also think that if we are at all concerned about the situation and future for Palestinian refugees, we should also include the conditions they face in other places where they're treated as a special group. --Leifern 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

if we do create the seperate page and keep this one-- what would the allegations page contain?

Because quite frankly I really don't think there's a lot here that's informative anyway. We just have a bunch of quotes from various people who use the word "apartheid", but not much discussion about why they are employing the analogy. IMO, the article should be focused on the why, not the who. That's kind of how I see it. (Gatoclass)

Why is an entire article needed on the "why"? Only about three sources max even comment on the "why", rather than just asserting or denying the allegation. Three sources amounts to 2 paragraphs maximum.--Urthogie 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PAPER. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't mean we don't show some level of discretion in what article titles we choose. Would Brittanica Online ever have this article, even if it had an infinite number of workers with an infinite amount of time to write? I doubt it. The "not paper" argument dodges all of the difficult questions here.

Lastly, concerning style issues, the guideline is actually to have articles that can grow beyond one or two paragraphs. They're called stubs for a reason-- because they're expected to grow beyond that point.--Urthogie 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If Brittanica were Wikipedia, I think it could be. Wikipedia is full of articles like this or the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair which wouldn't appear in conventional encyclopedias. I think you're mistaken that there's something wrong with this. If there were some term of art for this article, for instance, like "Israelopartheid," then we'd clearly have an article on it. The problem is we have a concept here without a specific term of art (beyond "Israeli Apartheid" itself), so it sounds to some like Wikipedia just decided to write an article on Israeli Apartheid out of all the countries it could have chosen, which isn't really the case. Mackan79 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Brittanica deals more with history than current events, that's true. But I still think that it wouldn't even cover an allegation made all the time in the 1800's.--Urthogie 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannica isn't a model for Wikipedia and shouldn't be.--G-Dett 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has brilliancy like this article.--Urthogie 00:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a question of quality but of format and medium. Wikipedia is to Britannica what Google is to your local library's card catalog. The former offers greater range and depth and is more supple, interactive, and exhaustive, and frankly more indiscriminate. The latter is filtered, and more stable and authoritative in its narrower scope. If you prefer that, send 'em your resumé.--G-Dett 01:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The "why" of (the Allegations of) Israeli Apartheid

Why is an entire article needed on the "why"? Only about three sources max even comment on the "why", rather than just asserting or denying the allegation

I think you are misinterpreting my comments. I wasn't suggesting the article should be focussed on "why it's like apartheid". I only meant to suggest that it would be better to give a description of the discriminatory conditions under which Palestinians live, and then just mention in passing as it were, that some have equated these conditions to apartheid.

I think that would help people to understand why Israel's policies have sometimes been likened to apartheid, but without making the apartheid analogy itself the central focus of the article. Gatoclass 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But this assumes "why" Israel has been accused of apartheid is because its policies are like that of apartheid, which is precisely what is debated. You don't see this? Andyvphil 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep.--Urthogie 16:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the point would be to discuss all theories on why people use the term. The benefit of a new article is that we then wouldn't have to discuss the conditions in such detail here, though.

One other idea: potentially if we expanded the human rights in Israel article to the full scope of civil/equal rights (at least the section on the territories), then the new article wouldn't be necessary, but we could link and summarize to that section instead.[5] Is this possible? Mackan79 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. With that kind of linking and summarizing, this article can focus less on "why" (with all of the question-begging problems attendant upon that word, per Andyvphil), and more on "how." The "apartheid" debate is not static but evolving (as A & M point out, even the Israeli right has found a cynical use for it). A while back Andyvphil suggested a historical summary, and I think that's what's needed. With that in place, detailed treatment of substantive issues can be offloaded either to a new article, per Urthogie, or to an existing article, per Mackan. This should take care of any NPOV issues into the bargain.--G-Dett 18:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck getting the "Israel is apartheid" editors to agree to such a nuanced solution. My fear is that we'll just end up creating a new Frankenstein monster for those editors and keep this one with no positive changes. The "splitting" suggestion also fails to address the fact that "how" "why" "who" and "what" aren't easily splittable categories. Most of these quotes include some degree of irrational "why". This would be just another reason to add more quotes lists. If it were to work you'd need to specify which types of sources were allowed.--Urthogie 18:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about purging the "why" questions, just letting their breadth and depth be handled elsewhere. "Link and summarize," as Mackan said. And I don't think we need neckless bouncers pacing this article enforcing "which sources are allowed." As for the "Israel is apartheid" editors, they are not in my experience any more intransigent than the "Israel is a shining example of flawless democracy and anyone who says otherwise is an antisemite" editors.--G-Dett 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The latter grup of editors for the most part avoid this page, dropping in now and then when there's a proposal to rename or delete it, so their existence is a non-issue if this page is agreed to be kept. The "israel is apartheid" editors, on the other hand, will eliminate any nuance in any agreement we make for this page.

For this reason, bouncers are needed. There's no such thing as a compromise when we just create another frankenstein monster for the encyclopedia's POV-fest, and this article has no actual agreed upon criteria for inclusion of quotes.--Urthogie 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm taking a less grim view of the possibilities here.--G-Dett 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The defniition of a compromise is something where all parties leave unsatisfied. I'm already unsatisified with the idea of keeping this page, at the very least you could throw out an olive branch and agree on some objective criteria for inclusion, or "bouncers" as you call them.--Urthogie 18:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree this isn't simple, but something we could try. I haven't followed all the recent editing on the article, but see it's slightly more difficult now as well. For one thing, I do agree with you, U, that we need to reduce some of the quotes and make things more in paragraph form. As far as how and what to move: the main difference between this article and the Human Rights one appears to be the discussion of roads/checkpoints. Is there a good way to deal with this? Are there other big differences? Perhaps that's one thing we could discuss in this article in the context of the allegations, and then could reduce the rest so that it could link to the already existing human rights article. Throwing things out there. Mackan79 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just difficult to find any clean place to split the two... this is why my logic leads me to suggest the split isn't good for the encyclopedia, because it's literally impossible to actually discuss the "why" seperately, so I think this makes clear that the the best solution would be to have a more expansive article that covered more context, namely Israeli policy in the palestinian territories.. that would seem to eliminate the issues we discuss here.--Urthogie 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. Looking through the current article, though, the main problem I see isn't even that division so much as the amount of space given to various individuals making the allegations. If we pared all that down a fair deal, we might not even have such an issue here in the first place. I think that's fair; I think an encyclopedia generally explains ideas more than it should go into detail about every person that has said something. One of the problems here, I think, is that many of the pro-Israel editors haven't even tried to make the article NPOV, under the belief that it should be deleted. If we made that effort, I'm not sure the problems would be as monumental.Mackan79 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to make a metaphor. Let's say we had a publicized debate-- is America an evil country? You could present both sides of the debate, giving them each equal time, making them cite their sources, etc, but one must wonder how fair it is to have that debate in the first place.. if it really adds anything to the sum of human knowledge (the goal of an encyclopedia)..

And as a sidenote, there never was a debate over south african apartheid because that was the official policy. It's a lot different than this, which is just a subjective back and forth. There is nothing objective about this-- the international court has never convicted Israeli leaders to x years in jail for the "crime of apartheid." There's nothing to be learned here. People wuold be better off actually learning about the things these allegations deal with. After all, Adam and Moodley's book had a much broader scope... noone would really write anything on an allegation if it weren't for the actual things its seemingly based on.--Urthogie 19:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have much greater respect for this position if it were attached to a principle regarding existing Wikipedia articles, rather than a strange hypothetical debate. Those who want to delete this article come back time and again to the argument that it is "inherently POV." Do you or they wish to see Pallywood deleted? How about Islam and antisemitism? Or New Antisemitism for that matter? It would help enormously to establish an atmosphere of good faith if people would articulate their position in terms of consistent principles.

For my part, I think all of the articles I've named should exist. "The sum of human knowledge" strikes me as far too high-toned a phrase for what Wikipedia does and does well. If I hear about "Pallywood" on Fox News or see it mentioned on littlegreenfootballs.com or whatever, and want to know what the lowdown is, I can go on Wikipedia and find a description with some sources. Of course it's a loaded phrase, but I'm a grownup, I can figure out how I feel about its use. Same deal with "Israeli apartheid." Someone hears about Carter's book on three different talk shows and reads about in a half dozen articles and 95% of the discussion focuses on his comparison with apartheid, and that someone can go on to Wikipedia and look it up. Yes, of course I agree with you it'd be better if people talked about the issues rather than a phrase. But it's not for Wikipedia to lead the way in that regard. Prominent reliable sources do talk about "Pallywood" and "New antisemitism" and "Israeli apartheid" and the "axis of evil," and Wikipedia is a great resource for the average person to find about these terms and the controversies surrounding them. If others take the opposite position and argue that Wikipedia should studiously avoid topics that have an inherent slant to them, they should be principled in their opposition. Otherwise, it looks a hell of a lot like special pleading.--G-Dett 20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Pallywood"/"New antisemitism" and "Israeli apartheid". You would never see "Allegations of pallywood" or "Allegations of new antisemitism" because they are simply novel ideas/opinions in and of themselves. These articles are about their ideas, while this article is about the possibility that there might be a South African policy going on in Israel. This article is called "Allegations of israeli apartheid" because it actually debates the idea that there is an Israeli apartheid. If the word was "Israeloapartheid" there would be no issue here. The issue is that "Israeli apartheid" actually alleges that Israel has a south africa policy-- literally. "Pallywood" is just an opinion on media coverage. "New antisemitism" is an idea. "Israeli apartheid"?... I hope you catch my drift. It doesn't make sense to have an article over whether Israel is south africa. "Pallywood" and "new antisemitism" are about novel opinions/ideas, while this article is about the idea that a colonial african government's policy is being applied is in the middle east. I hope you can see the difference. --Urthogie 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't catch your drift, and it's not for lack of trying. This confused bit of casuistry, though doubtless intended in good faith, rather crisply illustrates what I mean by special pleading.--G-Dett 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I don't think there is a difference. You wouldn't have "Allegations of Pallywood," but you could have "Theory of Pallywood" or "Theory of New Antisemitism" if you wanted to clarify that it was totally disputed in the title. The real issue is whether a title is too loaded and/or inflammatory, which here is what brought us the "allegations" prefix. I find that fair, because I think "Israeli Apartheid" is loaded in a way that other titles aren't, but it doesn't show a different type of article. In any case, I think G-Dett explained the case for this type of article very well. Personally, I think it's actually one of the neatest things about Wikipedia, forcing people of widely different viewpoints to hammer out articles on some of these contentious issues. We're caught up in it all here, but with the "Allegations of" prefix, and the clear objections in the lead, I don't think it's actually as bad as some believe, particularly if we do some more work to make it neutral. Mackan79 01:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

But this assumes "why" Israel has been accused of apartheid is because its policies are like that of apartheid, which is precisely what is debated. You don't see this? - Andyvphil

No. It's axiomatic that Israel is accused of apartheid because of its policies toward Palestinians. There is surely no debate about that.

What the debate is over is whether or not the analogy is valid. You appear to be conflating two separate issues here. Gatoclass 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the assertion that "Israel is accused of apartheid because of its policies toward Palestinians" is not only debatable, it is denied by sources in this article. E.g.,

"Because apartheid is universally condemned, and a global coalition helped to bring down the South African apartheid regime, anti-Zionists 'dream of constructing a similar global anti-Zionism effort', writes Matas. 'The simplest and most direct way for them to do so is to label Israel as an apartheid state. The fact that there is no resemblance whatsoever between true apartheid and the State of Israel has not stopped anti-Zionists for a moment.'"

What Matas is saying (and I happen to agree with him) is that Israel is accused of Apartheid not because of its policies but because of the utility of the accusation irrespective of its validity. Your assertion that the subject is best approached through "...a description of the discriminatory conditions under which Palestinians live...[to] help people to understand why Israel's policies have sometimes been likened to apartheid" assumes (as I said) that Matas (and I) are wrong. Andyvphil 10:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then he falls into the latter category. He's one of those who thinks the analogy is not valid. But you're obviously not going to find anyone who uses the analogy who agrees with him, which goes to my first point, which is that those who employ the analogy cite the policies as their reason for doing so. So I still can't see what's wrong with outlining the policies, then the analogy, then the criticism of the analogy by people like Matas. What's wrong with that? Gatoclass 11:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, so long as you don't insist on it being the exclusive context for this material. It your desire to "merg[e] this page into a wider article on Palestinian human rights" that I'm having problems with. By all means add and "for additional material" link or blue-word-link on any page where it comes up in the context of Palestinian rights and wrongs, but recognize that it will also be linked to from pages where the Zionism=Racism "allegation" comes up. Andyvphil 11:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that the subject is best approached through "...a description of the discriminatory conditions under which Palestinians live...[to] help people to understand why Israel's policies have sometimes been likened to apartheid" assumes (as I said) that Matas (and I) are wrong - Andyvphil

No it doesn't. It just means people can make up their own minds. They can look at the policies, read the views of those who make the analogy, read the views of those who reject it, and then decide for themselves. That's the point I'm trying to make. Without a discussion of the policies, you just have a whole bunch of assertions with very little discussion of the policies on which those assertions have (purportedly) been made. So the reader has no way of assessing for himself the validity of those assertions.

If you put it all together into one article, the reader can make up his own mind. Gatoclass 11:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The reader can "make up his own mind", "assessing for himself the validity of those assertions", without putting everything in one article. That's what Wikilinks are for. Every allegation and reaction provides plenty of opportunity to hyperlink to contextual material and the reader can decide which he wants to pursue. Andyvphil 12:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Though the fragment of Matas' argument you quoted above strikes me as equal parts rhetoric ("the simplest and most direct way for them to do so" etc.) and wishful thinking ("no resemblance whatsoever"), the fact remains that any in-depth treatment of the "why" is likely to introduce NPOV problems. Brief allusions to why, summaries of comparisons and so on of course belong here, however; but the focus should be how the comparison has been used, how its use has evolved, and how the nature of the controversy surrounding its use has evolved. Early on in the history of this page, a group of editors made a superficially similar, though I think ultimately specious and tendentious, distinction between treating the topic narrowly as an "epithet" vs. broadly as a debate. One particularly absurd application of this logic argued that invocations of West Bank "bantustans" didn't belong here because that was a different "epithet." If we all pledge our allegiance to common sense, we can observe a useful (not hard-and-fast but also not specious) distinction between how and why, and use plenty of links to those articles that give a fuller background. An infobox would help to facilitate this, and in this respect it's very unfortunate that we still have that propaganda infobox at the top, listing articles on topics that not a single reliable source anywhere has ever linked to this one.--G-Dett 18:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards to this page, I'm inclined to agree, but I was talking about the proposed new page focussed on Israel policies/Pal. human rights, not this one. Gatoclass 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, we seem to have been talking past each other, then. I certainly do not object to mention, in the context of Palestinians conditions that those conditions have been offered as justification for an accusation of apartheid. Nor, in the context of the Zionism=Racism accusation, mention that this naturally leads and has led to accusations of apartheid. Both observations are true, and both are and should be mentioned here (though the latter is a bit slighted at present, IMHO).

G-Dett, Matas is of course being quoted in an act of polemical exaggeration ("no resemblance whatsoever") about a gross polemical exaggeration ("apartheid"). When I said I agreed with Matas it was on the point that the analogy was seized on not because it was particularly apt but because it was particularly useful. Matas was sufficient to rebut Gatoclass on his assertion of axiomatic undebateability, but... More nuanced statemants of this observation about the history of the allegations, in the article, haven't caught my attention. Since its such an obvious observation, I think it must be out there, and that I am simply insufficiently expert in this area to easily turn up the cites. Or have been too lazy. That is the source of the MHO is "IMHO", but it has not escaped my attention that I made a similar comment to you in the course of the AfD that I have not come through on. Yet. Andyvphil 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, if we were to pledge our allegiance to common sense, we would realise that an article called "allegations of apartheid..." has set a dangerous and damaging precedent that has done nothing to improve the representation of this situation, nor the representation of other unrelated situations throughout wikipedia. Which is why neutral, non-involved editors are attempting to halt this spread of badly formed articles before it gets out of hand. A handful of partisan editors insistent on retaining this precedent for the sake of this one issue should not stand in the way of this process.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 10:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Zleitzen, with all due respect – and a great deal of respect is your due – I don't think you're here as a member of a band of neutral, non-involved editors attempting to halt the spread of nonsense on Wikipedia. I think you're here as a Latin-America-focused editor whose area of Wikipedia has been taken hostage, and you're fed up and ready to pay the ransom money. The hostage-takers want this article deleted, and will continue to disrupt articles in your field of expertise until you and others suffering from the disruption join them in their crusade on this unrelated page.

As for the title, I don't like "allegations" either. That word was insisted upon by your hostage-takers, who liked the scare-quotes effect. (Not however as a general principle for articles with controversial titles, and certainly not for equivalently controversial articles from the pro-Israel perspective such as Pallywood. You will search in vain for general principles in these matters.) We have tried to suggest alternatives such as "Israel Apartheid analogy," but so far to no avail.

The dangerous precedent here is that of trying to sink a serious article by creating a sprawling mess of supposed sister articles, many of them built around nothing more than random quotes, and a "parent article" that is an entirely original synthesis with no RS-backing whatsoever, and then insisting that the fate of one is the fate of all. Those who don't like the "New Antisemitism" article can create a rash of articles on "New Islamophobia," "New anti-Armenianism," "New Anti-Christianism," each of which I promise you could be sourced after a half-hour's googling, along with a "parent article" and accompanying infobox about "New Racisms," and then insist that if one goes they all go. I appreciate your articulate editing and your manifest good faith, Zleitzen, but you are helping to establish this bad precedent when you show up here to pay your ransom. --G-Dett 13:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It goes much deeper than that G-Dett, and my involvement in this area isn't restricted to Latin America. I've had to spend hours arguing against extreme activists attempting to create all manner of POV anti Sri Lankan government material, I've argued with anti-Muslim editors on various state terrorism pages etc etc etc. The point is always the same, I am arguing against poor attempts to isolate an issue which fail to provide NPOV, stable articles for readers.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I respect what you're trying to do here, especially with regards to your last sentence above. But I do have misgivings arising from the way you've gone about it. I wish you had made your case solely on the basis of this article's merits. Instead you've made clear that you're concerned about the "allegations" articles collectively and the damage they're doing to Wikipedia, a problem you trace to this article. I don't want to suggest you've been a pawn in this, but the idea that there is a general topic "allegations of apartheid" – construed collectively to include anything from book-length studies exploring moral, historical, and practical parallels between societies, on the one hand, to Desmond Tutu's formulaic well-wishes telling the Tibetans that they're "on the winning side," on the other – is an illusion created by Wikipedians. You'll notice that there is not a single reliable source among the many they've unearthed (through their textual technique of strip-mining) that supports the idea of a general category. Hence the oddly adolescent quality of the opening sentence of the Allegations of apartheid "parent" article:

Allegations of apartheid have been made against numerous societies.

The Wikipedian who chewed his pencil and furrowed his brow and expectorated this sentence was in the same position as a high-school student asked to write a two-page essay on the Roman empire in a half hour. The similarity is in the graceless attempt to generalize without any meaningful sources at hand. The difference is that while the high-school student is taking a closed-book exam, the Wikipedian has unfettered access to any source online or on paper anywhere in the world, and is confounded only by the fact that none exists for what he's trying to say. So he scrawls out the rest of his miserable paragraph, then covers his tracks with a flurry of red-herring citations to four sources, none of which support the generalization that constitutes the very raison d'être of the article. In fact, two of the four cites argue that Israel is "singled out" by the apartheid analogy, a line of argument which, it seems not to have been noticed, undermines and contradicts the very generalization in question.

Things don't improve much after this inauspicious beginning. Our team of original researchers then goes on to create a whole roster of smoke-and-mirrors "sister" articles, tinkering with parallel lighting and stage-props within them to create the effect of a common subject matter where none exists. Do you see the problem, Zleitzen? When you show up here and insist that the time has come for "all the allegations articles" to go, you give the appearance of having been hypnotized by the trick. You're accepting as an organic encyclopedic whole what is in fact a kind of semantic Frankenstein of tendentious original research. You are also – and I want to phrase this very gently, given your obvious intelligence and editorial integrity – you are also doing here something very like what Israel-focused editors did in the Latin-America sections of Wikipedia, which you rightly objected to. You're taking a position in an article in a subject you're not invested in, in the hopes of producing a result in an unrelated article that you are invested in – that is, you're playing a "poker game across many articles," as you once memorably phrased it.[6]--G-Dett 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I already made my points about this article and its merits relentlessly at the afd. This article has failed to describe a complex issue in a satisfactory manner and has done so for nearly a year. Regardless of other articles. The majority seem to agree.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedian who chewed his pencil and furrowed his brow and expectorated this sentence was in the same position as a high-school student asked to write a two-page essay on the Roman empire in a half hour. Aw, man, that was me! Someone had to write a WP:LEAD for that thing. Have you even seen the lead sentence to Roman Empire lately? Roman Empire was the corresponding phase of that civilization characterized by an autocratic form of government. Huh? I think I could do better on a closed book exam than that.... But I think your suggestion that Zleitzen is suffering from a sort of Stockholm syndrome is perceptive. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) I have become what I have beheld...

Category:Low-importance Israel-related articles

Can I ask what this article is doing in this CAT? Does this category exist in the first place for any non-POV purpose?--G-Dett 18:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Because that's how it's categorized, like all the other articles associated with wikiprojects.--Urthogie 18:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't have drawn a more perfect circle with a compass, Urthogie. Do you have an answer to my question?--G-Dett 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Because its a page about an allegation.

Middle East conflict

---

Views of the Middle East Conflict

---

Views on the Palestinian territories/humans rights

---

the allegation that the situation there somehow amounts to apartheid

To say this 4th tier subject is high importance is a blatant falsehood.Urthogie 18:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So the answer to the second of my original two questions is "No"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

The non-POV purpose is to sort it according to importance for Wikipedia 1.0.--Urthogie 18:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You're saying all Wikiprojects have these ranks?--G-Dett 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The major ones do, yes. I know wikiproject hip hop has them...--Urthogie 18:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

All the major Wikiprojects have article assessment in place. I've ranked 1000s of articles myself.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I get it now.--G-Dett 15:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I personally think that the category should contain a mention that it's a WP sorting category. For example, "X importance Y-Wikiproject Related articles." It reduces confusion. .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Significant differences....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&curid=5329520&diff=126703430&oldid=126670865

Check that out. That change (or the previous version) is by definition POV. One person sees the article as saying one thing, and another sees it as saying the entirely different. Doesn't that, by definition, mean a POV is present in both cases? --Remi 20:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In the article, Carter recieved a letter from Rabbi Straus which he quotes. This is what the first version is. The second version is Carter's quoted response to the rabbi's letter. --Tom 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Too much space given to Adam and Moodley

Both in the overview and at the bottom of the article, I think an unbalanced amount of space is devoted to airing the views of Adam and Moodley. At the moment, I am too tired to do anything about it though. Organ123 06:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess all the discussion of this has been archived. Agreed, it makes no sense for them to be in the "Overview". Start by just taking them out of there and reuniting the text with that in Other Views..., as I've done several times. It'll get reverted, but right thinking will prevail eventually... I hope. Andyvphil 01:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not insisting here, but I'm still not sure it's as bad as you suggest. Whatever their purposes, it is one interesting way to give some perspective on popular sentiment toward the analogy, which seems fairly accurate. Also, to the extent people are saying we should be talking more about the analogy itself and less about "why," this type of comment seems to be exactly what we want: an assessment on how people feel about the analogy, rather than in depth analysis of its basis. That's largely what we wanted, no? Mackan79 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't want A-M out of the article, just out of the "Overview", which I want to be history. I'm hoping the timeline will eat the "Overview" and the we can then concentrate on culling the unimportant from the timeline... Andyvphil 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam & Moodely are not pro-Israel on the subject, however their work has been cherry-picked here to present them that way. I don't believe that anyone who edits this page has read their book, or has a copy of it. The A&M footnote to this article only includes something like 20 pages of their work. A&M's work needs to be reflected here more accurately. Kritt 21:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

Two opinions on improving the article, one from each point of view:

1. The current list form we have for the article is inappropriate. In an encyclopedia, we should be explaining facts and ideas, not providing lists of everybody who has said something. Rather, we should have paragraphs, which mention some of the very most notable, with references to what they say. On top of that, we should have a few choice quotes, and then perhaps a list of names of others who have used the analogy. Format for the paragraphs could get into details or not; one delineation might be a paragraph on people who have made the allegation outright, and then a paragraph on people who are more circuitous. A paragraph on those formerly involved in South Africa; a paragraph on those from the U.S. There are plenty of ways we could organize it. Then, on the other hand:
2. The current list of antisemitic/holocaust denier proponents should really be included with criticism, not a list of people who have used the term. When we're forming a list of proponents, the question is whether somebody is a "reliable source," which clearly these individuals aren't. What certainly does make sense is to say "Some critics of the analogy point out that some of its most vocal proponents are recognized antisemitic individuals and organizations, such as X Y and Z." As we have it, though, we're including it as a criticism without making that clear, which is incorrect. One alternate solution to this would be to demphasize that list as a starting point.

I think these two things could go far in improving the article. Mackan79 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

These are both very important points. The David Duke/Jew Watch/IHR etc. business is fuelling an edit war on the article page right now, and has become a serious problem for a whole range of pages on Wikipedia. These are extremely marginal figures whose own self-published outlets do not meet the criteria for reliable sources. They indiscriminately support anything critical of Israel. Then pro-Israel editors, in an extremely transparent attempt at well-poisoning/guilt by association, search out these marginal expressions of irrelevant support and give them prominent placement in articles like this one, while trying to bury/downgrade/minimize the opinions of people like Desmond Tutu. It is a deeply cynical editing tactic, I'm afraid. In the real world, RS-proponents of the idea of "Israeli apartheid" either completely ignore these marginal quacks or vociferously refuse any association with or support from them. They are important only to critics of the concept, so that's where they should be cited. They do not represent significant support for the concept, and they absolutely do not belong in the lead. --G-Dett 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They are important only to critics of the concept, so that's where they should be cited - G-Dett

Yes, that's a very valid point. It would make much more sense to have them in the criticism sector with an introduction such as "critics of the analogy point to the fact that it has been used by..." [genocidal dictators, white supremacists, holocaust deniers] and so on. Gatoclass 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

David Duke et al

I don't think there's any question that David Duke and the others mentioned in the section are notable; and their quotes are accurate. If the allegation of apartheid has any merit at all, it shouldn't matter if a wide variety of people make it. An ad hominem is an ad hominem no matter what direction or point it's trying to make. And don't get me started on the irony that individuals who accuse Israel of racism don't want to be associated with racists. --Leifern 22:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, I assure you there are questions about the notability, relevance, and expertise of David Duke. He is considered a marginal crank by just about everyone except for you, a few other Wikipedians, Alan Dershowitz, and the editors of the New York Sun, all of whom have found cynical use for spreading his hatred. It doesn't belong in this article, except as a talking point for the theory's critics.--G-Dett 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with G-Dett. There is a question that David Duke, etc., are notable in this context, and I have raised it. If anything, his inclusion should be in the criticism section, since critics are the only ones who bring up people like David Duke. Reputable/reliable sources who make allegations of Israeli apartheid do not quote David Duke and other obscure anti-Semites. The inclusion of David Duke and friends in the intro is a POV attempt to link those who allege Israeli apartheid with anti-Semitism, or racism, as Leifern appears to have done in her post above. Organ123 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(Not that it makes any difference, but I am male). It is, indeed, only your opinion that distinguishes the New York Sun, Dershowitz from "reputable/reliable sources." David Duke is not an obsure antisemite - he is one of the leading ones. Since the whole allegation of apartheid from Israel is baseless and offensive, it is hard to accept the premise that it sounds better coming from some sources than others. --Leifern 22:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, you do accept that it's more credible coming from some sources than others. This is precisely why you want to give great prominence to the least credible, least notable, most marginal sources possible. It is, as I've pointed out, a very cynical editorial tactic. --G-Dett 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I think: When someone - anyone - says makes a comparison between one set of phenomena and another, the comparison should stand up to scrutiny for its accuracy and meaningfulness, no matter what the source is. David Duke is a despicable racist, but that doesn't mean he's incapable of stumbling upon the truth every once in a while; Desmond Tutu is an admirable humanist, but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of errors of judgment. It is true that a variety of people make a comparison between the Israeli policies toward Palestinians in the West Bank and South African apartheid, but if you parse their arguments, you'll see that the most credible ones take great care not to make one completely equivalent to the other. --Leifern 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(I'm sorry about the gender confusion ... sometimes I see a name and make a gender association with it which comes out when I'm not thinking about it.) I think that your own personal position on this topic is causing you to push an agenda that links anti-Semitism with the allegations of Israeli apartheid. David Duke, et al, are not the notable sources who are making these allegations. People like Jimmy Carter are.

Let's say there was an article called "Allegations of misogyny by the Iranian government." And it just so happened that a slightly-well-known anti-Arab racist made allegations of Iranian misogyny too. That wouldn't be surprising, since he is an anti-Arab racist. But that doesn't mean that his viewpoint should be prominently displayed in the overview section of the article. Instead we'd want someone like, say, Hillary Clinton, someone not known exclusively for being anti-Arab (regardless of whether she actually is or not). It's the same thing here. Organ123 23:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

See, there's a fundamental problem with the entire article, because its very premise relies on the fallacy of appeal to authority. "If so-and-so said it, it must be true," whereas apartheid is such a specific thing that the allegation should be substantiated on a factual basis. But since the entire allegation relies on an interpretation of events of which 98% are not in dispute, the apartheid allegation is nothing but polemics. This is why the article should be deleted and the encyclopedic sections either folded into other articles or be turned into a series of articles about the conditions for Palestinians wherever they form a special section of the population. But as long as it remains an article dedicated to making Israel look bad, we're going to run into disputes like this. --Leifern 23:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

All encyclopedia articles rely on the "fallacy of appeal to authority," if we accept your misrepresentation of what that fallacy means. --G-Dett 23:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on the topic of the article. This is an article about rhetoric, not about Israeli policy, not about how this policy affects Palestinians, not even about the underlying conflict. It is about the rhetorical devices used by some people in the debate about all these things. --Leifern 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This article, like New antisemitism and Pallywood, is about what some people, but not all, argue is true. Your pseudo-distinctions are a great murky blur of casuistry and special pleading. Figure out what your principles are, show how they would in some cases generate results that don't align with your POV, and we'll have the beginning of a serious discussion.--G-Dett 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, whatever we discuss, it appears that you conclude that my distinctions are bogus and all a matter of special pleading. And then a bit of personal attacks thrown in. Having experienced this a few times, I'm going to conclude that you've simply run out of other arguments. It's the nature of the game that we have to make distinctions rather than blur them, and the special pleading cause is simply spurious. --Leifern 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, attacks on an opponent's logic are not personal attacks. Yes, distinctions are a good thing if they are crisp and clear, and in the service of stable cogently expressed principles. They are not good if they are murky and rhetorical, and in the service of ad hoc justifications. You are opposed to this article because you think the very concept it treats is unfair to Israel. But you have never to my knowledge articulated general principles for the inclusion or exclusion of articles that present controversial subject matter under an intrinsically slanted rubric (Pallywood, New antisemitism, Islam and antisemitism, etc.).--G-Dett 15:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks me consist of the accusation that I'm being disagreeable about something I disagree about, which implies that I am incapable of honest debate. Be that as it may, there is a difference between all these articles. "Israeli apartheid" - or some variety - is about an interpretation of the motivations and ideology behind a particular set of actions. Pallywood is a term about an alleged set of actions. New antisemitism is about an assertion that is labeled under all these. I don't get involved in the Islam and antisemitism article, except (in other fora) to note the difficulty of arguing about a religion's theology. I'm not terribly impressed with terms like Islamofascism or militant Islam, but since I see the need to write articles about oppressive and violent ideologies that are justified in religion, I don't have a better suggestion. On this particular topic, I have not opposed articles that repeat the criticism raised against Israel for its policy toward Palestinians on the West Bank. What I do have a problem with is anything that implicitly accepts one specific interpretation of those actions, just as I would have a problem with an article called "Norwegian antisemitism," especially if "Norwegian" in this case meant official governmental policy, which apartheid necessarily must be. --Leifern 20:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're disagreeable, Leifern, and I wouldn't mind if you were. I just think your editorial principles are improvisatory; you begin with the conclusions you plan to arrive at, and then work your way back to preliminary distinctions. This, and not the incomprehensible statements in your last post, explains why you think "allegations of Israeli apartheid" as a title "implicitly accepts one specific interpretation" of its subject matter while "Pallywood" and "New Antisemitism" do not.--G-Dett 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I really can't help what you think, G-Dett, but I do believe the NPOV is a challenging standard, and I'm sure I have my lapses as much as I like to think of myself as perfect (that was a joke). This thread is getting so complicated that I'm more likely to just write an essay in my own space about the distinctions I'm trying to make. --Leifern 23:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:)--G-Dett 01:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your premise here seems to be that if a concept is totally disputed, then it's impossible to write a neutral article about it. I don't believe that's true. This is standard methodology: if you're presenting an author not because he's authoritative but because of his notoriety, then that's what you have to say. That being the case, I think we also need to move the material, because if we did explain why the material is included that would make clear that it's in the wrong place. In terms of policy, though, it should be clear that these aren't reliable sources, or entitled to be included based on their own merits. I'll say: I think we could potentially have more direct responses throughout the article, to incorporate criticism more directly. For instance, I think additional criticism probably should go in the overview. I just think we need to make clear what it is we're doing, if the article is going to get any better than it is. Mackan79 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Iranians aren't Semites.--Kirby♥time 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is a "semite." There is not "semitism" to be anti. There are a wide variety of people who speak Semitic languages. While none of these peoples should be discriminated against or oppressed on account of their ethnicity, language, religion, or whatever, the origins and history of hatred toward Jews is separate from the origins and history of hatred toward Arabs, Ethiopians, Eritreans, etc.--Leifern 20:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agreed (with both comments). Regardless, the sources talk about the quotes, and not about the critics. Unwittingly, we've entered OR, something else that an article about rhetoric lends itself to. Tewfik^Talk 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, you're right, but this was a compromise edit. The OR problem can easily be fixed by citing one of the countless RS-critics who cite the Duke material – which is why it's in circulation in the first place. What we can't do is go back to a version that gives gives great prominence to very marginal material emanating from non-RS cranks.--G-Dett 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, however I believe that his saying it is notable because of who he is (and not necessarily because of what critics would like to "prove" as a result), in the same way that someone from the other side of the spectrum who was saying it would be notable because of their place on the fringe. Tewfik^Talk 02:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just note that this debate over the reference to David Duke, etc. has been going on since shortly after the article was created, about a year ago. There have always been those who have sought to remove, or downplay, uses of the "analogy" by disreputable characters whose association with the "analogy" would discredit it. Needless to say, I am not one of those people. If a well-known person such as David Duke has used the analogy, and this article exists, then that fact belongs in the article. If that fact discredits the "analogy", then so be it. There is no need to quote someone else saying "David Duke uses the analogy", we can quote Duke himself and let the readers draw their own conclusions. 6SJ7 02:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

DD is a RS for his own views. And he's notable. And he's a racist crank. So's Idi Amin. But Amin is significant in the contect of the trajectory of the apartheid slur through the UN, while DD is not. So DD doesn't belong in the summary of allegations ("Overview") but he belongs somewhere else ("Criticism" only if it's renamed "Reactions to..." as I did once, but got reverted)... G-Dett, where's the sainted Mandela? I thought I pointed you at a really juicy one... Andyvphil 02:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there are many other personalities presently included in this entry which are not 'significant in the context of the trajectory of the apartheid slur through the UN', and so I have trouble with suddenly choosing that as the major criterion used. Tewfik^Talk 03:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"[T]he major criterion"? Where did I say "the major criterion"? It is a sufficiently major criterion. Carter meets a different major criterion. David Duke doesn't, as far as I can tell. Never mind Uri Davis or the Canadian public employees or Adam-Moodley... but I think progress will be made. Andyvphil 11:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested we should get rid of a lot of them. When Urthogie gets back, I'm hoping he'll help make an effort, which I think will also help the article. Mackan79 03:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the article on Apartheid (which incidentally redirects, and you'll see that apartheid is defined as a system of racial segregation. It is, indeed, the major criterion for the system of apartheid. --Leifern 23:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They are important only to critics of the concept, so that's where they should be cited - G-Dett

Yes, that's a very valid point. It would make much more sense to have them in the criticism sector with an introduction such as "critics of the analogy point to the fact that it has been used by..." [genocidal dictators, white supremacists, holocaust deniers] and so on. Gatoclass 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this should be a compromise then. Put Duke in the "Criticism" section, or at least qualify mention of Duke with something like "Critics note that...". It's clear, from this discussion and elsewhere, that critics are the main people who like to amplify Duke's message. The sources used currently in this article are:

• 1) A letter sent into Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. This does not qualify Paul Grubach as notable.
• 2) A transcript from MEMRI, whose recent headlines include: "Egyptian Copt Patriarch Shinoda: The Vatican Was Wrong to Exonerate the Jews from the Killing of Christ."
• 3) An article in Jew Watch, which I think we can all agree is not reliable.

So what is making these people notable? The answer is: critics. David Duke's main contribution to this debate is that critics use him to link the allegations of Israeli apartheid to anti-Semitism. So he should be in the criticism section, or his mention should be qualified. Organ123 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to have it about right at this point. First, the mainstream proponents of the position are listed, and then we have a brief note about the more extremist supporters. David Duke used to be represented more prominently, back in 2006. --John Nagle 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Jew Watch mention is a bit questionable. They are a RS for their own opinions (so we don't all agree) but they don't actually make the allegation. By implication they endorse it, but only by reprinting an Ha'aretz article (as Kendrick7 noted when he wikified the cite I had provided in reverting Organ123's deletion of the white racists en bloc - I was responding to Organ's earlier citation request, but didn't look closely enough at the content)... I'd like to move the white racists down, but you really must agree to rename the Crit section first. A now archived reaction to Finkelstein's appearance there pointed out that he is a critic of the critics... Andyvphil 12:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty straight forward to me. The question here is literally whether it's ok to include non-reliable sources if you're only using them to reflect negatively on an argument. Whatever the exceptions, I'm pretty sure that's not one of them. I think there is another problem, though, which is the way we're starting with the list of names, which does kind of invite that response. Perhaps this is what Leifern meant when he called it an argument from authority in the first place; if you're starting with an argument from authority, then an argument by association starts to seem more normal in response. In that case, moving the list may still be the answer. Mackan79 13:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using the white racists to reflect negatively on the allegations. In an article on the history of and reaction to the accusations I don't think there is any choice but to include the racists, white and otherwise, subject to undue weight considerations. IMHO, the white ones have very little affect on the trajectory of the argument and ought to have a correspondingly obscure place in the article. I want the "Overview" to morph into a history, with the historically insignificant excluded. This is not a comment on quality of thought. Carter's a self-important fool, but he's not insignificant in this context. I'll have to research what Leifern said -- it's past time for me to go to sleep. Andyvphil 13:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're too far apart. Phrasing here is key; one way is to say something like "Part of the controversy in the term derives from those who have employed it, including X Y and Z. Alan Dershowitz argues that this shows the true purpose." Not perfect of course, but a potential way around the "Critics allege" phrasing. I just don't think we do the readers any favors by starting with these lists which are supposed to be recognized as a point/counterpoint. Preferably the lists would be placed so they just look like lists, for anyone interested in who has talked about this, as opposed to appearing argumentative. Mackan79 14:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a complicated issue. Davidduke.com and Jewwatch.com are not notable sources in themselves. In the article on Wesley Clark, we don't cite David Duke's support for Clark's criticism of the Iraq War.[7] In the article on the Virginia tech massacre, we don't provide the reader with Duke's take on "where Cho was taught to hate."[8] In the articles on homosexuality and psychoanalysis, we don't cite Jew Watch's interesting research on the role of "Jewish Mind Control" in these matters.[9][10]

In the case of "Israeli apartheid," the almost-universally ignored opinions of these absolutely marginal cranks has gained some uncharacteristic public attention on account of having been cited by the analogy's critics, who point to Duke and Jew Watch's support as evidence that the analogy itself is antisemitic. That is its significance. David Duke and Jew Watch should be mentioned insofar as their opinions form a plank in the argument of critics. Their opinions on "Israeli apartheid" in themselves, however, are not any more significant than their opinions on homosexuality, psychoanalysis, atheism, feminism, liberalism, civil rights, or sundry other topics.

When the mere fact that Jew Watch once provided a link to a Haaretz article about Israeli apartheid makes its way into our article's overview (!!), then we are grossly violating NPOV. Not a complicated issue, folks.--G-Dett 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Israel editors appear to support including David Duke, the words "white supremacist", listing Jewwatch, and Holocaust deniers prominently in the Overview, as an attempt to poison-the-well and discredit the allegations from people like Desmond Tutu, Israeli Knesset members themselves, and other South African anti-apartheid experts. These same pro-Israel types would not support including the quotes of David Duke or listing "Jewwatch" prominently in other Wikipedia Israel-related article Overview sections. It seems duplicitous. Kritt 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A) How can you determine which editors are "Pro-Israel?" B) How can it be duplicitous when everything people do is on record? C) There is no question that Duke et al use this comparison. --Leifern 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Leifern: Should we support including "Jewwatch" as a source in the Overview sections of other Israel-related articles? Just because something is on record doesn't disqualify it from being duplicitous:

Duplicity:

1 : contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action. Kritt 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kritt, there is a parallel effort going on right now to ensure that The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy has an entire section devoted to Duke. Some editors do love their David Duke.--G-Dett 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's predictable. Pro-Israel editors will quote Duke ONLY in an attempt to discredit a topic, using posioning-of-the-well. PS it's also been called "guilt-by-association" method:

Juan Cole, a historian at the University of Michigan writing in Salon.com in support of the paper, characterises the association of the paper with Duke made in the New York Sun and elsewhere as "guilt by association". Kritt 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already said that the white racists are too insignificant to be in the "Overview" or timeline, but I think they have a place in some future topical organization of this article where the assertion that adoption of the analogy is motivated by antisemitism is covered. E.g., I've seen mainstream material on Carter's alleged hostility to Jews because of their failure to support his elections... Anyway, DD's position on the Iraq War is idiosyncratic in the context of his significance as a white racist (presumabl;y other white racists disagree) whereas his assertion that Jews are racists is presumaby not (the Jew Watch cite, problematic as it is, supporting this). Of course, presumably the white racists supported apartheid, so they attach a different significance to the allegation... I guess I'm agreeing with G-Dett, but with a slight difference in emphasis. Andyvphil 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I (and presumably many others here) are still dissatisfied with the progress of this Duke discussion. Duke et. al. should not be so prominently listed in the overview section. The key significance of Duke is that critics mention his views to enhance their arguments. This is why it is essential that if Duke is going to be prominently displayed, the language on the page reflect this reality. Even the editors here who are emotionally angered by the mention of Israeli apartheid should acknowledge that the significance of Duke is that he is a weapon for critics. If they insist on placing Duke et. al. in the article, then the article must acknowledge why Duke is mentioned, and why he is notable. Organ123 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You may feel strongly about this, but that's no justification for inserting original research (i.e. "Some critics mention that these allegations have also been echoed by"). The sources you've used don't refer to "critics", nor do they say anything about them being "echoed"; these sources have been using the term as long or longer than most of the groups listed in the first paragraph, so they could hardly be "echoing" them. You can't insert your own editorial opinions into an article, even if you think them true; otherwise, others could insert an editorial opinion into the first paragraph as well, i.e. "Comparisons between Israeli policies and apartheid have been made by groups and individuals ignorant of the situation there, typically as a propaganda term used for political smearing...". I'm afraid it will have to go, per policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a violation of the notability and neutrality policies of Wikipedia to have David Duke and others so prominently listed in the overview section. The edit I made was intended as a compromise based on the above discussion, and clearly some editors believed it functioned decently well in that capacity, as it remained there for a few days. If editors are concerned with Wikipedia policies, then they should be concerned that the Duke et. al. section exists where it does at all. My "original research" is not controversial information. The sources given are not notable and the section should be deleted. However, if I delete it or move it to a less prominent section, POV editors will resuscitate it, effectively proving my "research" again. Editors may feel strongly about associating a discussion about allegations of Israeli apartheid with anti-Semitism, but they should adhere to NPOV and notability policies. Organ123 20:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a truism that "two wrongs don't make a right". If you think something is "wrong" with an article, you don't fix it by doing something else "wrong"; on the contrary, that's more like WP:POINT. Can you explain what makes any one person who uses it more "notable" than another? As far as I can tell, the only people qualified to comment on this whole topic are Adam&Moodley and Pogrund; if you summarized their views, you'd have a nice little NPOV article on the subject, not this propaganda monstrosity. Since the view here seems to be "throw in anyone who has used the epithet", it's unclear why David Duke etc. don't qualify. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not think that my edit was controversial or "wrong", and was not making it to prove a point, and therefore was not violating WP:POINT. I do not need to explain what notability is since there is a policy describing it. But I will say that there are people who have developed or popularized the notion of Israeli apartheid, and those people would be notable in this article, along with prominent critics. David Duke et. al. do not fit into either of those categories. Duke et. al. are in a third category: people who critics mention as part of their argument, to link the allegations with anti-Semitism or anti-Semites. This is not a controversial or original idea I'm presenting. Organ123 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not been deeply involved in editing this page, but my personal view is not "throw in anyone who has used the epithet". Anyway, if editors think that view is wrong, then two wrongs don't make a right. Organ123 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Which "critics" have mentioned Duke and Jew Watch? They're certainly not found in this article. Rather, you invented this charge, without any source - you should have anticipated that it would be controversial at best. As for people who "popularized" the epithet "Israeli apartheid", Duke and Jew Watch undoubtedly had far more of an impact in popularizing it than Leila Farsakh or Ronald Bruce St John, or even a couple of offhand comments by Desmond Tutu. Jew Watch has been been using the epithet for years now. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't so difficult to gauge who's notable enough to include, and who isn't; in any case this is a basic editorial function we're supposed to be competent enough to do. Farsakh is notable because of her academic expertise; Jimmy Carter because he's a former U.S. president and Nobel laureate with a bestseller on just this topic; Desmond Tutu because – oh hell, Jay, even you know why Tutu is notable. "Jew Watch" on the other hand is an extremely marginal blog quoted by no one, in fact unknown to most. Wikipedians looking for something to poison this or that well with may frequent the website, but it's unknown to the average educated person in the real world. David Duke is a fringe character with another very marginal blog. He's not an RS on any of the various things he comments upon, and the things he comments upon are many.--G-Dett 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Organ123's claim was that certain people "developed or popularized the notion of Israeli apartheid"; the people who did so were mostly radicals with political followings, not assistant professors at second or third-rate universities. Tutu was notable at one time, but now he mostly just makes speeches. In any event, as has been explained here before, his throwaway comments about Israel are almost void of actual insight into the Israeli-Palestinian situation, about which his expertise is almost nil. Jew Watch, on the other hand, is a website that consistently shows up among the very first results when you Google the word "Jew", despite determined campaigns to change that. As for David Duke, "Leila Farsakh" gets 24,000 Google hits, while "David Duke" gets 746,000. He's certainly not a Reliable Source, but he is quite notable nonetheless. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability in one context does not imply notability in another (as mentioned in the WP policy). David Duke could get a trillion google hits, but that wouldn't make his opinion on quantum mechanics any more notable. Nor does it make him notable here. It is rather misleading to suggest that I'm "inventing" the notion that Duke et. al. are notable primarily for their use by critics to link allegations with anti-Semitism. I could provide links to right-wing sources who do exactly that type of thing, and I'm pretty sure that all the editors in this discussion have seen the "guilt by association" article in, I believe, Salon. An editor who tries to deny this non-controversial idea might find him/herself building up David Duke, unduly inflating his notability, and essentially providing more evidence for what is already a non-controversial idea supported by third-party references. Moreover, I strongly suspect that POV editors here, while acting in good faith, are very attached to the notion of David Duke et. al. at the top of the page not for reasons pertaining to notability or NPOV, but for the exact reasons I and others are describing; namely, because they are critics, who perhaps think that this page is a propaganda monster, and who themselves would like to non-neutrally promote a link between David Duke and allegations of Israeli apartheid. I request that editors cease from pushing any agenda of this type and allow the material related to David Duke to be moved to a notability-appropriate portion of the article. Organ123 04:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, you have to go with either notability or with expert source. If you're going with notability, then Duke wins hands down. If you're going with expert source, then, as I said before, you're down to Adam&Moodley and Pogrund as the few experts who also have the advantage of not being polemicists. Almost everyone else quoted on the page is just blowing a lot of political smoke, the accusers with their gleefully hurled epithets, and the defenders with their overblown responses. The nurturers of this article have chosen the former route; propaganda, mostly for its own sake, embarrassing and pretty much unreadable at this point. There's a decent 5k article hidden somewhere in here, but the current minders prefer this swollen boil. Perhaps one day it will be lanced, but for now, Duke et al perfectly match the criteria for inclusion. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea that notability either comes down to your ideological and idiosyncratic idea of expertise (Pogrund yay, Farsakh nay) or to raw google hits is absurd. Determining notability is something that requires excellent judgment and some degree of erudition on the part of editors; there's no way of getting around that. Someone who thinks that an extremely obscure antisemitic blog/website that once linked to a Haaretz article on Israeli apartheid is as notable as a bestseller on the subject by a former U.S. president is not setting an example of judgment/erudition that other editors should follow. Regarding Tutu and others, you are making the classic POV-mistake of confusing popular notability with being worthy-of-respect-in-your-eyes; Tutu is notable on this issue whether you tire of his speeches or not, so do stop wasting our time. Similarly, academic expertise/notability is not determined by what you think is "balanced" or non-polemical or whatever. That's not how it works; Wikipedians are not on peer review boards. What we'd need to do is a) compare where the work of Pogrund, Farsakh, et al has been published (peer review journals?, university presses? etc.); and b) consult scholarly citation indices, narrowing fields down to appropriate subheadings such as comparative politics, Middle East studies, conflict resolution, human rights, etc., and get some objection indication of their influence within their academic fields. But for chrissakes stop erecting sophistries on the marshy grounds of Google results, and stop wasting everyone's time with the ridiculous claim that Jew Watch is on a notability/expertise par with Tutu and Carter.--G-Dett 13:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, let me boil your comments down; you are not qualified to decide which sources are notable, but I am. Funny how that works. Regarding Tutu, I am making no mistake whatsoever; he has no expertise in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, so do stop wasting our time. Regarding expertise, your answer is correct where it overlaps my own (as it does in a number of areas), and irrelevant or simply wrong where it does not. Regarding the rest of your uncivil comments, they're just more of the same tired abuse you've been hurling for almost a year now. I've given them the consideration they are due; that is to say, none whatsoever. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not understood. Determining notability requires both common sense and an ability to consult and understand objective measures (scholarly citation indices are one example). The claim that Jew Watch's opinion on Israeli apartheid is more notable than Desmond Tutu's does not pass the laugh test or the smell test, much less the more nuanced tests of common sense. And your opinion, heartfelt as it may be, that Pogrund is a more influential expert in his academic field (if he can even be said to have one) than Farsakh and others is uncompelling unless backed up by objective criteria of the kind I've talked about. I am very skeptical that objective measures of scholarly influence will do much to bolster Pogrund vis-á-vis the other sources you've denigrated, but I'm ready to be proved wrong.--G-Dett 14:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the implication that I lack both understanding and common sense. Thanks also for completely straw-manning my statements about Tutu and Jew Watch; I'll repeat them here, just so we can all appreciate just how far they've been twisted: As for people who "popularized" the epithet "Israeli apartheid", Duke and Jew Watch undoubtedly had far more of an impact in popularizing it than Leila Farsakh or Ronald Bruce St John, or even a couple of offhand comments by Desmond Tutu. Jew Watch has been been using the epithet for years now. I also appreciate your fantasy that there are actually completely "objective measures" one can consult to assess notability; it's nice to dream. Anyway, how has your rigid application of your "objective" and "common-sense" standards worked out in this article? Has it produced a readable, high-quality product? Time to put it up for Featured Article status? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd have done well to stick with my "strawman" version, which was less absurd than what you just typed in boldface.--G-Dett 02:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL! No, in the alternate history world which this article is trying to create, millions of people are intimately aware of the few times Leila Farsakh and Desmond Tutu have used the apartheid epithet, and have formed their opinions accordingly. However, in the real world, Duke and Jew Watch have much more of an impact in these matters. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're talking out of your hat here, Jay, as is your wont, but if you have evidence of the enormous impact, seminal thinking, and intellectual influence of Jew Watch and www.davidduke.com, by all means share it with us.--G-Dett 03:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The unwashed hordes and ignorant mobs that scream "Israeli apartheid" and "Zionism=Nazism" are not influenced by seminal thinking or intellectualism. They like their slogans simple and pejorative; "Israeli apartheid" fits the bill. Here's one group engaging in intellectual discussion. Here's some seminal thinking. Here's some more. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, terrific, Jay. I request evidence for your claims about Jew Watch's enormous influence on international public perceptions of Israeli apartheid, and you hand me three uncaptioned photos of "Zionism=Racism" placards at unnamed rallies. Excellent research and meticulous methodology there, Professor, I can see you're well placed to evaluate the scholarship on this issue. In fact maybe you could help me with these photos of Kahanist rallies ("Rabin was a traitor" and "Transfer the Arabs OUT"). Do these demonstrate that Kahanists have undoubtedly had far more of an impact in popularizing the concept of New Antisemitism than Pierre-André Taguieff and Jack Fischel? I look forward to your hermeneutic ingenuity (not to mention the reopening of the NAS page!).--G-Dett 13:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Kahanist rallies are generally small affairs, rarely held. Zionism=Nazism/"Israel apartheid" mobs form almost daily. Work on better analogies, please. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again you miss the point. I know that leafleting you with provocative photos of Kahanist rallies is shabby and meaningless; it is in that respect a perfect analogy with your own meaningless leafleting. I don't need to work on my analogies, thank you very much, that one hit the bullseye. You, rather, need to work on your notions of evidence and argument. You've made a deeply ridiculous statement about Jew Watch's enormous influence over the masses; so far your evidence consists of three uncaptioned closeups of supposed rallies, in one of which is visible an "Israel is an Apartheid State" banner. Even as rhetoric, this is very weak beer, but as evidence it's flat-out worthless. You get an F. Start over. Better yet, retract the silly claims about Jew Watch and David Duke, and stop trying to sink the article by sticking in the worst sources you can find.--G-Dett 14:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As armon has said on more than one occasion, play the ball, not the man. Try again, this time referring only to article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments for inclusion of Jew Watch and David Duke in the lead are invalid, per above. If you have something better, share it.--G-Dett 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments for the exclusion of Jew Watch and David Duke from the article are invalid, per above, as is your claim that they are found in the lead. While they are not reliable sources, their use of the term is notable. If you have something better, please share it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of parroting, point me to where my arguments have been refuted.--G-Dett 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-read my points above. If you have any better arguments, please share them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What follows is a recap of your arguments (which are two in number), followed by recaps of my rebuttals. I present no new or better arguments, because none are needed; your case has been systematically demolished.

1. Jay's claim: Either expertise or notability, meaning either we include only Adam & Moodley and Pogrund, or we include everybody, down to the last crank. If Desmond Tutu is notable, so is Jew Watch. Refutation: First of all, fallacy of the excluded middle. Between top scholars and extremely obscure blogger-bigots there is a vast stretch of differentiated notability, including renowned journalists, Nobel peace prize winners, and so on. The fact that Carter and Tutu don't qualify as scholars does not consign their relevance to that of bigot-bloggers. The notability of Tutu's opinions on "Israeli apartheid" and Jew Watch cannot be reasonably equated. Tutu's positions on anything related to apartheid gain wide notice; he is quoted in major papers, by major scholars (including Jay's beloved A & M), and speaks to standing-room only audiences on the subject of the Israeli occupation around the world. Jew Watch on the other hand is quoted by no one and is all but unheard of in educated society. The fact that Jew Watch once linked to a Haaretz article on Israeli apartheid does not merit a mention in the lead, per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and per common sense. Secondly, Jay's criteria for expertise appear to be ideological and idiosyncratic; he neither appeals to nor makes use of objective criteria for measuring scholarly influence. He has shown nothing compelling to rank Pogrund above Farsakh, for example, and I rather think that objective measures will indicate the opposite.
2. Jay's claim: David Duke and Jew Watch "undoubtedly had far more of an impact" in popularizing claims of "Israeli apartheid" than scholars and statesmen have. Evidence adduced for Jay's claim: three uncaptioned medium-shot/closeup photos from alleged demonstrations, in one of which is visible a sign saying "Israel is an apartheid state." Refutation: none is needed, given the absurdity of the evidence adduced. If Jay produces some evidence, any at all, for the claims made for Duke and Jew Watch's power over the masses when it comes to the "Israeli apartheid" meme, we'll take it from there.--G-Dett 20:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's my recap of your recap:

1. Straw man argument 1. My rebuttal: Straw man ignored.
2. Straw man argument 2. My rebuttal: Straw man ignored.

Any other arguments? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your words: "Look, you have to go with either notability or with expert source. If you're going with notability, then Duke wins hands down. If you're going with expert source, then, as I said before, you're down to Adam&Moodley and Pogrund as the few experts who also have the advantage of not being polemicists. Almost everyone else quoted on the page is just blowing a lot of political smoke..."

My paraphrase: "Either expertise or notability, meaning either we include only Adam & Moodley and Pogrund, or we include everybody, down to the last crank. If Desmond Tutu is notable, so is Jew Watch."

Your words: "As for people who 'popularized' the epithet 'Israeli apartheid', Duke and Jew Watch undoubtedly had far more of an impact in popularizing it than Leila Farsakh or Ronald Bruce St John, or even a couple of offhand comments by Desmond Tutu."

My paraphrase: "David Duke and Jew Watch 'undoubtedly had far more of an impact' in popularizing claims of "Israeli apartheid" than scholars and statesmen have."

Jay, I can't pretend not to be thoroughly exasperated. Are you quite sure you know what "strawman" means? "Strawman argument" refers to a position which has been misrepresented, not one which has been demolished. How is either of my paraphrases a strawman? In the second, I substitute "scholars and statesmen" for "Leila Farsakh or Ronald Bruce St John, or even a couple of offhand comments by Desmond Tutu." The rest of the wording is simply cut and pasted. Can you say precisely where my paraphrases deviated from your original statements in a substantive way?--G-Dett 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a crazy idea; so crazy, it just might work! How about if you don't paraphrase my arguments. Don't paraphrase, don't re-word, don't "in other words", don't take little snippets and fit them together in ways you'd prefer I had said them. A discussion is always framed by its context, including the long stream of points and counter-points that went before it. So, to re-capitulate, don't paraphrase my arguments. That's simple enough, isn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What a silly idea. I'll go on combining accurate quotation with accurate paraphrase; if you choose to resort to parroting back my rhetoric and falsely invoking "strawmen" because you're at a loss for a rejoinder, and cannot see fit to rethink an argument that's been summarily discredited, there's absolutely nothing I can do to stop you. There was nothing substantive changed in my paraphrase, as you know very well; if there were, you'd be able to point to it, which you can't. A strawman argument is an argument that's been misrepresented, not one that's been demolished. You've asked me to "play the man, not the ball." I've honored that request, and now I have a request of my own in the same metaphorical vein. Don't cry foul just because you're shot's been blocked, and don't whine to the ref when you get outplayed.--G-Dett 03:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well, let me paraphrase your point; you will continue to invent straw man versions of my arguments so that you can them claim to have "demolished" them. An interesting ploy, but ultimately futile. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How were my paraphrases strawmen, Jay?--G-Dett 03:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am misunderstanding, the main arguments I have heard for Duke's notability are the number of hits Duke gets on Google (argument discredited above) and that this page is a "propaganda monster" which makes Duke's inclusion acceptable given the current standards of inclusion, i.e., "two wrongs make a right" (an argument type discredited above). It has also been argued that all sources except Adam & Moodley and Pogrund are "polemicists". That seems to imply that people like Jimmy Carter write what they do just for the sake of controversy and argument, which is inaccurate, and even irrelevant, given Carter's significant role in popularizing the notion of Israeli apartheid. Further, if an editor thinks this page is unreadable, it seems unfair to me to place all blame on editors like G-Dett. The article is what it is based to varying degrees on the contributions of all the editors involved. Organ123 03:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed misunderstanding. As for the current state of the article, it was created as a WP:POINT political statement, and from then until now it has been held hostage by a very small number of active editors who have tried to use it as a platform for promoting a specific political view, and who have resisted any attempts to cut it down to something readable and relevant. Their number is very small, and so the individual members of the group indeed bear individual responsibility. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So then am I not misunderstanding that "the main arguments I have heard for Duke's notability are the number of hits Duke gets on Google (argument discredited above) and that this page is a "propaganda monster" which makes Duke's inclusion acceptable given the current standards of inclusion, i.e., "two wrongs make a right" (an argument type discredited above). It has also been argued that all sources except Adam & Moodley and Pogrund are "polemicists". That seems to imply that people like Jimmy Carter write what they do just for the sake of controversy and argument, which is inaccurate, and even irrelevant, given Carter's significant role in popularizing the notion of Israeli apartheid."? Organ123 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the above -- I would like to assert again that if Duke is notable at all in this article, it is because of his role as a tool used by critics. I will also repeat my suggestion from before. I strongly suspect that POV editors here, while acting in good faith, are very attached to having David Duke et. al. at the top of the page not for reasons pertaining to notability or NPOV, but for the exact reasons I and others are describing; namely, because they are critics who themselves would like to non-neutrally promote a link between David Duke and allegations of Israeli apartheid. I request that editors cease from pushing any agenda of this type, which flouts the rules of Wikipedia, and allow the material related to David Duke to be moved to a notability-appropriate portion of the article. Organ123 03:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which critics have used Duke as a tool, and where are they cited in this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have already provided samples of such critics above. They are not cited in this article because non-notable Jew Watch et. al. are cited instead. If I include examples such as the ones above in the article, and then redeploy the "some critics state that" language, will editors not revert? Organ123 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding you. Could you name one of these critics please? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are two: Rush Limbaugh and Deborah Lipstadt. Both are critics of Carter who evoke Duke's name to make a link to anti-Semitism. May I redeploy the above language? Organ123 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. 1) Which others have you found, and 2) Why must Duke's usage be qualified, but, for example that of pro-Palestinian student groups or the Canadian Union of Public Employees not be? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Here's an article where Dershowitz uses Duke to link Finkelstein with anti-Semitism. 2) CUPE represents over half a million workers, so CUPE is notable in this context. It's not like CUPE's only relevance here is that it's used as a tool by people who think Israel is an apartheid state. The citation for the "pro-Palestinian student groups" could be improved, but I see no problem with making a reference about it in general, since it's not comparable to the Duke/Jew Watch problem. Pro-Palestinian student groups and CUPE are not exclusively tools used by people who believe Israel is an apartheid state to smear critics. May I redeploy the above language? Organ123 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Arab sources

... And there is a decided shortage of Arabs making the allegation in the "Overview". The Syrian government and such Arabs as may be in student groups hardly covers it. Andyvphil 12:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[Andyvphil, I]... thought I might direct you to potential sources at the Hafrada (Separation) page that make that claim. Specifically, there is a Palestinian reverend in Jerusalem named Naim Ateek who heads the ecumenical organization Sabeel, and a former Yale professor, Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, who both claim that Israel's policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians amount to apartheid. Tiamut 13:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Retrieved (w/minor mod) from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andyvphil" [Also:]

"In a press conference held today in the Bethlehem Municipality, Palestinian leaders including the Mayor of Bethlehem Hanna Nasser, Khalid al-‘Azza from the Bethlehem Land Defense Committee, and a delegation from the Greek Orthodox Church headed by Father Atallah Hanna, strongly denounced the construction of the new Erez checkpoint in Bethlehem as a symbol of apartheid. The conference, which was organized by Palestinian human rights organizations (BADIL, Jerusalem Center for Women, LAW, WI’AM) and the Bethlehem Land Defense Committee was attended by various leaders from the Bethlehem community, foreign consuls including representatives from the American Consulate and the European Community, as well as local and international press. In the conference Mayor Hanna Nasser called on the international community to join Bethlehem in its struggle to resist the developing Israeli apartheid system. Hanna Nasser also openly denied allegations that Palestinian officials had assented to the construction of the new checkpoint. Father Attalah Hanna strongly denounced the new checkpoint and condemned Israel for violating the sanctity of Christian and Muslim holy sites."[11]

Tiamut 13:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure these instances are historically significant enough to go in the "Overview" or timeline, but I will look at adding them elsewhere if some other editor doesn't beat me to it (which I urge them to do). Andyvphil 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid policies inside Israel - Carter reiterates these points

To the section titled Allegations of apartheid policies inside Israel, I added the following Diff[[12]]:

President Carter has reiterated the point that his "use of 'apartheid' does not apply to circumstances within Israel." [[13]]

This was immediately reverted and the following text was put in its place:

President Carter has reiterated the point that "apartheid in Palestine is not based on racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land and the resulting suppression of protests that involve violence." [[14]]

The material below is the source text (emphasis added) from the Carter Center. It demonstrates that my original edit is correct. It also demonstrates that the other editor's revision was a bit of a reach. Again, the title of this section is Allegations of apartheid policies inside Israel. Clearly, not only do the other editor's edit not reflect the above material, it is not focused within Israel and therefore does not belong in this section.

The chairman of the group, Rabbi Andrew Straus, then suggested that I make clear to all American Jews that my use of "apartheid" does not apply to circumstances within Israel, that I acknowledge the deep concern of Israelis about the threat of terrorism and other acts of violence from some Palestinians, and that the majority of Israelis sincerely want a peaceful existence with their neighbors. The purpose of this letter is to reiterate these points. [[15]]

Please note what carter says he reiterates:

• my use of "apartheid" does not apply to circumstances within Israel
• I acknowledge the deep concern of Israelis about the threat of terrorism and other acts of violence from some Palestinians
• the majority of Israelis sincerely want a peaceful existence with their neighbors

-Doright 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is what I find fascinating about Carter's view on all of this. Imagine what would be left of apartheid in South Africa if race had been taken out as the criterion? And, as it turned out, apartheid was effectively abolished when universal suffrage was introduced there. He bases his entire view on his view on the motivation of Israel, which he believes is to steal land. He's entitled to his opinion, but I can certainly find examples in history that fit that particular accusation better than apartheid. Land policy in the US in the 19th century comes to mind. --Leifern 23:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you agree with my analysis? -Doright 03:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That Carter does not allege apartheid in Israel proper (as he defines it) may be a useful clarification in that section, I guess, but I can't see repeating a phrase already quoted. Andyvphil 12:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only does Carter not allege apartheid within Israel, he has gone to great lengths to clarify this point. I, of course, agree, as does apparently Carter, that it is a vital clarification of his views with respect to policies inside Israel. I can hardly imagine a greater violation of WP:NPOV than excluding it from this section. Clearly, if it is to be excluded from this section, then the entire section must be excluded from this article. Whether it is repeated in another section is a question that may be better addressed in that section. -Doright 15:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The line I removed is not Carter's quote. It is what the Rabbis asked Carter to reiterate and Carter provide the quote as it now reads. Otherwise, it looks like Carter said that when in fact it is what the Rabbis said. --Tom 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you might benefit from the use of a dictionary. Look up the word reinterate: to state or repeat. What is quoted are the words that he reiterates. That is, his "use of 'apartheid' does not apply to circumstances within Israel." It's not too complicated. Also, the edit you replaced it with is a non-sequitur. -Doright 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Doright, maybe we should leave that whole section out, or we have to expand it. Maybe we should use your block quote above where he says he wants to reiterate the points the Rabbis make in their letter? Anyways, --Tom 15:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Doright is correct, for those who want to hear it directly, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf6jxLnflSg Kritt 21:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the pro-Israel side. However, i feel we don;t to draw quite so many issues. if we leave just the factual points about allegations in, we can allow more subjective aspects of this debate to wind down. Just my two cents. --Sm8900 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Footnote/formatting fixes needed

Some noncontroversial stuff:

• Footnote 59 is a dead reference backlink, and I'm not sure where it should link. Please fix.
• Footnotes 25 and 61 have bullet items within the footnotes. That's inconsistent with the style elsewhere. Probably should be turned into multiple footnotes.
• Footnote 17 has an "op. cit." cite to Adam and Moodley which precedes the main reference.

--John Nagle 19:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed ref 59. As to the order of op cit ref's in an endlessly mutable encyclopedia, I would hope people can get used to them being out of order. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

timeline is original research

The timeline should only concern allegations of apartheid, not the supposed reasons for it. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss every issue brought up-- every issue is brought up by critics of Israel who use this slur.--Urthogie 13:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to concentrate on the allegations, but... what you're complaining about is off-point but not OR. Andyvphil 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be off-point. It's original research to introduce off-point stuff.--Urthogie 17:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just bad editing. Calling it OR doesn't clarify anything. Andyvphil 01:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what you are getting at? What's "off-point" in the timeline? -- Kendrick7^talk 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The timeline is titled "timeline of allegations of Israeli apartheid." A few dates from the Israeli-Palestine conflict may be included to place the others in contect, but the concentration should be on where significant instances are positioned relative to each other and historical events. The Permanent Observer's allegation that the fence is an element of the "crime of apartheid" belongs in the timeline. Exactly when it started being constructed isn't important unless the difference in dates is of significance. But I got reverted twice on this... Andyvphil 01:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the entire timeline is one big mass of OR, as it sythesizes together a variety of things and claims that all of these things, together, constitute a "timeline of allegations of Israeli apartheid." It also is basically a POV fork of the article itself, as it only includes things that support the "allegations", and not the criticism of the "allegations." But the answer is not to re-create the entire article in a box. This whole timeline should be removed. It does not add anything to the article and violates OR and NPOV policies. 6SJ7 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We have the article currently organized geographically. Why is it suddenly OR to add some organization temporally? Lots of articles have timelines. If you want to suggest some critic's issues for the timeline, I'll be happy to add them. The crit section says, for example, discrimination is illegal in Israel, but I'm not sure which Basic Law this is codified in. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

All the events in the timeline are clear historical facts. They're not in dispute. They're all properly cited. Most are major political events. They're all events with which the term "apartheid" has been associated. The only real objection is that some of them make Israel look bad. --John Nagle 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The facts aren't in dispute; what is in dispute what possible relevance most of them have to the topic. They sort of read like a very lame attempt at "proving" that Israel practices apartheid, and in that sense discredit the article. But I could add 100 other events that are equally (ir)relevant to the topic. It reflects, once again, the desire some editors have to write an article about what they believe is apartheid, rather than the topic at hand, which is about political rhetoric. --Leifern 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this OR timeline. Everything Israel has done has been called "apartheid" by some critic or another, from existing to defending its security. It's POV to build a timeline around these critics, when this article is about their allegations, not their entire world view, and everything relating to those allegations.--Urthogie 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with John Nagle -- a timeline of major political events "with which the term apartheid has been associated" or criticism of it's use seems a perfectly good criteria for this timeline. "Everything Israel has done" hasn't actually been called apartheid; I'm sure we can be reasonable here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of American fascism timeline:

-1776: Revolutionary war. Academic later comments, "That was the beginning of the fascist USA."

-1942: USA attacks Germany. The US was "fascist" too, argued Howard Zinn. Several radical anarchists agreed.

-1989: Fascism has finally won, comments sad communist academic. Prominent journalist reports that he says it...

-2010: Mexican border dubbed "fascist" wall by a couple folks over dinner.

Satire and sarcasm are the last resorts towards sanity sometimes. This article isn't for you all to give your alternate "apartheid" history. It's to cover the various people who have said this allegation, and these moments have no historical significance to anyone in the academy. Even Adam and Moodley aren't giving an in depth summary of the words usage, year by year, and they wrote a whole frickin book on it.--Urthogie 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Per John Nagle and Kendrick and sharing the befuddlement of Andyvphil, I think that as long as the items mentioned in the timeline are referred to by the sources cited as examples of apartheid or major events contributing to what they view to be apartheid, I don't see what the problem is. Tiamut 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC) PS. The article should be title "Israeli apartheid" to faithfully reflect the term and associated phenomena, instead of this "allegations" BS. Tiamut 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything to "make Israel look bad", as one editor admitted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No editor admitted that, and you shouldn't misrepresent people.--G-Dett 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, half-admitted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK then, half-misrepresented.--G-Dett 21:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if allegations get a timeline, then so do criticisms of allegations. I'll be adding some if this timeline is restored. Also, because events such as the rocket bombing of Israel from the disengaged Gaza are mentioned as reasons why there's no apartheid, but rather terrorists trying to destroy a state, I'll be adding these to the events too, so we get both sides of the history that relate to this debate.

The timeline doesn't make Israel look bad, it makes its critics who edit wikipedia look hilariously desperate to forge a revisionist history.--Urthogie 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This "Timeline" is pure original research. Who says these specific "events" are notable in this "history"? Which reliable sources have synthesized this information in this way? Perhaps it should be added to the alternate history article instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Apartheimline"! Now with allegations!--Urthogie 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Restored timeline. There's no consensus for removal. The claims of "original research" lack any backing. Every item in that timeline is properly cited. --John Nagle 07:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know wether the timeline is OR or not, but I don't think it was a good idea. I think the strucure we have now (after Leifern's last edits) is pretty good, though. It is way from perfect, but a lot better than what it was before. What are the NPOV for? pertn 07:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to Leifern. As Jay and others have pointed out, unless we have reliable sources which have synthesized the info a timeline like this, it's pure OR. <<-armon->> 11:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The timeline is useful in providing background and organizing the main points of the article. It's definitely not OR and is almost fully sourced. What seems to the problem? Tiamut 11:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH -the timeline clearly violates it. <<-armon->> 11:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If this timeline violate WP:SYTHN, so do all others. There is no single source that encapsulates all the information in every timelines listed at Wikipedia. The construction of a timeline entails synthesis of various sources. I don't see how your objection applied here. Further, in your last edit, you deleted a number of other additions made after the timeline was added. If you're going to insist on continuing to remove the timeline, it would be nice if you could do it without undoing everyone else's work subsequent to its re-inclusion in the process. Thanks. Tiamut 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK fair enough. I removed the timeline again but left everything else. Thought the Leifern version had a bit of support, so I went to it. <<-armon->> 11:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

By WP:SYNTH it seems the rediculous "infobox" about allegations of apartheid should go too. Clearly a synthesis aimed at promoting a POV. Thanks for making me aware of this policy. It should be considered more carfully in many other articles as well.pertn 11:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the point the anti-timeline people are making is that, while the individual entries are sourced, the overall conglomeration of the events is not. Placed together in this manner, the whole may be exceeding the sum of the parts. Tarc 12:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, every timeline on Wikipedia put together individual sourced entries not agglomerated into one meta-source that accounts for their placement together. What exactly in Wikipedia policy and practice disallows us from doing the same here? Tiamut 12:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could make a similar argument that the combination of sources into an article is OR because nowhere do all those references occur together - so essentially wikipedia should only plagiarise whole articles from elsewhere. --Coroebus 13:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Connoisseurs will have already savored the spectacle of editors arguing that a sourced historical timeline about the subject of this article is OR, but an infobox pointing out unsourced, supposed parallels with discussions of Cuba, Brazil, and the entire religion of Islam is not.

For what it's worth, I think the timeline, if it survives the current edit-war against its existence, should focus on the "allegations" themselves, and be wary of simply listing historical events thought by some to be important in the 'apartheidization' of Israeli policies.--G-Dett 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The info box is about allegations, it should stay. The timeline is about historical events linked with an allegation, rather than the allegation itself. It should go. Simple logic.--Urthogie 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple, yes, logic, no.--G-Dett 14:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Restored timeline. Please don't vandalize it. The people claiming the timeline is "original research" must substantiate that claim. All we have so far are unsupported complaints about "original research", from editors with a logged history of marking things that don't fit their point of view as "original research". We need better-quality criticism of the timeline. It's a useful way to see the sequence of events in a concise form. --John Nagle 17:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The timeline is a random series of chronological events that are somewhat or not at all relevant to the so-called allegations. They represent to no particular continuity, shed no light on the topic, and only seem to confuse things. I don't know if it's original research, because there is no synthesis that can be found in them, unless you really want to find it. --Leifern 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That lasted ninety seconds Nagle. Oh boy, edit war.--G-Dett 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie & Co.: I gather you are opposed in principle to organizing the material historically, rather than having objections to specific items on the timeline – otherwise you wouldn't be edit-warring over the whole thing, is that right?--G-Dett 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Timelines aren't appropriate for a page on an allegation. They fit human and natural history articles.--Urthogie 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an assertion, Urthogie, not an argument.--G-Dett 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it make more sense to list something like the Oslo Accords once rather than list the dates of publication of the dozens of sources that compare its outcome to apartheid? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Article isn't about oslo--Urthogie 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The timeline isn't OR. It's shameless OR, with a healthy dollop of POV plopped on top of it. IronDuke 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To understand this subject, it's essential that readers see the big events. Without knowing about the Six Day War or the building of the "separation fence/apartheid wall" (depending on which side you're on), the whole subject doesn't make any sense. The key events in political history that represented big policy changes need to be briefly mentioned; when Barak became Prime Minister, Israel's positions became much more hard-line. There's no controversy about any of those historical facts, and they're too big to ignore. --John Nagle 18:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it can't be OR if the sources connect the elements to this topic. Contrary to Urthogie, the Allegations of Apartheid infobox is OR, since no reliable sources tie it to this topic, although that's neither here nor there. The legitimate question is whether the timeline violates NPOV; I think it might, although there would potentially be ways we could balance it rather than remove it. Mackan79 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The very existence of a timeline is POV, as it posits as true things that are merely slurs or (at best) allegations. Since this mess began, we've been trying to prevent this article from reading as though what's being claimed is "true." Really, I think a timeline in this context is, charitably, just bizarre. I can't imagine an iteration that would conform to WP policies. IronDuke 18:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how putting the issues in chronological order somehow creates a POV problem. -- Kendrick7^talk

Yes, I'm curious about the same thing. How does a timeline posit things "as true" more than other organizational schemes? And IronDuke, do you really believe that this article is especially egregious among I-P related articles in "reading as though what's being claimed is 'true'"? The first sentence tells you it's controversial, and half the lead is devoted to criticism. For a reality check, here is how Arabs and antisemitism begins:

The existence of antisemitism among Arabs goes back to the nineteenth century.

For at least 2,600 years, that is since the Babylonian captivity (597 BCE), Jewish communities existed as a minority in the Arabian peninsula (including Madinah, formerly Yathrib) and lands in the Middle East and North Africa which Arab Muslims conquered and colonized between the 7th and 9th centuries CE. Through settlement, conversion, plunder,[1] mass murder of men and sexual enslavement of women[2] resulting in population replacement and indigenous flight, Arabs became the dominant ethnic element between the 7th and 11th centuries. Since then there have been periods of intense judeophobia in the Muslim World, especially in the Arab World during the 19th century.

Next to articles such as Pallywood, Islam and antisemitism, New antisemitism, etc., Allegations of Israeli apartheid incorporates an extraordinary amount of dissent, and appears to be unique in its incorporation of virtual scare quotes into its title. Have you raised similar NPOV issues on other articles?--G-Dett 18:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that G-Dett removed a part of the above paragraph from Arabs and antisemitism as "gratuitous, badly-sourced purple-prosed irrelevancy". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For convenience, I've bolded what I removed above, which was sourced to a religious text compiling what appear to be translated verse accounts of "Military Expeditions led by the Prophet."--G-Dett 21:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Some expansions to the timeline were made. The citations, formatting, and links needed some work. I've put in links where I could, fixed the formatting, cleaned up the punctuation, and put "citation needed" tags on the ones with neither links nor references. Please add references where appropriate. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is still a combination of POV and OR (in the sense of "synthesis", where even if it is a collection of perfectly sourced facts, it is still an original "sythesis"), and I am removing it again. If people think it can be turned into something acceptable (meaning, among other things, balanced), then you should work on it on a sub-page or workshop page or something, until it is finished. 6SJ7 20:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We're past that point. All sides are now trying to improve the timeline now. I'm sure there will still be arguments over it, but at this point, just removing it is vandalism. Please don't do that. Thanks. --John Nagle 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please don't misunderstand me. The timeline is a really really bad idea, but if it's going to exist, it needs to be complete. It has a long way to go before it gets there, and my suspicion is that a complete version will easily be longer than the article itself and will add absolutely nothing to this topic. But since I think that revert wars generally don't lead to anything but impasses and mutual recriminations, I decided to mitigating the damage made by this idea. --Leifern 20:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea and that a chronology has the potential of giving a real coherence to the article. Could be a defining breakthru in the development of the article, I'd go so far to say. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't similar reasoning about the whole article being WP:SYNTH shot down in this article's 4th AFD just last month? Except for some bizarre seguay into Ugandan air traffic control issues, the timeline is/was coming along quite a way for balance I think. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding this OR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if "shot down" is the best way to describe what happened. The majority of !voters favored deleting this article. I don't see how pegging each unrelated allegation to some event that occurred in Israel's history is helpful. IronDuke 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are, I believe, thinking of the fifth AfD, also last month; it is getting hard to keep track. What I added to the timeline were issues that have been the subject of multiple allegations, thus relating them. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that some material on the Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict has gone into the timeline. That material needs to be better cited and reflected in the main text, and tied more clearly to apartheid issues. Certainly there was a Soviet anti-Semitism push within the USSR after the Six Day War (they backed the losing side, always an embarrassment for a superpower) but it's not clear how that's tied to the apartheid issue, which relates more to internal events within Israel. --John Nagle 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The original timeline quotes the Soviet ambassador to the United Nations, who invoked the apartheid comparison. As it turns out, the Soviet Union invoked every conceivable invective against Israel after 1967 and punished anything that looked Jewish within the Soviet Union. It wasn't as if the ambassador carefully considered the factors before using the "a" word. --Leifern 20:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

lists

Perhaps we should limit the lists of allegations to historicall notable cases. What do people gain by seeing every notable person who has made a given allegation? Are these allegations really notable in their own right outside of Carter, Tutu, and the various statements made at the UN? Chris McGreal's article wasn't exactly monumental in the course of history. Oh "According to Leila Farsakh, associate professor of Political Science at University of Massachusetts Boston". Ah, everyone knows about Farsakh, great guy Farsakh, at the Poli sci University of Boston. He's not a professor, you say? Just an assistant? Oh well, who cares, include him anyways, he's a monumental apartheid commentator.--Urthogie 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please abide by WP:POINT and don't pollute the talk page. I think people benefit from seeing notable people wheighing in on the subject. And, oh, Farsakh is a gal not a dude. Lixy 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, everyone should have known! Farsakh, after all, is a very notable assistant professor who lives in Boston.--Urthogie 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed she is, Urthogie, indeed she is. When you've finished gorging yourself on StandWithUs leaflets and MEMRI press releases, you might take a moment and read "Independence, Cantons, or Bantustans: Whither the Palestinian State," published in the US's oldest peer-review journal on the Middle East. There's a world of scholarship out there, Urthogie, and some of it's even on the internet.[16] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I think Urthogie is confused over the American tenure system and the meaning of assistant professor. Leila Farsakh is perhaps one of the most educated scholars of the middle east cited in this article. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Another quite prominent source

The norwegian minister of finance Kristin_Halvorsen on a tour to palestine in 2002 (before she was a minister) commented to the newspaper Dagbladet [17] : "It is insane that a civilized country can act like this. What I have seen and experienced down here is horrifying. So far I have abstained from calling Israel an apartheid state, but after this it is no way around it." (my translation. original quote for those that understand norwegian: "Det er vanvittig at et sivilisert land kan oppføre seg slik. Det jeg har sett og opplevd her nede er skrekkelig. Jeg har hittil unngått å betegne Israel som en apartheidstat, men etter dette er det ikke noen vei utenom, sier en rystet Kristin Halvorsen til Dagbladet." I don't know. maybe this should be added to the article? pertn 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC) PS: Though her party is still critical of Israel, and that this has created some turmoil in the coalition government, I do not think she has repeated this comparison in the recent years. pertn 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We should include quotes from finance ministers?--Urthogie 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kristin Halvorsen's comments were made as the leader of the radical left party that is now part of the coalition government. She's had to tone down her anti-Israeli rhetoric as a minister of finance, but SV (the socialist left party) has always had a strong anti-Israeli platform. --Leifern 18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption of the allegation by the head of a ruling coalition party in an EU state is certainly a marker for the success of the allegationist campaign (pace Matas). This would be obvious except for the geographic straitjacket that Urthogie imposed on the article. Maybe rather than delete the "Overview" by parceling its parts out to the other sections (which is what I've attempted to precipitate) the solution is to transform it into an historical account, cannibalizing the other sections as needed. Andyvphil 22:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Time line

Nice work guys, glad to see the great progress/compromise. If it isn't removed its just going to be trashed? Oh well, --Tom 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not everything put in the timeline belongs there, but actually editing seems to be too much trouble for some. Better to make wild claims that timelines are inherently POV, SYNTH and OR. When I came to this article very little could be dated without looking at the footnotes (and a lot couldn't be dated without actually following the links) which was absurd for a subject that should be a history. Andyvphil 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the original timeline points were a random collections of decontextualized tidbits that could - to an already prejudiced mind - serve as circumstantial evidence that the allegation had some merit. So the only proper response is to provide the context for those tidbits and allow the user to decide whether the tidbits add up to anything at all. --Leifern 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the origin of the timeline.[18]. No tidbits. Andyvphil 23:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

... per request on WP:RPP. It's way out of control, folks. Please - this action does not endorse any particular revision, just that this endless revert war needs to stop. - Alison ☺ 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7 made the request, I see. I was going to add several citations to the timeline. Oh well. --Leifern 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted on WP:RPP. But yes, that was naughty. However, the article is out of control - Alison ☺ 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"This action does not endorse any particular revision." I am always amused when I read something like that, especially when the article has been protected for a relatively long period of time, as it has here. (Two weeks, according to the entry at WP:RPP.) I realize that admins like to share inside jokes about people complaining about articles being protected at the wrong version, but here the article has been protected at a very POV version, for two weeks! This really doesn't seem fair. And while I do not doubt the sincerity of the admin who says there is no endorsement of any version, the effect is to favor the protected version, even though that is not the intention. And yes, the article is out of control due to endless edit wars, as it has been for almost a year. However, I do not see how this protection is going to improve that situation, just as all the previous protections of this page haven't improved the situation. 6SJ7 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And if it was locked on a version that you would approve of, then the other half would be up in arms. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't, so in the end it rally doesn't matter what version it is frozen at. Tarc 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. I've no interest in the subject either way and wouldn't attempt to decipher for myself which version is POV or what. The last full prot lasted a week and was obviously squandered judging from its aftermath. Hence the two week protect. If this is disputed, probably the best place to raise it would be on WP:ANI - Alison ☺ 22:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you guys don't like the current revision, the best option is to achieve consensus or some sorta agreement here ASAP. When that happens, let me know (or WP:RPP) and I'll gladly unprotect early - Alison ☺ 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The two-week time period is not a rigid length. If this gets resolved in a few days or a week, you are free to head over to WP:RPP and request unprotection. Expiration dates for protection are estimates, ensuring articles are not protected for too long. I encourage you all to try one of the methods at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if this article truly has been heavily disputed for "almost a year" without resolution. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the methods of dispute resolution? There has already been an arbitration and, depending on how one counts, three attempts at mediation, although admittedly the arbitration was about specific conduct near the beginning of the article's history (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Workshop, all 391 Kb of it, for some interesting (?!) reading), and none of the proposed mediations have been about the timeline, which is a relatively recent addition to the controversy. To really get an idea of what has been going on here for a year (since May 29, 2006, to be exact) you could read the 21 archived talk pages (I just noticed that the list of archived talk pages is starting to resemble a calendar), but only if you have a number of hours to spare. But I think all you have to do is read the current talk page to see how difficult it would be for this article to ever achieve a consensus. 6SJ7 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of pages that are contentious for ideological reasons, but each side is trying to make what they think is a better article, so some sort of momentum gets underway. Even NAS has something of this momentum. This article is unique in that there are a significant number of editors who simply want to kill it; this puts their suggestions for what might "improve" the article in a certain light.--G-Dett 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In the larger scheme of things, this article is a bit like a Seinfeld episode; it's about nothing of any consequence. If it were about the humanitarian and political situation of the Palestinians, it would be important. If it were about the effects of Israeli policy toward Palestinians, it would be important. But it's about one particular theme (of many) that is used for political polemics, and as such it is either tedious or tendentious, depending on how you want to see it. --Leifern 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

or...important. Somehow I don't think you're here because of a passion for sitcoms and much ado about nothing.--G-Dett 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who reject the Allegation

Is there a commonality among the ways those who reject the allegation FRAME the debate? If there is such a commonality do all agree it should be among the first sentences of the article? Do they frame the allegation as a calumny? If so, within this framework, who is the calumny against? And to who and what do they attribute this calumny to? These are a few of the questions that I have.Doright 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the current version from the introductory sentences that frame the debate: Those who reject the analogy argue that it is political slander intended to malign Israel by singling it out. They say that legitimate Israeli security needs justify the practices that prompt the analogy, and argue that the practices of many other countries, to which the term is not applied, more closely resemble South African apartheid.

Here are some of the first problems I see with the above version: The way its written suggest that their argument is that since other nations are engaging in apartheid, it is unfair to "single out" Israel for doing the same. Thus, instead of representing the other side of the debate, it has the opposition conceding the premise. It then goes on to claim that it is "Israeli practices that prompt" the allegation. Again, this may be the viewpoint of some of those that make the allegation. However, isn't it the case that the dominant view among those that reject the allegation is that it is something other than "Israeli practices" that prompt the allegation?Doright 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should qualify the sentence to say "unreasonably" or "unfairly". I think an adjective could fix this issue of concession.--Urthogie 01:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Very nice little analyis Doright. But before you start parsing the nuances, how about acknowledging the basic fact that this intro contains three arguments against use of the analogy and not a single one in favour of it? Gatoclass 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind compliment. However, I do not agree that it is a mere "nuance." Therefore, I will appreciate your substantive reply. I do agree that in addition to remedying the problem identified by my "analysis" the current intro requires additional weight on the side of the allegation. Doright 08:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence is a little clumsy, although the idea is essentially expanded on in the second sentence, so I think the overall meaning is clear enough. The passage They say that legitimate Israeli security needs justify the practices that prompt the analogy seems accurate enough to me. I think you will probably find plenty such arguments in the rest of the article. What would you want to replace it with? Gatoclass 09:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but "Clumsy" does not address the specific criticism produced by my "analysis." Nor does the purported "accuracy" address the concerns raised by the analysis or the question of how criticism of the allegation is framed. I think it is premature for me to propose a specific replacement because there has been no discussion of the issue raised in the first paragraph of this talk page section or even the question posed in its title.Doright 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Replace this text:

Those who reject the analogy argue that it is political slander intended to malign Israel by singling it out. They say that legitimate Israeli security needs justify the practices that prompt the analogy, and argue that the practices of other countries, to which the term is not applied, more closely resemble South African apartheid.

with this:

Some who reject the allegation argue that it is a calumny intended to malign and delegitimize Israel. They say, it butchers the truth, applies a cruel double standard and "abets the cause of the world's foremost Jew-haters - people whose explicit goal is the liquidation of the Jewish state." [[19]] Others say it does not reflect the fact that Israeli civilians are attacked by an enemy that does not wear a uniform [[20]]; does not consider that “ Israel is forced by incessant Palestinian terrorism to take actions, such as building checkpoints and the security fence, to protect its citizens.”[[21]] and point to the rights and privileges enjoyed by Israeli Arabs that exceed those in surrounding Arab countries. [[22]]

-Doright 00:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In his review titled, "Carter's Calumny," Mitchell Bard writes: "By titling his book as he has, Jimmy Carter is not merely being provocative to sell books, he appears to be giving aid and comfort to the new anti-Semites whose goal ... has been to link Israel to apartheid South Africa." [[23]] -Doright 05:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we should use highly inflammatory and hyperbolic language in the introduction. Nor do I understand why the views of critics should be given a 3:1 ratio in terms of space in the introduction, or throughout the article. Other articles on controversial subjects like Pallywood or Islamofascism do not follow this layout. This proposed change to the intro does not improve the article, though some of this information might be useful to the criticism section. Tiamut 09:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that accusing Israel of apartheid is highly inflammatory and hyperbolic, so to complain that people reject the comparison in equally strong language is, well, a bit ironic. --Leifern 12:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy, Leifern, this is supposed to be like Seinfeld.[24]

--G-Dett 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Doright is correct that the second paragraph misrepresents the opposition to the analogy. The phrase "...intended to malign Israel by singling it out" is virtually unintelligable, is superfluous since the point is repeated in the last phrase of the paragraph, and is a minor observation in any case. And my refutation, above, of Gatoclass' assertion that "[i]t's axiomatic that Israel is accused of apartheid because of its policies toward Palestinians" applies equally to the phrase "the practices that prompt the analogy" -- those who reject the analogy may (correctly, IMHO) deny that it is prompted by practices or conditions. However, Doright's proposed substitute is too long and specific for this position in the article (compare with the first paragraph). So, how about something along the lines of "Those who reject the allegations argue that it is an attempt to claim the legitimacy of the struggle against South African racism for a conflict that is insufficiently analogous."? Andyvphil 15:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Doright, that first comma in your second sentence is ungrammatical but not unmusical, and it got me humming. Now, let's get rid of "cruel," which is sort of breathlessly sentimental, and slows things down. Also, can I change "butchers" to "mutilates"? I need it for the meter, see:

Jáne sáys
I'm dóne with Sérgió
He tréats me líke a

rág dóll

Any you boys play guitar? Apparently we need a "simple G - A chord progression."

Théy sáy
It mútilátes the trúth
Applíes a dóuble

stándárd

Deé-dá, dee dá dee doó de dúm...

It's uncanny, down to the opening and closing spondees. Good stuff, Doright, but it ain't goin' in.--G-Dett 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

N Protected edit declined. The proposed text has no consensus here. It is also bad prose, as noted above, and uses a deprecated method of reference formating (see WP:FN). No opinion about the content as such. Sandstein 06:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is amazing how pervasive the pro-terrorists are on WP. Palestine is an Arab/Islamic political weapon against Israel. Associating the word 'aparthied' with 'Israel' is a political device designed to damage and isolate the jews they hate so much. Aparthied is an incorrect term, but neither Arabs or pro-terrorists care because their agenda is to slur Israel. It's fascinating how WP is happy to legitimaize a politically motivated slur, but won't permit use of the words 'massacre' or 'terrorist' when 31 muslims storm a school and slaughter 186 children at Beslan.

if arab/islamic propagandists can succeed in having WP include the israel/apartheid article then they have achieved a political goal.

I quote from WP - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid - "if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint."

Amazing how on WP we can't use the word 'terrorist' to describe people killing children, but its OK to label Israel an apartheid state even though it isn't one.

the very existence of this article brings WP's neutrality and credibility into question. pro-terrorists are exploiting WP for political purposes. If I can make up a slur and get enough people to parrot what i say can i get a WP entry for it to?

maybe i can start a WP article called 'pro-terrorist bias on WP'?

71.160.204.78 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)BabyX 8:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What's amazing is how you can accuse people interested in disseminating information about a term in wide usage of being "pro-terrorist". Please review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Tiamut 13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting WP policy. People can be can be civil and can be operating in good faith, that doesn't mean they can't have a pro-terrorist agenda. Maybe they just think terrorism is justified and have a natural bias that they are not aware of. I am not questioning peoples civility or good faith.

You are deflecting rather than addressing my points. If my arguments are without merit then it should be easy for you to disprove them shouldn't it?

What I'm saying is that intentionally or otherwise pro-terrorists advance a pro-terrorist POV and WP is meant to be neutral.

I quote from WP - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid - "if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint." Certain parties have succeeded in establishing the idea that Israeli aparthied is a worthy WP article topic. Certain parties have also established the idea on WP that it makes more sense to call 31 rebels massacering 186 children 'armed rebels in a crisis'.

There is a pro-terrorist contingent on WP that supports the attachment of certain labels to some groups (aparthied applied to jews) and removes certain labels from other groups (muslim terrorist becomes armed rebel). It is totally legitimate for me to raise this issue.

The strategy employed by pro-terrorists is to neutralize me. This is how they do it. They behave questionably, but within defendable parameters. I point out what there doing and they make out my bevahior is problem. Basically, I am the problem because I am pointing out the problem.

You employed a typical pro-terrorist tactic which is to state that i'm not conforming to WP AGF and CIVIL protocol, but not actually address the heart of the issues i raise. why not do both?

You did not engage me, debate or disprove my points, you simply suggesting i'm breaking WP policy because you didn't like my arguments. You employed a neutralization tactic.

Can you not see how certain parties are very keen to create a debate around whether Israel is aparthied or not? ...and if they succeed in creating that debate they have already achieved their objective?

This is a good example of how WP is being exploited by those with a pro-terrorist POV. There is a pro-terrorist bias in this article.

BabyX 4:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are conflating pro-terrorist, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian. --Coroebus 13:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

BabyX, your "pro-terrorist" slurs don't merit a reply, but your misconception of Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid does. That policy guides Wikipedia editors in their choice of words; it does not restrict possible subject matter. You're confusing a stylistic neutrality guideline with a rubric for censorship. There's a difference between using controversial terms and talking about them. There's an article on the word "fuck," and it's a decent article too, but the article on Giacomo Casanova doesn't begin by telling us that its subject was "a famous Venetian adventurer and writer who fucked a lot of women." Get it straight.--G-Dett 16:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The timeline is not a christmas tree

from which everyone gets to hang their favorite ornament. Almost everything that says "citation needed" appears to be unrelated to the topic of this article:

Ehud Barak's offer to the PLO to establish a Palestinian state are rejected without a counterproposal, and further negotiations break down[citation needed]

What the hell? And this:

1955 - 1967: Repeated incursions by Palestinians into Israeli agricultural cooperative settlements result in scores of deaths.[citation needed]

What is all this?--G-Dett 19:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A) Judging from the initial entries, relevance did not seem to much of a criterion to begin with; B) if you insist on including Israeli actions that were based on a security rationale, it would wrong to omit this rationale. It is only if you fully accept that these actions were based entirely on "apartheid" motivations that these "ornaments" have no meaning. --Leifern 20:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are the "inital entries".[25]. No irrelevant ones. Andyvphil 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(After edit conflict with Leifern) Actually, of the 22 items currently in the timeline, I only count six that deal with allegations of "apartheid." (And at least a few of those six are so insignificant that they would not belong in a "timeline of allegations of apartheid" even if this were a legitimate timeline, which it isn't.) I think the addition of the items that you mention (not by me) was a reaction to the presence of many others that were unrelated to "apartheid" -- like the founding of the State of Israel, or Israeli land policy, or what Barak said when he was running for office, or most of the other things that you do not mention. I think the person's theory was, if this is going to be an original synthesis of facts (which is against the OR guidelines), then let it include facts on both sides, not just on the anti-Israel side. 6SJ7 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Added comment: G-Dett, essentially you are complaining that the timeline is "only" 95 percent in favor of your POV, instead of 100 percent. I find that kind of amusing. 6SJ7 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even going for balance, but it's not as if these events the timeline outlined came out of thin air, motivated by some Hebrew-speaking John Vorsters.--Leifern 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Leifern's response makes clear he sees this as another hostage situation/opportunity, like the "allegations" infobox. Pump junk into Wikipedia, create linkage between what you admit to be junk and something else that you don't like, make demands about the thing you don't like.

6SJ7: your response has more substance, but I think you're rather missing the point of the timeline. It helps historicize the allegations. Each historical event, as I understand it, is linked to sources that describe that event as important in the 'apartheidization' of the territory Israel controls. Are you saying that when this –

1976: Idi Amin allows[citation needed] hijackers to land Air France plane at Entebbe, where only non-Jewish[citation needed] hostages are released. Israel liberates hostages by force.

– is fleshed out with the missing citations, those citations are going to talk about this event with regards to apartheid?--G-Dett 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, once again you're declaring yourself an authority on my motivations and state of mind. What I saw was an endless and mindless revert war over a timeline. And although I didn't think the timeline added any value to an already shaky article, I decided that a better approach than simply deleting it would be to at least make the milestones more meaningful by inserting points that added context to events that otherwise seemed completely disjointed. --Leifern 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

By "points that add context" you mean things like the Air France hijacking? This adds context because it lets readers know what an antisemitic SOB Idi Amin is, lest they take too seriously his allegation of Israeli apartheid? If so, that's OR.--G-Dett 15:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) It's not that big a mess. The items that still have "citation needed" do need work. The stuff about the Soviet Union should probably have something like "See Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict and Zionology", the main articles on those subjects. Idi Amin probably gets too much space. Each item should be tightened up; no more than 3-4 lines per item. We're getting there. --John Nagle 20:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Timeline was much like the article itself; filled with random bits of political rhetoric, divorced from reality and intended mostly to vilify Israel. The fact that this Frankenstein's monster escaped the control of its original masters, and is now rampaging through the article (to their bitter chagrin), is fairly amusing. Regardless, it is yet another thing that could not make the article worse, since almost nothing could. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I can see I've got you and 6SJ7 fairly rolling in the aisles. And you know I do aim to please. When the ripples of mirth have subsided, though, could I ask you a question? Would you agree that a timeline is in principle an acceptable idea, and should include items that have described by reliable sources as central to "allegations of Israeli apartheid"? Thanks.--G-Dett 21:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Timeline can never comply with policy, since it will inevitably consist entirely of original research; proper Timelines are developed to document historical realities, not build political cases. After you're done, why not build a Timeline of running-dog capitalism and a Timeline of Zionist world control? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sharing your obsessions, I think I won't work on that last. But out of curiosity, and since these insinuations of yours are so frequent, do you think those who see parallels between the occupation and apartheid South Africa are on a par with those believe in 'Zionist world control'?

Regarding the policy issues, is there a policy that limits the use of timelines to articles about agreed-upon historical realities? Or does this position represent your interpretation and application of WP:OR? And does this policy (or interpretation, if that's what it is) apply to any historically chronological treatment, or just timelines? In your view, for example, could this article include a historical overview? Thanks Jay. --G-Dett 22:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, let me ask you a question: Leaving aside the six (or so) items in the current timeline (in its protected state) that specifically include the word "apartheid", and also leaving aside the items that you do not think should be in the timeline at all, how do you justify the other items? For example, the one about the formation of the State of Israel? Or the one about land policy? Or the one about Barak saying "Us here" or whatever he said? And I mean, how do you justify them being in a timeline of "allegations of Israeli apartheid"? 6SJ7 02:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay 6SJ7. I agree with you that the wording of John Nagle's first response (directly below) raises the specter of OR. The items on the timeline should not be things that Wikipedians (however common-sensically) conclude are relevant to "apartheid"; rather, they should be events that have been emphasized as pivotal by advocates of the comparison. Andyvphil has the right idea: the body of the article itself should lay the foundations for any items on the timeline.--G-Dett 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I put in the note about Barak taking office on a platform of "Us here, them there". It's a significant event because that was a big political shift in Israel. The hard-liners took office and followed up with the "separation program", "separation fence"/"apartheid wall", etc. Remember, "apartheid" means "apartness". "Us here, them there" is just another way of saying that, with, perhaps, different spin. See Roszenman, Eric, "Today's Arab Israelis, Tomorrow's Israel", 2001, Hoover Institution, Stanford, which uses both terms. Barak also said, when running for PM, "We should separate ourselves from the Palestinians physically, following the recommendation of the American poet Robert Frost, who once wrote that good fences make good neighbors. Leave them behind [outside] the borders that will be agreed upon, and build Israel." The timeline needed something more concise, hence "Us here, them there". That was Barak's program back then. That's the history. --John Nagle 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OR, John Nagle. You can't draw your own conclusions like that. That's the problem with most of the timeline. If the title of the article was something like "treatment of Palestinians" or "Israeli land policy" or one of the alternatives suggested in previous discussions, it would be a different story. But as long as it is "apartheid", you can't go translating as you see fit. 6SJ7 15:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your idea that Barak's policy of separation is a form of apartheid is interesting but doesn't belong in the article unless you can find a Wiki-acceptable ref for that allegation(which you may be able to do). In general I don't think events should be in the timeline unless they are referred to in the article (or the intention is to refer to them in the article soon, as with the Ahmad Hajihosseini quote I was partly responsible for inserting). I don't think Entebbe will meet that test. Andyvphil 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, you might try the source that's currently in the timeline. It's on google books. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, my point about "Us here, them there" was not that it ultimately had no place in the timeline but rather that the foundation for its appearance had not been properly laid. If Selfa had been quoted in this article, that would be different. Contrast this with ~"1950 - Israel's Population Registry Act"~ which dates a reference by McGreal already in the article. Andyvphil 21:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rozenmann source and the issue of Hafrada (Separation) should be mentioned in the article. Since there is an article devoted to the subject of hafrada, there is no need to explain it in detail. But I am quite surprised that the term does not appear here. As you will note at the hafrada page, it is used quite extensively by those who want to make Israel-specific apartheid analogies. Tiamut 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

References to "hafrada" in the article text were removed by Jayjg (talk · contribs) in this edit: 02:06, 21 December 2006 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (The issues - the only legitimate reference here referring to "apartheid" is the B'Tselem one, and Shlomka is a businessman, per talk). References to the "separation program" were also removed at that time. So that's how and when it disappeared. --John Nagle 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Yossi Schwartz quote could be the one Nagle needed, and adding it would give occasion to Wikilink to Hafrada (Separation). Why don't you add it when the protection expires? This article used to have a "barrier" section which, if gutted of irrelevancies, could perhaps supply Wikified text to frame the quote... Andyvphil 14:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Many references to Barak's program as a form of apartheid exist. It's a standard claim from the Arab side (Search Google for "Barak" and "Apartheid"; 199,000 hits). Some of them are already cited in the article. It's certainly not "original research". Incidentally, if you like timelines, see "About That Word Apartheid". Not a neutral source, but has useful references. --John Nagle 18:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The obvious solution for the timeline is to only include items which are discussed in the rest of the article. —Ashley Y 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid is a form of racial segregation

Thus, I have added it to the template, and I also propose adding the template to this article.--Kirby♥time 03:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose'. Such action would be very racist in nature, both a mockery to racial discrimination and to Israel.--Sefringle 04:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is offensive doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Instead of clamping down on reports of racism in Israel, why not end the apartheid?--Kirby♥time 04:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, I should add anti-zionism to the antisemitism template. Do you support that, Kirbytime?--Sefringle 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I support whatever Wikipedia policy encourages.--Kirby♥time 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose - page is about allegations.--Urthogie 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

amiri bishara

quick comment on this guy.

Azmi Bishara, in JTA’s words, “abruptly ended a parliamentary career built on denouncing the Jewish state from enemy capitals and then dodging charges of sedition at home. ” He quit from outside the country in protest of allegations for spying for Hezbollah during this summer’s Second Lebanon War.

Oh no, an arab mp spy called israel apartheid! this should be noted, why he resigned, what he stood for, and whatnot.--Urthogie 22:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting allegations. This all has only come out in the last few weeks. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why he resigned and what he stood for should be noted in this article? Let readers follow wikilinks and do their original research. Now, if an article is published linking Bishara's "allegations" of apartheid to the allegations of spying, then of course we'd cite that, but let's not get into WP:SYN or well-poisoning. --G-Dett 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not considered OR to specify who an individual is. We don't assume the reader knows the person, and say "click the link" if they don't. Giving background is indeed a must for any good article.--Urthogie 14:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source making the connection between allegations of apartheid and allegations of treason, fine. If not, not. We don't say "Ariel Sharon, who was tried in absentia in an international war crimes court for his role in the Sabra-Shatila massacres," unless the Belgian case is relevant to what we're talking about, and a reliable source says so. Otherwise, we say, "Ariel Sharon." Don't we, Urthogie.--G-Dett 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, we can quote farm from a guy who supports Hezbollah :) It only makes the POV look as ridiculous as including dictators and the like.--Urthogie 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Current status

Is anything going on here? I'm inclined to go with 6SJ7's suggested compromise, though I haven't been following closely. I think a section on the history would probably be more appropriate, at least as a starting point. Mackan79 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not interested in trading the deletion of the timeline for deletion of the template. I couldn't care less about the template, whereas the timeline is exactly the tool needed to bring history front-and-center in this article. Andyvphil 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there are legitimate concerns with the timeline, though, which need to be resolved, and for which past edit warring doesn't seem to show much promise. We could put the timeline here on the talk page for further work, or could try writing a history section as a starting point to clarify what should go on it. I don't know; I admit I don't want to get deeply involved, but thought I'd throw out a suggestion.Mackan79 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Restored the timeline; there was no consensus for its removal. It needs some cleanup, though. Work on the "citation needed" sections, please. Most of the events tagged "citation needed" are major historical events, so that shouldn't be hard. The only controversial one is probably "Ehud Barak's offer to the PLO to establish a Palestinian state are rejected without a counterproposal, and further negotiations break down.", which represents an unsupported opinion on why negotiations broke down. See George Tenet's new book for his take on the subject; he was one of the US people trying to get the parties to agree. --John Nagle 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On a somewhat relevant note, I've suggested that Zionology be merged into Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those two articles cover mostly the same material. If those articles were combined and better cited, we could refer to the Soviet Union/Israel issues in the timeline with a "See main article Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict". The timeline has an uncited reference to Israeli apartheid from a Soviet ambassador, and that ought to go into the Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict with a proper citation. --John Nagle 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Yakov Malik quote appears both in the timeline and in the main text. It is reffed at the latter location. I don't understand the desire to consolodate Zionology. It has as its subject a particular, notable but not terribly important, Soviet pseudo-academic "discipline" which can be pointed to, "for further information", by multiple articles, e.g. Anti-Zionism#Soviet anti-Zionism as well as Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict. In that it is similar to this article. This mesh is the natural structure of Wikipedia, and the "encyclopedia" is not improved by fighting its natural tendency to look at the same facts from multiple viewpoints. Andyvphil 07:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The "timeline" makes this article even more ridiculous than it was already, which is a difficult feat. It should be eliminated. 6SJ7 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This "timeline" is one of the most jaw-droppingly OR, POV, pieces of nonsense I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I have seen much that is horrible here. I literally cannot fathom why people think this meets Wikipedia policies in any way. The nearest I can come up with is, "Well, yes, the timeline is a jumble of whatever random "facts" individual editors feel are important in the Wikipedia fight against Israel, but so is the article, so what's the big deal?" I guess a positive benefit is it unmasks people who pretend that this article was ever designed to be anything but a magnet for POV-pushing. IronDuke 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have substantive objections to specific items in the timeline, please make them. Thanks. --John Nagle 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The timeline puts events mentioned in the main text of the article in a historical framework. It is not pro-Israel or anti-Israel, and the the most "random" entries (e.g., "... Repeated incursions by Palestinians into ...") are the product of editors who see the existance of this article as anti-Israeli. Andyvphil 07:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The timeline selectively chooses specific items from real history, and then pretends they are items in the alternate history world of "Israeli apartheid". It is the very epitome of original research and 6SJ7 and IronDuke understate its flaws. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Overview; Refutation Lacking

The opening summary mentions those individuals who have accused Israel of Apartheid, but it fails to mention Israeli Arabs and South Africans whose statements contradict the accusation or who object to this accusation and find it offensive and/or inaccurate. I am going to start compiling a list of Arab Israelis and South Africans who object to this comparison. I hope others will help to contribute to this list.-- Michael Safyan 19:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Palestinians who object to the comparison:
  • Walid Shoebat
• Arab Israelis who object to the comparison:
  • Salma Abdallah
• South Africans who object to the comparison:
• Other Individuals who object to the comparison:
  • Linda Grant
  • African Americans Stand With Israel on YouTube

Additionally, the article does not indicate which of Israel's accusers have ever set foot in Israel or the territories. I think this information should appear given that the accusations rely on an authority argument, and who has or has not visited the locations in question has significant impact on the authority of the accusers/defenders. -- Michael Safyan 19:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1) There's enough undue weight given to counter-critics as it is. Let's not bog down the article even more so with random semi-notable personalities.

2) This argument is itself an exercise in faulty logic. Visiting a country/location is not a prerequisite for criticism. Tarc 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Visiting a country/location is not a prerequisite for criticism; it is a prerequisite for judging it firsthand. -- Michael Safyan 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Linda Grant (journalist) isn't an Arab-Israeli, FYI. She's a Russian-Polish Brit, educated in Canada. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. I have moved the link. -- Michael Safyan 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The "opening summary" has two paragraphs. Did you miss the second paragraph? Now the "Overview" (except for a misplaced chunk of Adam-Moodly) is a slightly eccentric brief listing of the Allegations -- responses should naturally be where they are stated in greater detail. And they are. If any on your list should be included, do so. Andyvphil 08:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant the overview. -- Michael Safyan 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding {{quotefarm}}

This article is very badly written, and by looking at its history it seems that people are trying to make a point by moving consensus in un-encyclopedic directions.

Use of extensive quotes is frowned upon, and many of the quotes are redundant. We could certainly simplify and use citations rather than quotes. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and while I do think that these allegations of Israeli apartheid, and the counter-allegations, are notable and worthy of encyclopedic treatment, the article reads more like a debate between the two POVs rather than an encyclopedia entry on these allegations. We need to fix it.--Cerejota 08:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, but you have no chance since both sides prefer it this way. --Coroebus 11:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean to tell us you think both sides of the POV are indeed disrupting wikipedia in order to make a point? That is serious stuff. This article needs to be re-written and those who engage in unproductive edits must cease to do so.--Cerejota 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Coroebus, I don't know which "sides" you think prefer the article the way it is, or who is supposedly on these "sides". Personally I think it is a terrible article, and it has recently gotten worse with the addition of a ridiculous, rule-violating "timeline." Even worse, I noticed earlier today that the word "controversial" had been removed from the first paragraph. That was in there to try to put some balance into the first sentence, to the extent that is possible. If it's still missing, I'm putting it back. 6SJ7 02:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, which sides in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article can I mean? Way, way, way back when this article was in its infancy I argued that it should only be a few paragraphs long, with a brief outline of history of usage, charges made against Israel, and objections to the charges. But instead everyone wanted to include massive long quotes from this semi-prominent person, or that minor academic, each one aiming to buff up their side of the argument a little more and so we had an arms race that now ends up with this rubbish piece (SV's taking of only one of the academic sources I found on the topic, the one opposed to it funnily enough, and basing a massive section on a big excerpt didn't help either. --Coroebus 09:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is a huge quotefarm, and it must be edited down. I agree with your view on the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: our goal is not to become a debate ground for two opposing POVs, but rather to give equal airing to both in order to inform our readers of its existence. I think the big problem the quotes represent is that both sides of the POV have lost focus as to what their goal here is and are just trying to "win" an argument rather than have a nice good encyclopedia article.--Cerejota 10:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How about one quote per speaker? We have two Benjamin Pogrund quotes and two Jimmy Carter quotes; one of each should go. StandWithUs probably shouldn't be quoted, unless they have some notable spokesperson. --John Nagle 17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, because I think the idea goes in the right direction, I think this is the type of "compromise" that created the problem in the first place. If we start "negotiating" quote space, we just open the same door that led to the quotefarm.

Instead of neutrally presented and balanced article on "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" we have a quotefarm and an article that expouses two POVs in "balanced" terms that are frankly unencyclopedic.

Editors from all walks, with different levels of resignation or active support have understood the allegations as notable enough to warrant an article. Our task is to make it a quality article, as should be our task with any article. Those who disagree will obviously continue to disrupt wikipedia with unwarranted AfDs, but thats the nature of the beast.

Now as to the "quote" compromise. I would offer we can certainly word a couple of paragraphs worth of sourced summary, in encyclopedic language, of the allegations and counter-allegations regarding Israeli apartheid, without needing extensive quotes. We can source extensively as needed.

At most, I think one or two sentences from generally accepted canonical sources in the controversy, as epigraphs to the main sections, might serve well. These I have no problem with being POV, as long as they are sourced and short (1-2 sentences). For example, a Jimmy Carter quote and a Benjamin Pogrund quote.

That would be a good start to get this monster into shape, rather than the walking aberration it is, which just serves to equally mock both sides of the POV.--Cerejota 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove {{quotefarm}} without discussion.--Cerejota 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Apartheid

I added a new sub-section to the Overview section, "Definition of Apartheid" using the definition established by international law and then put the existing information under another sub-section "Application of the term to Israel". I encourage others to expand and tweak the new sub-section. Having lacked a definition of apartheid at the outset, I thought I would be bold and add one. Tiamut 11:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andyvphil. Would you mind expanding on your edit summary? (here: [26]) Is there another place you can forsee putting this information? Note that it is from an article discussing the application of term apartheid to Israel and cites the change in the definition of the crime of apartheid per the 2002 Rome statute as one reason to consider the validity of the application of the term. Would you rather expand the definition section? Do you feel a definition section of the term itself is not necessary to this article? Or that it should be included only in relation to how each critic that uses the term defines it? Tiamut 11:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Andyvphil has a point, although it doesn't necesarily mean the material has to go. Ideal would be to incorporate Andyvphil's point that the analogy can be about the crime or a broader analogy, if we could find reliable sources who explained that. That could even go toward a broader discussion of what "apartheid" as applied to Israel means, which I think could help the article. Mackan79 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this edit[27] I am confused. If the UN does not get to define international law who does? Or, more to the point. Since the UN, by definition is an organisation of multiple "nations," does that not mandate that any treaty/law adopted by that organisation is "international law?" If not, on what grounds does it not constitute international law? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the drive-by edit, and this is going to be rushed too, but I felt strongly that there was being made an unwarranted claim to authority that needed to be contested before it metasticized... There are long-standing established treaties against the use of "chemical weapons". What this means is not obvious: high explosives, or napalm, use chemical reactions. So if it were alleged that Israel was violating international law by using "chemical weapons" (and it probably is so alleged -- but that would be a different article) then it would be appropriate to define what is meant in established international law by "chemical weapons" very near the top of the article. But the Crime of Apartheid is a very different thing. Quoting the eponymous Wikiarticle, "...all the major Western countries refused to ratify it. At the outset the US stated: 'We cannot accept that apartheid can be made a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are so grave in nature that they must be meticulously elaborated and strictly constructed under international law.'" There's been a lot of waffling on this (eg, Clinton signed the 1973 ICSPCA in 2000 while simultaneously saying he wouldn't push for its ratification unless it was changed; Bush has since "unsigned" it, sort of) but the fact remains that calling state-sponsored racial discrimination "apartheid" is a part of the process of allegation to be described in this article rather than a framework in which the allegations are to be seen. As such it should certainly be mentioned, so I moved/saved Tiamut's text rather than deleting it, although the material should be edited to show how it fits, and I don't have time to do that now.

Nescio, I don't question that the "crime of apartheid" has become part of the body of "international law", although it is the sort of thing that justifies the "scare quotes" I just put around "international law". The term, like "apartheid", claims, by association, undeserved respect. Andyvphil 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course the U.N. doesn't get to define international law. International law is a rather more tricky concept, but it becomes operative either when countries sign international treaties or conventions and agree to be bound by them, or when it becomes generally accepted in some fairly mystical way. The International Criminal Court, and the Rome Statue that brought it into existence, are particularly problematic, since 41 countries have not ratified it, and some major players representing more than half the world's population, land mass, and economic activity are actively opposed to it; that would include China, India, Russia, and the United States. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So, who does define international law??? And, what exactly do you call a law signed and ratified by the rest of the world, even though "China, India, Russia, and the United States" may have opted out? By definition any law between multiple nations is inter-national Clearly the ICC is currently part of international law, although not applicable to every single nation on the globe. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A convention signed and ratified by some set of countries is binding on those countries that have ratified it, but when 41 countries representing the majority of the world's population, land mass, and economy don't ratify it, it certainly doesn't become binding on every country in the world whether or not they have ratified it. As I said above, International law is defined by specific agreements that nations sign and agree to be bound by, or by conventions that have been signed by such an overwhelmingly large majority of countries in the world that they become considered to be part of Customary International law. The ICC obviously falls into neither category, so it can't create International law via its rulings. The only place it can create International law is between two countries, and only when they both agree to be bound by its ruling in the first place. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing me. On the one hand you agree that any treaty between countries is international law, yet then you argue the ICC is not part of international law. Further, you ignore the fact that 100+ countries have accepted and ratified. Despite the fact the majority of the world (in countries, not people) participates the ICC is not part of international law? Third, reading your comments I think you believe that only when it applies to every single individual in the world can a law be international. IMHO any law involving multiple countries is international law and does not require it to be applicable to the entire globe and its population. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD use of word "controversial" and timeline

6SJ7 raises that the "controversial" is needed to describe the allegations in the intro.

I beg to differ.

1. Insults the intelligence of our readers - The title is "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". "Allegations" by definition means there is a controversy.
2. Violates WP:CONTROVERSY as per "weasel words". We are breaking the neutrality of the article by from the outset focusing on the controversy, rather than on the allegations themselves, which is what the article is about. The reason we have a neutrality policy is so that notable and encyclopedic information can reach our readers with a certain degree of authority. By seeking to minimize the Allegations... we break neutrality.
3. Continued inclusion of the term means involved editors are sacrificing article quality in order to prove a point.

6SJ7 also mentions something about a "rules violating timeline", but doesn't name what rules the timeline violates. I'd be very interested on hearing this argument, as I am not a big fan of timelines in content articles, however, I am not a fan for reasons of personal taste, not because they violate any rules.

--Cerejota 10:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The timeline violates WP:NOR; it's an artificial synthesis, invented by Wikipedia editors, designed to advance the claim that there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid and these specific items document it. It isn't like World War II, which had specific declarations, invasions, battles, etc. in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice this earlier, but since it mentions me, twice, I guess I ought to respond. As for the word "controversial", this is not a new issue. The word has probably been in the first paragraph for about half the time the article has existed. I think it belongs there, to provide some (incomplete) sense of balance for the first sentence. I don't think it insults anyone's intelligence (well, the entire article is an insult, but that's a different issue.) You (Cerejota) seem to be drawing conclusions about what readers may infer from the word "Allegations", but I don't think we can draw any conclusions one way or the other. As for your point 2, I think the article is about both the allegations and the controversy over the allegations, so there is nothing wrong with having "controversy" in there. (As an aside, one of the many problems with this article is that it is so unclear that it is about, it is impossible to really say what material or language is or is not relevant.) I also don't don't see anything in WP:CONTROVERSY or WP:POINT that would preclude the use of this word. (Again, other than the fact that the entire article was created as one big WP:POINT violation.)

As for the timeline, I thought I answered this somewhere already, and it is explained several times earlier on this page, and now Jay has answered it again. I would restate it this way: Most of the items in it are there because some editors think they relate to "apartheid", not because they actually have anything to do with "apartheid." That is an impermissible synthesis under WP:OR. 6SJ7 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the argument regarding the WP:OR of the timeline is correct, I find the WW2 analogy very good... this article about is an idea, and a debate about an idea, not an event. It is logical enough.

However, I would suggest that language like "invented by Wikipedia editors, designed to advance the claim that there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid and these specific items document it" not be used. That clearly makes one suspect the neutrality of your opinions, and in facts mixes two separate issues: one is the (in)validity of the apartheid analogy (original research and soapboxing), the other being if the timeline is WP:OR or not. You also fail to assume good faith when you abscribe nefarious purposes to the timeline: people take a long term to learn what WP:OR is, and even veterans have a hard time explaining it.

To be clear: I agree the timeline is irrelevant and WP:OR, the only thing this article has to prove is that there are Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, and that there is a debate around it, which I think it does do, albeit in a very ugly unencyclopedic way. --Cerejota 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro rewording

I am not entirely happy with my effort, might need some stylistic rework. However, it goes hand-in-hand with the practice of summarizing quotes in encyclopedic language, specially in intros.

I also shows that the criticism of the allegations, as the allegations themselves, are not unidimensional, which helps the case of a better article.--Cerejota 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Incongruity?

I am no expert on this topic, however it jumped to me the following incongruity:

"Allegations of apartheid policies inside Israel" section note (with sources):

"The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law,[78] passed by the Knesset on 31 July 2003, forbids married couples comprising an Israeli citizen and a Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza Strip from living together in Israel.[9] The law does allow children from such marriages to live in Israel until age 12, at which age the law requires them to emigrate.[79] The law was originally enacted for one year, extended for a six month period on 21 July 2004, and for an additional four month period on 31 January 2005. "On 27 July 2005, the Knesset voted to extend the law until 31 March 2006, with minor amendments."[80] The law was narrowly upheld in May 2006, by the Supreme Court of Israel on a six to five vote. Israel's Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, sided with the minority on the bench, declaring: "This violation of rights is directed against Arab citizens of Israel."

And then followed by a "Critcism" section, the first line is an un-sourced assertion:

"Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity.[citation needed] Israeli Arabs have the same rights as all other Israelis, whether they are Jews, Christians, Druze, etc."

Which of the two is true? Both cannot be true.

Avoid wikilawyering and weasel wording: Yes, the law doesn't explicitly restrict rights of Israeli citizens based on their ethnicity. However, it implicitly restricts their marriage choice, which a sizable simple minority of the Israeli Sumpreme Court agreed was ethnic discrimination.

Being that Wikipedia generally accepts the rule of law, it appears to me the un-sourced assertion that "Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity.[citation needed] Israeli Arabs have the same rights as all other Israelis, whether they are Jews, Christians, Druze, etc." is wrong according to law. If we can find a reliable source that asserts the quote, in can go in as a matter of opinion. However it breaks NPOV to have it.

Comments?--Cerejota 01:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that the assertion "is wrong according to law". It seems that neither Israeli Arabs, Jews, Christians or Druze can give residency rights to a Palestinian by marrying one. A majority of the Supreme Court of Israel apparently rejected the idea that disparate impact amounted to impermissable ethnic discrimination, and even if they hadn't it would still be true that "Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity." Andyvphil 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So what is the law then if not discrimination according to ethnicity?--Cerejota 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The law restricts the ability of certain foreign nationals (who could not unreasonably be referred to as "enemy aliens") to gain residency by marriage. On its face, then, it is discrimination on the basis of nationality, not ethnicity, and it certainly does not discriminate on the basis of the ethnicity of the Israeli spouse, and thefor does not make false the claim that "Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity". I'm not saying the latter is true (the Teudat Zehut, the Law of Return, indeed the basic purpose of Israel, all point to looking at that assertion with skepticism) but merely pointing out that your proposed disproof doesn't work. Andyvphil 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't stop Israelis from marrying Palestinians from Israel itself, or from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc. Are you claiming that Palestinians in different countries are different ethnic groups? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the law for the Teudat Zehut does "differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity" though since 2002 2005 only between Jews and non-Jews. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That was removed in 2005. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you are correct. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I get it. Its an interesting legal question, and I see why it confused me. Definitely it seems this is germaine to the controversy, and hence pretty much WP:OR to draw compatability between the two statements.

Now, then the question remains "Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity.[citation needed] Israeli Arabs have the same rights as all other Israelis, whether they are Jews, Christians, Druze, etc." is an unsourced statement, that is WP:OR. Since surely ther emust be verifiable and reliable sources that state this

I think in this case, sources that might be verifiable and reliable sources by not be for this statement, for lack of neutrality. For example, a declaration by the Israeli parlamient or courts.

If we cannot find a neutral source like this, then we need to put an "According to", as it is obvious there is disagreement on this being a fact, but we would be able to source the statement so it would warrant inclusion. --Cerejota 22:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

User:Andyvphil reverted changes I made intended to increase article quality and focus. While of course this is subject to debate, in the interest of our common golas I suggest we discuss things befor doing blanket reverts.

I belive a timeline should be of relevant items to the subject matter of the article, not a general overview of the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor of opinions regarding the Allegations. Any other use will lead to a humougous timeline in which we have to include everything that gives context to this or the other overview.

It creates a vicious circle of response-counter-response:

For example, the obvious thread on the Soviet Union's opportunism omits the fact that the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel. I think all would agree that that is irrelevant to the subject matter. However, it might be peripherially important to mention to use of the Apartheid analogy by the SU, however, putting this on the timeline led to other editors to include completely irrelevant facts about the Soviet Union's treatment of jews.

In order to avoid such vicious circles, I think we must limit the timeline to facts that affect the development of the allegations. Quote of figures do not allow that. The publishing of books, or events in the ground, or laws that are used in the debate are.

Lastly, as part of the same revert user Andyvphil comments on my rewording of an extensive quote on the WP:LEAD. Since I explicitly raised this in talk, and Andyvphildidn't comment, I ask he first share with us his rationale, particulary if he is going to use language such as "mis-guided".--Cerejota 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your substitution of unspecified "others" for "Baruma" was indeed misguided and I am glad to see that I'm not the only one to think so, hence the reappearance of the specific in the current version (due to...Kendrick?; not me, anyway). The fact that you mentioned objecting to the number of quotes in the article and I did not respond should not be interpreted as giving you leave to delete notable cited examples of actual allegations of apartheid from the timeline or to engage in any specific undiscussed (you will find that this entry is the first appearance of "Buruma" on this page) bad editorship. Still less to complain about reverts of your undiscussed reverts. Andyvphil 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no "facts" about Israeli apartheid in the timeline, since the entire thing is original research. According to whom are these specific "facts" relevant? And why would you selectively remove some quotes but not others? Don't bother to answer, based on which ones you removed and which ones you left, the reasons are clear. Finally, your inclusion of the fake Mandela letter is telling. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was Andyvphil [28] a while ago; Cerejota just labeled the ref. I'm tempted to footnote somewhere as that bad ref does keep coming back. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard that the Mandela quote is a fake. When I ran across it I first offered it to G-Dett, since I thought she would put it to better use than someone as unsympathetic to the analogy as I am, then stuck it in myself when she didn't respond after another prompt and a week or so. But no one said they knew it to be fake. Can you provide cites on this episode? If it's a fake I think it should be mentioned as such in maintext... Andyvphil 23:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Andyvphil, I should have mentioned I knew it was a spoof. I thought I knew you knew I knew and were playing with me. You're no dim bulb, after all, and the whole Tom-Friedman-impersonating-a-world-leader-speaking-in-aw-shucks- Tom-Friedmanisms parody was pretty obvious. Then again sometimes the world leader Tom imitates then imitates Tom imitating him, and the whole thing becomes a house of mirrors. It must have seemed like I rather rudely ignored your gift. Please know that secretly I loved it, and was honored that you thought of me.--G-Dett 00:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't recognize that Arjan El Fassed was having his "Mandela" imitate Friedman. My eyes were glazing over, but I expect that reading any politician, so I merely checked that the allegation was made and tried to pass it off on you. Anyway, I've yanked Mandela from the "Overview". My bad. Andyvphil 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I go further: I re-included the ref, originaly made by User:Liftarn so that I wouldn't go under WP:3RR when I reverted 6SJ7. Please Jayjg , be more careful with your assumptions, and read the history before lashing out. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the author's blog. But, even the link you had clearly lists the real author of the piece. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The timeline is ridiculous and should be removed per Jayjg as well as other comments earlier on this page. The vast majority of the items do not even mention apartheid. I was thinking of removing all of those that don't, but that would include a few items that seem to be there to "balance" some of the ones that do mention apartheid, such as the one about "Zionology." So for the time being, I haven't done anything. The whole thing really ought to be deleted, but I know there are at least 10 fingers resting on the "revert" trigger in case I were to do so. Really, this whole article ought to be scrapped. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. 6SJ7 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with the removal of the timeline, see above.--Cerejota 22:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed "citation needed" from timeline header. It's appropriate to put that on an item if needed, but not on a heading. Which specific items is Jayjg (talk · contribs) unhappy about this time? --John Nagle 05:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg isn't complaining about specific items. He's objecting to the word "Relevant". Who are you, he sez, to say one thing is relevant and something else is not? ~"J'Accuse! Synthesis! Original Research!"~ Of course, deciding what's relevant or not is a basic editorial function without which one cannot write Wikiarticles. This has been pointed out to him before, but since he is a troll he will not take that in. Andyvphil 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA. Jayjg is not a troll, he is a long-standing respectable and knowledgeable editor. Indeed, this "article" is an embarrassment to WP. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The only embarrassment is the never-ending attempts by those with an agenda to see this article deleted, by hook or by crook. If there's a problem in the article, contribute and fix it. Endless bellyaching over the existence itself is counter-productive. Tarc 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

When we try to "fix" it, the article only gets worse, like with this absurd "timeline". 6SJ7 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the objection to the timeline? People have mentioned original research; why not just remove original research?--G-Dett 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

See the last unindented comment above (mine.) There would be about three items left and they would be completely disjointed. There is no basis for a "timeline" here. There are also about four other sections on the timeline on this page, and the reasons for deleting it are spelled out there as well. 6SJ7 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that each item on the timeline has to be a sentence with "apartheid" in it? The point, as I understand it, is to arrange chronologically various events that figure centrally in the history of "Israeli apartheid" according to those RS's who make the allegation, and upon whom we've depended for the substance of this article. How is this OR?--G-Dett 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been all through this. 6SJ7 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't! Both 6SJ7 and Jayjg are obviously not helpful and quite hostile, however, Jayjg's argument regarding the timeline is solid (6SJ7: I still wait for you to tell me how it break any WP rule!). That timeline is an aberration of WP:OR.--Cerejota 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Would a Arab Apartheid article help balance this?

This is a ridiculous article. How long would a jewish community last within Syria or Saudi Arabia? Moslem Arabs are permitted to be Israeli citizens and WP has an article claiming its apartheid? This seems an insult to South Africa to compare the treatment of Israeli Arabs to the treatment of black South Africans twenty years ago. 148.65.24.76 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the creation of an Arab Apartheid article. The real question though is who made the comparision. The closest thing we have to that would be the Allegations of Islamic apartheid article.--Sefringle 03:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And I oppose the creation of either an Israeli Apartheid (nb: currently a redirect) or Islamic Apartheid article (nb: red-linked when I wrote this, since made into a redirect), since neither subject exists in realspace. Andyvphil 08:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise of the question posed above. 148.65.24.76 may misunderstand this article. This article does not "claim" that anything is apartheid. The article exists to provide information about the notable allegations of Israeli apartheid by many notable sources. The creation of a second article is not necessary to balance this article. This article can be fully balanced on its own if the allegations are presented in a straightforward manner, identifying the allegations and noting criticism of the allegations, etc. Organ123 04:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article exists to provide a soapbox, anyway. I don't how it's ever supposed to be "balanced" when its entire premise is equivalent to the question; "When did you stop beating your wife?". <<-armon->> 14:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, what's your take on Pallywood, Islam and antisemitism, Arabs and antisemitism, New antisemitism, and Islamofascism? Do you object to articles built around loaded questions in principle, or is it more of an a la carte buffet sort of thing?--G-Dett 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about these other articles, and given your comments on Pallywood and New antisemitism, I didn't realize that you were in favour of them. At least we agree that this article is "loaded". <<-armon->> 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm in favor of them, and have said so here and elsewhere. My position on this kind of article has always been consistent. Stop grappling with my sentences in the hopes of gaining advantage or squeezing some sort of concession. Just tell us your consistent position if you have one; and if you don't, accept that your opinions, objections, fulminations and castigations will be discounted accordingly.--G-Dett 02:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, then stop attempting to deflect my point about this article, with your own leading question making incomplete comparisons about other articles in order to establish an ad hominem argument regarding my supposed "hypocrisy". It's sophomoric rhetoric, it's transparent, and it's a waste of time. <<-armon->> 03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's out of order, Armon. I didn't say "hypocrisy," so take down those quotation marks and lower your voice. I haven't deflected your question; I've answered all of your questions very clearly. Yes, articles like this (and Pallywood, and Islam and Antisemitism, New antisemitism etc.) cover controversial theories, analogies, memes, whatever, and in that sense can be called "loaded" if you wish (your word, not mine). Yes, I think they should exist, and have given my reasons why, and will do so again if you like. I do not pick and choose among them. You on the other hand refuse to articulate a principle or a position. Why?--G-Dett 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a good place for this. The Theocracy article could use more detail about the more theocratic Islamic states, the ones with police enforcement of Islam as the sole religious faith. --John Nagle 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, loaded question? Let's see, how's this one: when did you stop starving your bantustan when they elected a toy parliament you didn't like? Haven't huh? Oooh. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There already is a Saudi Arabian apartheid article, and an Islamic apartheid article so it's unclear what another article specific to one ethnic group would add; especially as apartheid is generally a government policy, not, as you might be suggesting, caused by genetics AFAIK. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Allegations of Palestinian apartheid is what is missing.--Sefringle 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

-> Allegations of Islamic apartheid. --Ezeu 00:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a single notable mention of Allegations of Palestinian apartheid then the page is a go. Otherwise, that is just WP:POINT and WP:OR.--Cerejota 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know if there are anti-Jewish laws on the books in the WB&G. I don't know how much this would have to be stretched to be apartheid though. Maybe if one of the lost tribes is walled off in the back of a shop in Gaza or something, all very hush-hush? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"There already is a Saudi Arabian apartheid article, and an Islamic apartheid article..."

No, there isn't. Those are both redirects. There is History of South Africa in the apartheid era and a flock of articles on unjustified analogies. In the main group, the Israeli-Arab conflict, the analogy is used mostly by one side. Thus the policies that led to the exodus of 900,000 Jews from Arab countries are not even mentioned at Allegations of Islamic apartheid. So, to again answer the query of this section, you can't balance Allegations of Israeli apartheid with an article about a trope the pro-Israeli side doesn't use. Andyvphil 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll put the same question to all here who oppose this article that I put to Armon. Do you have a consistent position on Israel-Palestine-related articles that cover tendentious arguments, theories, etc.? Zleitzen (who, alas, was here only briefly) argued consistently that the material in hot-button articles ought to be merged into low-key, general-issues type articles. That this article should be merged into something along the lines of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. Presumably, Pallywood would be subsumed by something like Media Manipulation in the Israel-Palestine conflict, etc. That is a position to be respected. My position is roughly the opposite (Do a ctrl-F for "I would have much greater respect for this position..." and you'll find it on this page). When I put the question to Armon, he couldn't or wouldn't answer it. When editors begin to answer that question in earnest and articulate a principled position, we'll have the grounds for a serious discussion. Those who refuse to answer it need to understand that objections amounting to special pleading will be regarded as worthless. Sorry to be so blunt, but waaaay too much collective editorial energy has been squandered responding to objections that don't appear to be built on a foundation of actual editorial principle or even good faith.--G-Dett 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I just didn't answer because I lack "principles", or maybe because the only proper answer would be "Mu" and that's a bit cryptic. (But if you really need my position, see the last Afd on this article). In any case, personally, I think this article is a lost cause and a waste of time, but I reserve the right to drop by now and then, and point at the elephant. This is a perfect example of a supposed "NPOV" turning into argumentum ad temperantiam, and I hope the flat-earthers don't figure out how to do it. (may have violated WP:BEANS there, sorry) <<-armon->> 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I'm sure you have many principles, both personal and editorial (I've even had the pleasure of seeing some of them), and I'll always be happy to see you here. The point is only that you don't have a serious or principled position on I/P-related articles with "loaded" subjects, so your periodic objections to the existence of this article on grounds that the subject is "loaded" shouldn't be taken seriously.--G-Dett 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> play the ball, not the man. <<-armon->> 12:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid denial

James Wall of the Christian Century quotes Tony Karon [29] of Time on Jimmy Carter's book: "What Carter is doing is challenging a taboo." And because he is "a well-established voice of peace and reason," he adds, "it's hard to brand him some sort of anti-Semitic Israel basher—although that hasn't restrained hysterics such as Alan Dershowitz [Harvard professor and trial lawyer] and Marty Peretz [New Republic editor] from doing so."

• Wall, James M. (February 20, 2007), "Apartheid denial", Christian Century

This seems to be the first press mention of "apartheid denial". Should it go in the article? --John Nagle 06:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would we care what James M. Wall of Christian Century Magazine says about this? Aside from the propaganda value, of course - but then, that's the whole point of the article. More relevant might be the statements of Walter Mondale regarding Carter's use of the term "apartheid":

I think that was an inapt selection. Now the president says it doesn't apply, he's not talking about Israel itself, he's talking about the separation on the West Bank, but I do think the word is not one that I would have used. He points out that he doesn't mean it in a racial sense and he couldn't mean it in a racial sense. But I that think the word is sort of poisoned for historical reasons in South Africa, and even though he means it in a different sense, I think it has led to some confusion.[30]

--Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

((nb:fixed redlink of "Christian Century". Is this the same James Wall as the one on the MPAA Appeals Board?))Andyvphil 20:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)))

Yes, he is. [31] --John Nagle 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well that would definitely make him an expert on Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Apartheid. As a respected academic in the field, no doubt we should quote his views extensively in the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline (3)

The timeline is original research, and doesn't contribute to the article quality at all.

This is an article about ideas, not events. These ideas are formed by events, but chronology is irrelevant to these events.

If we can find a reliable and verifiable source or sources that provides and justifies a timeline (or even timelines) relevant to the debate around the topic of this article then we can use that as a basis for a timeline, then I would remove my objection, as it is entirely based upon opposition to original research.--Cerejota 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: Consider that since a "history of the allegations of Israeli apartheid" has not been written, if we attempt to historicize we are indeed engaging in original research.

There is ample evidence there are notable allegations of Israeli apartheid and a notable debate around this. That justifies the continued existence of this article, and is not original research.

I hope the difference is understood. People need to take a chill pill and realize that points are not going to be made. Both sides of the POV need to recognize that the other won't disappear, and that what we must do is create a quality article.--Cerejota 05:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, nuking that bit of egregious OR is an improvement. <<-armon->> 12:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Several people have made the exact same point, that the entire timeline is OR, but to little avail so far. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps asking nicely works better than lashing out at people and treating them like morons. :D--Cerejota 09:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there were plenty of polite comments in #timeline_is_original_research. The real issue is that some editors are reverted out of hand, regardless of the validity of their statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody deleted the timeline again; I put it back. Please don't do that. Did some cleanup; it's a bit shorter now. Incidentally, chanting "original research" over and over again isn't helping. Specific criticism would be more useful. --John Nagle 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the timeline is original research has been explained at length, including at the start of this section, not "chanted". Cerejota, you now see what you're up against. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bah, Jayjg, I have been on the other end of your grumpy soapboxy golden tongue ;)... However I have watched this page since forever, and after months of edit warring I have come to the conclusion that there are a couple of things wrong that can be solved if someone not emotionally attached to the article intervenes, and the timeline is just the drop in the teacup. On to the meat:

"Specific criticism would be more useful. --John Nagle"

I will repeat myself:

"This is an article about ideas, not events. These ideas are formed by events, but chronology is irrelevant to these events.

If we can find a reliable and verifiable source or sources that provides and justifies a timeline (or even timelines) relevant to the debate around the topic of this article then we can use that as a basis for a timeline, then I would remove my objection, as it is entirely based upon opposition to original research."

That is indeed a very specific criticism, and one I believe is well reasoned and respectful, you might disagree, however, if your interest is having a quality article on the topic, I suggest you reconsider.

I will further elaborate:

As I told 6SJ7: a timeline doesn't violate any policy.

In fact, you could ignore all rules.

However, wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia that aims to be built by previously sourced materials. Thats a big difference with other encyclopedias, including Brittanica, that commission articles. I am sure you understand what that implies: we minimize our editing to consensus-drive synthesis of what others wrote, verifiably and in reliable sources.

All of the acceptable chronologies constructed in wikipedia are a result of sources that cite them. They might not cite all of the events in the chronology, but another source will and then we format them according to our WP:MOS and debate amongst us how to make the information user-friendly. This chronology doesn't meet that criteria.

FACT: To date, no sourceable chronology of any kind exists around the topics covered in "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". So we cannot independently construct a chronology. Find a few sources that do, and then we can cook. Otherwise, all you are calling for is more disruption, edit warring, and the contents of the timeline would violate the word and spirit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

John Nagle, with all due respect, I think you are making a mistake in assuming my problem is with the contents of the timeline. It is not. My problem is with original research and us going way overboard with synthesis.

That is also why I think this article is {{quotefarm}}, everybody and their grandmother wants to include all the quotes that "support" their POV, rather than the quotes that help us build an informative article so our readers can make up their minds all by themselves.--Cerejota 01:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are other timelines in Wikipedia that have far fewer sources. Which of these would you consider "original research"?

• Timeline of Afghanistan's history This is a huge multi-article timeline with few sources.
• Timeline of Scientology Now there's a controversial subject. But that timeline is in Wikipedia, and survived an AfD last year. There are edit wars, but any attempt to delete the whole thing fails.
• Timeline of Muslim history Another huge multi-article timeline. Few citations. See especially Timeline of 21st century Muslim history, which is almost completely unsourced, and on a controversial subject.
• Timeline of AIDS Somewhat better sourced than the others.

There are many other timelines in Wikipedia; those are examples of controversial ones. They don't get deleted.

Would you prefer moving the timeline to Timeline of Israeli Apartheid? --John Nagle 06:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First, please avoid fallacious Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#All_or_nothing "All or nothing" type arguments. Second, how does moving original research to another article fix the problem? Third, regarding other timelines, they generally describe actual historical events, not a series of allegations and hurled epithets. As a result, each of them has other sources from which to draw. For example, AIDS timeline AIDS timeline AIDS timeline Scientology timeline Afghan timeline Afghan timeline Muslim timeline Islam timeline Islam timeline Jayjg ^(talk) 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cejota wrote: no sourceable chronology of any kind exists around the topics. What about Carter's timeline in Palestine: Peace not Apartheid? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What is it a timeline of? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or "Israeli apartheid"? I'm sure you can find sources for the former. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the source handy right now. He may call it a timeline of the peace process, which Carter seems to view the apartheid problem as very intertwined with. I'll find out. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of timelines of the peace process. Here's one. Here's another. That's not the same as a timeline of "Israeli apartheid". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the example time-lines above have two things in common: one can find dozens of examples of other publications building similar time-lines -even if the choices are different-, and they are either about events or things, not ideas - even the Scientology time-line is not about the ideas of Scientology but events relevant to the history of the religion.

To repeat myself: find a couple of notable, relevant and verifiable sources that build such a time-line about this topic and we a go. Lack of sources is the main sign of what is original research. (If it sounds impossible, then there must be a reason for that)

Knowing and having read the motivation behind the time-line, I think a better compromise would be to seek expressing, in our own words, that the topics in this article happen within the context of the founding of Israel, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Arab-Palestinian conflict, and mention, editorially, that the events behind this conflict are part and parcel to these allegations. There is no need to dwell on specifics unless the sources compel us: and even then we are under no obligation, and are in fact discourage from, quoting extensively form a single source. In the particular case of web-accessible sources, we shouldn't quote them at all, let our readers follow them! I think things like the position of the Afrikaners on Israel or on the Soviet about-face after the Six Day War are important, or on the dicotomy some make between the Occupied Territories and 1948 Israel, but not for chronological reasons. They are important because they show the complexity of the issue.

Lastly, if a source alleges X or Y event is a source or part of the "Israeli Apartheid", or if X or Y source argues there is no apartheid because of X or Y event, then we should consider searching WikiProjects Israel and Palestine for the appropriate articles for those events, and create consensus for their inclusion in those pages with see also here. The information is more relevant there anyways, this is after all a page neither of both projects considers of high importance.--Cerejota 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to see it y'all's way, I really did. But in the end, it defies WP:COMMON to suggest I can write "A happened. Later, B happened." and this isn't WP:OR but somehow if I list them in a table in that same order it all of a sudden is, just because no one has ever put the events in a table before.

Yes, there are all sorts of issues with deciding what should or shouldn't go in such a listing, but we're editors and we should be able to figure that out.

For the record, Carter calls his list merely a C which actually goes all the way back to Abraham so I'm not sure what to call it. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-ponder the main point: there is no obvious chronology. If we connect the allegations of a South African Prime Minister with those of David Duke, with those of Golda Meir denying the existence of Palestinians with those of Soviet thinly-veiled anti-Semitism anti-Zionism, with those of Jimmy Carter warning against a dead-end policy... (as we must if we are to have a comprehensive time-line), we would be doing original research. - And Carter's chronology is about the events surrounding Palestine/Israel not the allegations of apartheid.

I must re-stress the difference between events and things, and ideas. I fail to see why this isn't self-evident! This are basic critical-thinking skills!

There quite a few chronologies dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict, we need not re-do them.--Cerejota 06:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a chronology unless you are contenting the subject of this article actually exists outside of space-time. And any chronology is obvious, just as night follows day. All you are doing is hand-waving -- those events are all connected by the topic of this article. Listing them chronologically doesn't undo that connection, or, as you seem to be insisting, somehow created a new connection not already there. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:SYNTH. The only "chronology" that exists for "Israeli apartheid" was invented by Wikipedia editors. Even Carter didn't create one. Find another chronology from a reliable source, and cease this hand-waving. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But no third argument is being advanced here. The same argument above reapplies here, which saves me some typing: it defies WP:COMMON to suggest I can write "A happened. Later, B happened." and this isn't WP:SYNTH but somehow if I list them in a table in that same order it all of a sudden is, just because no one has ever put the events in a table before. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset) I understand that you think that the "timeline" is not OR. Per WP:VERIFY#Burden of evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, the events you include in your "chronology" are devoid of any historical context; they attempt not to document allegations of apartheid but rather try to lend credibility to the allegations themselves. If you are going to include such events, you must also include the events that give them true context, or else drop the chronology altogether. --Leifern 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. Forget this word "timeline" and consider a list of relevant events. If an event has been called an "example of Israeli Apartheid" by a reliable source, then it belongs on a list of relevant events. Kendrick, trust me, take a few weeks, chill, google it to death and get some good articles backing your points. Jayjg, Humus, Leifern, while something as specific as a "chronology of Israeli apartheid" does not exist, calling a summary of relevant events, presented conveniently in list form, with the dates, hardly qualifies as original research. This unsolicited intervention brought to you by: --Uncle Bungle 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

UncleBungle, among other objections, in order to be NPOV, if you included anything that has been cited as an example of "Israeli apartheid" by a reliable source, then if there has been an objection to that example in a different reliable source, you would have to include that as well. (I am leaving aside here the question of how you can have a "reliable source" for an opinion, which I have asked on a few occasions regarding this article but have never received an adequate response.) In other words, if some "RS" says that Israeli Law X is an example of apartheid, but another "RS" says no, it isn't an example of apartheid and here's why, you'd have to include all that in the timeline. How do you do that? In a footnote for each entry? Very quickly it becomes not a timeline, or a chronology, but a different version of the article itself, in a box next to the article. That sounds pretty goofy. Why even go down that road? I cannot speak for sure about the motivations of those who have insisted on keeping the timeline, but I do know that the effect of the timeline, chronology or whatever you wish to call it is to have a box that bolsters the idea that Israel engages in apartheid, without the counter-arguments. That does not belong on Wikipedia. 6SJ7 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It need be little more than a table of contents with dates, an introduction in list form, not the unwieldy beast you suggest (though I concur that many articles, with and without such boxes, have this affliction). I think it is a good idea in concept, and could be successfully implemented. If a specific point is contentious, use the body of the article to present counter points. After all, the title is allegations of Israeli apartheid. --Uncle Bungle 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick is correct. A timeline is a synthesis only in the trivial sense that a Wikipedia article itself is a synthesis. Of course you can have a timeline of events mapping the evolution of an idea, pace Cerejota, and of course such a timeline needn't endorse the idea, pace Leifern. A look at Timeline of Christianity ought to dispel both specious objections.--G-Dett 21:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, a Timeline of Israeli apartheid already assumes there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid, and the choice of items to include becomes original research, unless it includes every single item listed in the article. Other timelines have examples to draw on. What is the purpose of such a Timeline anyway? Is it not to highlight all the allegations as if they are fact, unencumbered by any of the protestations of those who reject the analogy? And you know we can't use Wikipedia articles as an example, for all we know that specific article could be violating policies in 10 different ways. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Where was the timeline of Israeli Apartheid? This seems to me no different from the history section in NAS. The point is that ideas develop over time, and one of the best ways to learn about something is to see that process. I'd think you could have this for a completely nutty idea as much as you could for one that's presumptively valid; the question would be getting fair material onto the timeline. Mackan79 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Mackan. Jay, I think you mean we can't cite other WP articles as precedent. That's debatable, but we can certainly use them as examples. The Timeline of Christianity is a good example of how a timeline showing the development of a belief/theory does not presuppose the truth of the theory, and can incorporate both first-order historical events and the dates of influential publications, etc. I don't see how a Timeline of Allegations of Israeli apartheid "already assumes there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid." All it assumes is the reader's interest in the chronology of the subject matter.--G-Dett 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mackan's post raises a possibility. If the timeline continues to raise hackles, we could turn it into a "History" section on the model of NAS. --G-Dett 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett good idea with the history section. If these claims have been made for a long time, then a chronology of documented claims is relevant to the topic. --Uncle Bungle 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it a chronology of apartheid in Israel or a 'list' of important dates relevant to allegations of Israeli apartheid?I can understand the difficulties as per jay, humus et al if it was the former but if we are dealing with the latter, surely the argument for inclusion is stronger? Delad 00:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the latter.--G-Dett 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the former. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's really neither, but after looking at the most recent version, I think that a reader who is seeking to learn about the "subject" and had not read all of these debates would almost inevitably conclude that it's the former. 6SJ7 19:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Grouping allegations and quotefarm

I think there is a problem here with POV-pushing that affects this very necessary article and lead to unnecessary edit warring.

The fundamental issue is that a set of editors firmly believes, in one way or the other, that these allegations are true, and the other set, in one way or the other, believes the allegations are false.

However, all of you need to be reminded about a cardinal rule of wikipedia: verifiability, not truth. We are not seeking truth. We are seeking verifiable sources of information.

This POV-war creates two distinct issues:

1. Mis-grouping of allegations and counter-allegations - Norman Finkelstein's as similar to Jimmy Carter's as similar to David Duke's, etc. We do a better job with sources like Adam and Moodley or Ian Buruma, but still there is a lot of confusion: Juan Cole and Benny Morris agree on not calling Israel an apartheid state, but on very different grounds, and with differing positions on Zionism and the Palestinian conflict. Yet we lump them together.
2. Over reliance on direct quotes - Since POV must be supported, what better way than to quote ad nauseaum. This is probably the most egregious violation here. There is no need to quote Benny Morris or Jimmy Carter so extensively. There is no need to have so many quote boxes. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotations. While some might allege WP:OR because we choose to include and not include x or y quote, those argumments are fallacious. Everybody can agree that a Desmon Tutu's quote is relevant, and so is a Benny Morris quote. I am not sure that the same goes to Juan Cole and the Canadian delegation to some UN conference, althought sourcing to them can be good.

Those are my two major gripes. I of course have opinions on the subject, but this is not where I will give them. I do however think we owe to our readers and to our fellow editors a quality article.

--Cerejota 02:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the intro

While I generally try to avoid this article, I couldn't help but make a few changes to the intro today. Saying that those who use the analogy do so merely because of "the separation" between Jews and Arabs is a manifestly inadequate explanation. If it was just separation, there would be little in the way of complaint. The analogy is used not merely because of the physical separation, but because of the disparate rights of Jews and Arabs in these areas and the way in which these rights are enforced. I've made some adjustments to the intro which attempt to address these concerns. Gatoclass 05:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good step, however it is limited, as allegations are various, and even include allegations solely on the West Bank and Gaza strip and not Israel proper. I also hate quotes in intros because they tend to unbalance intros. I think we can quickly get into a Lumpers and splitters debate if we are not careful, however we definitely need to broaden the scope and better the flow.--Cerejota 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to source each claim to people who make it. I hate to be so picky, but the intro part for those who take issue with the epithet used to present general arguments as well, but then people insisted on absurdly particularizing it, and we need to follow a consistent style in the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is well established practice in wikipedia to source without quoting even in controversial articles. I think the fear of having the encyclopedic voice express POVs that are anethema to a set of editors is driving quality down.

I have no fear with the encyclopedic voice explaining that the allegations are a complex issue. That there is a debate at the diplomatic, political and academic level about it. That some of the people argue that this is an anti-semitic political epithet{{fact}}{{fact}}{{fact}}, others that it is a clear analogy{{fact}}{{fact}}{{fact}}, others make a point of difference between Israel and the Occupied Territories{{fact}}{{fact}}.Jimmy Carter belives the polices of Israel will lead to an Apartheid system{{fact}} , nor do I fear it saying that the anti-semite David Duke says Israel is an apartheid state{{fact}} , nor do I fear New Historian Benny Morris argues that Israel is a democratic, egalitarian State.{{fact}}

And so on!

I do fear people losing respect for wikipedia if it becomes a reflection of the conflicts it covers. And unfortunately in this talk page and editing of the article, I see people of both POVs doing just that.--Cerejota 23:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia becoming "a reflection of the conflicts it covers", in the case of the Middle East conflict I think that should be phrased in the past tense, not the future. I believe I have commented at least once on the talk page for this article (long since archived) that this article and other Israel-Arab conflict articles had become reflections of (or maybe even part of) the conflict itself. So there's no point in fearing that this is going to happen, because it has already happened. This horse is so far out of the barn that its entered in the Belmont next week.  :) As far as "respect for Wikipedia" -- did you happen to see Stephen Colbert's interview with Jimmy Wales? In some quarters there is little respect left to lose. 6SJ7 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jew Watch

The inclusion as a source for "Jew Watch"'s echoing the allegations, of excerpts of an article by Uzi Ornan, published by Ha'aretz May 17, 1991 as republished by "Jew Watch" are a violation of WP:RS, WP:SOURCE/WP:V, WP:QUOTE and WP:CITE: we should source the original article as the position and comments of Uzi Ornan, not of "Jew Watch". If a WP:RS inform us of "Jew Watch"'s position on this, then we can source that. No primary sources means no primary sources. The other two sources are OK, IMHO, one is an interview, the other is published in a secondary source that is generally viewed as partisan but WP:RS.--Cerejota 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Jew Watch twice on these grounds, but someone continues to restore it.--G-Dett 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

David Duke/Jew Watch/IHR et al as notable sources cont'd

_____Please note: this is a continuation of the discussion from Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#David_Duke_et_al_____ 15:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Underwear all in a bunch (or much ado about nothing)

1) David Duke is notable because he has a wikipedia page. The inverse is not necessarily true, but the only true measure about a notability in wikipedia, the one that is undebatable, is having a page that has survived AfD.

All the hundreds (or thousands?) of words arguing he is not notable should be spent over at David Duke's AfD.

What? No AfD? Do one, if you are so confident the guy is not notable...

In fact this "law" of wikipedia is behind the misguided WP:POINT AfDs of this very page. Stop being disingenuous, please.

Of course, as a leading anti-semite, a recognized voice of anti-Jewish hate and intolerance, and as an outspoken representative of the "third position" in the USA, he is also notable as a figure in debates around Israel, Zionism, etc, and hence not only notable, but relevant.

2) JayJG: do not be disingenuous, please. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim one day that David Duke is notable and relevant source for this issue and then claim that James M. Wall isn't. The guy doesn't have wikipedia page, but was speaking in representation of views held by a mainstream, influential, and quite read publication (it is THE voice of mainstream ecumenical Protestantism in the USA).

Yes, David Duke is more famous as a person, but James Wall's opinion is held by far many more people, and was done in a far more notable and reliable medium than Duke's. One cannot confuse the need for no original research, sourcing, verifiability, and reliability with notability.

Michael Jordan is more famous and notable than Benny Morris yet his opinion, if any, on this matter would be at most a footnote, while this article would be absolutely incomplete without Benny Morris being sourced and quoted.

3) As I have mentioned, properly sourced material stays. There is no way in hell anyone can convince me the material is not relevant or needed to be included, if properly sourced.

4) The attempts to lump together the allegations made by Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, et al, with those made and echoed by David Duke et al is not only illogical, but original research, and as such we need to fully re-phrase and rework the inclusion. These people are not echoing the same allegations as Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter, and their political intent is not the same.

Jimmy Carter or Desmond Tutu do not hate Jews, do not want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, nor do they think the Protocols of Zion are true and that Jews eat raw child-meat on the Sabbath or the other b.s. David Duke and his knights believe.

To attempt to take advantage of the calculated political move of Nazis -open or covert-, in a WP:POINT-driven attack on article integrity is one of the lowest forms of WP:SOAPBOX an editor can do.

To continue to attempt to word and lump together these disparate opinions is exactly what I meant with "treating people as morons". We aren't, and you can only stare at the abyss so long that the abyss stares back at ya...--Cerejota 04:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply under this header, because I'm grateful for the partial unbunching of my panties (Rome wasn't built in a day). But I would like to suggest moving the discussion down to the bottom of the page, starting with your statement Cerejota. There has been a good deal of obfuscation, obstructionism, and outright trolling in this section, and I fear that it's keeping good-faith editors from joining in.--G-Dett 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've boldly refactored; I hope that's OK with all. Cerejota, I can respond point-by-point to your post if you like, but first I think I need to have something clarified. You seem to be treating notability as a fixed quality of this or that figure, whereas the rest of us (including Jay, I think) are evaluating a figure's notability as a function of their relationship to the subject matter, their influence on RS-discussion of the subject, and so on. Is that right?--G-Dett 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, speaking of original research, can you please find a source for your claim that "Their arguments diverge significantly from that of mainstream allegations, and have an explicit anti-semitic streak." As far as I can tell, the first half of the sentence is completely false, and the second half arguably does not distinguish their views from many of the others listed here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted that sentence for the reasons stated by Jay. It is clearly original research and it also introduces yet another POV argument to the article, which is that some of the claims of "Israeli apartheid" (but not those of David Duke or the other guy) are "mainstream." Mainstream what? Mainstream within the general framework of political discourse? If so, where, since mainstream "here" isn't necessarily mainstream "there". Or, mainstream within the body of Israeli apartheid allegations themselves? If so, now we're getting very, very "original". I also have a problem with putting the "Duke" reference at the very end of the article, but we can deal with that later. 6SJ7 00:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the entirety of what David Duke has to say about "Israeli apartheid:

If we don't talk about some of the realities of this conflict... You know, Israel is really an apartheid state in many ways. And Israel is a state... that we wouldn't tolerate actions of the American people. The New York Times is all against... It's all for intermarriage in the United States of America. But the New York Times supports Israel, where a marriage of Jewish person and a non-Jew is illegal, where a Jew who is a member of the Cohanim, which is the elite element of the Jewish tradition - they cannot even marry a Jewish person, a person who is a full-fledged Jew, of the Jewish faith, who has one drop of (non) Jewish blood. I mean, these people... Israel makes the Nazi state look very moderate in terms of its views.

You will notice it's mostly gibberish. He also talks about Jewish neo-cons as "insane people. They are Jewish fanatics, extremists, they are not normal people...The people who are pushing Jewish supremacism, Zionism - they are absolute evil and they are crazy." Tell me, Jay, how is it "completely false" to say that these arguments "diverge significantly" from that of Carter, Tutu, Benvenisti, et al? Are you talking out of your hat again? I would not normally recommend that people actually read lunatic antisemites and racists, but given the assiduity with which you flog them, trying to stuff them into every article you wish to destroy, wouldn't it make sense for you to do so?--G-Dett 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why someone who believes in "Israeli apartheid" for what they believe are "good" reasons would not want their views associated with Duke's rantings. Whether there is really a distinction, and what the distinction is, are, however, points of view on which there is no agreement. When I first saw the phrase "Israeli apartheid" one year and one day ago (the day this article was created), words like lunatic, gibberish, extremist and many other similar words, are what ran through my mind. There is no basis for segregating (as it were) Duke and the other "extremists" off in a corner of the article with a sign on the fence that says that "not in the mainstream." 6SJ7 02:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should distinguish based on which are WP:Reliable sources, or if we're including something because it's otherwise notable, then explain its notability. Mackan79 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As 6SJ7 points out, you may think there's a wide gulf, but to others they are two sides of the same coin. Paul Grubrach cites Uri Davis, so their reasoning can't be all that different. What is it exactly that differentiates Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir and Michael Neumann from David Duke? Can you articulate it? And what is it exactly that differentiates those three from Uri Davis or any of the other "Israeli apartheid" screamers. Can you articulate it? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon is a talented saxophonist and goofball narcissist whose supposedly pro-Palestinian rants interest no one but Oliver Kamm; Israel Shamir is a shady antisemitic pseudo-journalist given a wide berth by mainstream pro-Palestinian activists; Michael Neumann is an academic philosopher. None of them are cited or included in this article. Why are you asking me to distinguish them from David Duke? I'll compare and contrast Hannah Arendt and the Cookie Monster if you like – anything to chew the cud with you, Jay – but I fail to see what these odd juxtapositions have to do with the topic at hand. I don't want Duke in the article, I don't want Atzmon in the article, I don't want Shamir in the article. I am open to the cookie monster. I haven't read Neumann. Is he worth including? – Forget it, I'll ask someone who wishes to improve the article rather than wreck it.

As for your reasoning that "Paul Grubrach cites Uri Davis, so their reasoning can't be all that different," let's see what else we can plug into that formula. Norman Finkelstein cites Benny Morris, so their reasoning can't be all that different. Ernst Zundel cites Norman Finkelstein, so their reasoning can't be all that different. Turn your staunch Zionist into a Holocaust denier in two easy steps!

As to the serious part of your question, can I articulate the difference between David Duke's position on "Israeli apartheid" and that of scholars/journalists/pundits/politicians who are considered respectable and who are cited by this article? Yes, sure. Duke has no particular interest in or position on human-rights issues; none whatsoever. He didn't actually oppose South African apartheid, and has never taken up the Palestinian cause or that of any other oppressed people. Rather, he resents and despises and is obsessed with what he describes as Jewish arrogance or "Jewish supremacism." Traditionally, what he and his constituency have meant by this is: 1960s civil-rights-movement ACLU-types, along with highly educated urban cosmopolitan liberals who led the way in everything from integrating American schools to splitting the atom to formulating and consolidating notions of social justice (and "political correctness") to turning American research institutions into the world's best. The children of poor immigrants from Eastern Europe who got into Harvard and in the space of a couple generations transformed the American cultural landscape. Duke has gained what little following he has by tapping into poor white Protestant America's twinned currents of antisemitic resentment: a) resentment that a relatively recent immigrant class has so thoroughly outplayed them in the competitive pursuit of the American dream, and b) an ethno-nationalist resentment that what they see as a traditional American G-d-fearing culture (pure, white, down-home and Christian) has been steadily replaced by what they see as the "Jewish values" of secularism, intellectualism, liberalism, and cosmopolitanism. Duke has since added the neo-cons to his shit-list of "Jewish supremacists," but it's a very recent and superficial addition; foreign policy is interesting to him only as a proxy for his politics of racial and ethnic resentment. As an ethnic nationalist, Duke has an ambivalent attitude toward Zionism; and as a racist and supremacist, he has an ambivalent attitude towards those Israeli policies he describes as apartheid-like. He is not "opposed" to these things in the usual sense of the word. He envies them. He'd like restrictions on intermarriage in America; he'd like restricted communities along the lines of Jewish settlements. What he hates is that as he sees it, Jews get to have their Jewish state of Israel but he can't have his white Christian United States of America (just like blacks get to have their National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, but his National Association for the Advancement of White People is seen as toxic). All of this is clear in the Memri transcript of his appearance on Syrian state TV:

The New York Times is all against... It's all for intermarriage in the United States of America. But the New York Times supports Israel, where a marriage of Jewish person and a non-Jew is illegal, where a Jew who is a member of the Cohanim, which is the elite element of the Jewish tradition - they cannot even marry a Jewish person, a person who is a full-fledged Jew, of the Jewish faith, who has one drop of (non) Jewish blood.

This is what he means by "Jewish supremacism": what Jews get to do but he can't and it's not fair. None of this has anything to do with the Palestinians, a bunch of grubby third-world Muslims he could give a rat's ass about. Nor does it have anything to do with human-rights-based critiques of Israeli policies by Farsakh, Tutu, Adam & Moodley, Carter, et al. It's just garden-variety ethno-nationalist politics of resentment. The human-rights-based critique of Israel may seem to you and others nothing but garden-variety knee-jerk leftist anti-colonialism and third-worldism – but even so, that's a completely different thing.--G-Dett 17:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference seems abundantly self evident to me. Grubach, Duke et al are widely recognized to be racists and antisemites who therefore have no credibility, especially in regards to the discussion of such issues.

I can't speak for Atzmon or Shamir because I don't know enough about them, but Neumann and Davis are qualified academics. They thereby qualify as reliable sources, and the fact that they both happen to be Jewish ought to invalidate charges of antisemitism. An even greater gap exists between the likes of Duke and Nobel laureates like Carter and Tutu. I mean, the gap couldn't be wider. They are at opposite ends of the scale in terms of credibility. The fact that antisemites try to take advantage of the credibility of such commentators by parroting their arguments is neither here nor there. Gatoclass 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, regardless of whether I agree with your specific opinions or not (and I do agree with some of them), the logical implication of your statement is that in determining what belongs and doesn't belong in an article, we are supposed to get into the motivations of each source and figure out why they are saying what they are saying. That opens up many more avenues of dispute in this article (and other articles), and I really think we have enough already. For example, are we going to look into all the writings of all the sources and see what they have to say about Zionism itself? Maybe some of them don't even believe a Jewish state should exist where it exists, or maybe they don't care, and this allows them to freely throw around accusations of "apartheid". Or maybe some of them are using these allegations as a part of a campaign against Israel's existence. Sure there are a lot of "maybes" in there, but that's what you are opening the door to when you speculate about motivations. Personally I think that this disagreement is the inevitable result of having an article that is entirely about an opinion, rather than being an article about facts. But as it stands, the Duke and related references should stay, and they should not be singled out for "warning labels." 6SJ7 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 6SJ7, I can see that in-depth original-research talk-page essays for every prospective source won't do as a modus operandi. :) This was a response to the claim that Duke and Tutu et al were "two sides of the same coin." But you're right that settling that question does not settle the question of their inclusion. For the record, the problem I see with their inclusion is one of WP:UNDUE (and to a lesser degree, WP:RS). The "Israeli apartheid" material collated from bigots and Holocaust deniers consists of 1) a rambling, semi-coherent statement by David Duke on a talk show on Syrian state television, in which he mentions Israel as "an apartheid state" in order to support his claims about "Jewish extremism" and "Jewish supremacism"; 2) an exchange of letters between an obscure "researcher" from a discredited "institute" and Abraham Foxman of the ADL, in which the researcher cites Uri Davis approvingly; and 3) a Jew Watch web-page redirect to a Haaretz article about "Israeli apartheid." That's it. I do not think this material meets the threshold of notability. It has been given undue weight.--G-Dett 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Much ado about something

I won't reply under the above header, although I appreciate that someone else has weighed in on this. In terms of this article, David Duke et. al. are notable primarily as anti-Semites. In terms of their notability here, it is exclusively in terms of how they are used by critics, and the text should be labeled as such, and the prominence of Duke/Jew Watch/et.al. in the article should reflect that. I do not think that Duke has otherwise played a notable role in the allegations of Israeli apartheid, and I have not seen any convincing arguments or references showing his notability in this context. This puts him only slightly above Michael Jordan. The notability discussion here should be taken in the context of this article, as Cerejota alludes to in item 2). Organ123 05:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that I've just seen Cerejota's last edit, which I think is an improvement. Organ123 05:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical question

Does anyone know what happened to the table of contents for this page? I looked at the coding on top and I do not see anything obvious that would suppress the TOC. And I am not the person to go messing with the coding anyway, since I'd probably make the talk page appear in a different language or something, and communication on this subject is difficult enough as it is.  :) 6SJ7 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A note about sources and content

I came here late, maybe this has been adressed before. I just wanted to say (especailly to supporters), that the article is about allegations. Incidents and practices should be included only if they have been specifically referred to as an example of Apartheid by a reliable source. For example:

• The Israeli identity card, or Teudat Zehut, is required of all residents over the age of 16, indicate whether holders are Jewish or not by adding the person's Hebrew date of birth.

Does not qualify on it's own. However:

• According to reliable source, the Israeli identity card, or Teudat Zehut, is an apartheid practice by requiring all residents over the age of 16, indicate whether holders are Jewish or not by adding the person's Hebrew date of birth. citation

Once such an allegation has been documented, counter arguments to the allegation, if available, can then also be documented.

Quotes from prominent figures regarding apartheid in Israel, which DO NOT cite an example, don't belong here. That applies to both sides.

I say this because I see massive amounts of discussion on the inclusion of a timeline, and little discussion on actual content. I didn't say this to start a long thread about the intentions of various parties, it's just a suggestion from someone who has fought these battles before. Please feel free to delete this if you don't find it relevant. Best regards, --Uncle Bungle 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; this wouldn't need to be done on a sentence-by-sentence basis, but ought to be more evident if we ever move this toward more of a paragraph form. This could mostly be done with the sources we have, though, particularly for instance McGreal's article in the Guardian.[32] That article would also be good toward starting a history section. A potential first sentence: "The first prominent comparison of the situation in Israel to South African apartheid has been traced to South African Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd's statement in 1961, that 'Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.'" This could be followed by statements of the early controversy, also discussed in McGreal's piece, or however else. Mackan79 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree in spirit.

do we know if a source states the "first prominent comparison" as true? There might be mentions before, I have no idea, but I am afraid to state anything authoritatively without a source in a controversial article such as this. I am not opposed, but fear the precedent.

The best way forward to paragraph form is to start fixing the quotefarm. The over-reliance on extended quotes not only makes the article much larger than it should be (judging by the importance given to it by both WikiProjects that watch it), but makes it impossible to read.--Cerejota 16:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Desmond Tutu and David Duke being sides of the same coin is an example of Reductio ad Hitlerum. Please do not confuse matters: extreme right-wing Zionist kooks of the type that murdered Yitzhak Rabin might argue they are the sides of the same coin, but I triple dare you to find an scholarly or news source that joins them together.

That said, please keep in mind that there is a clear difference between WP:OR and the need to make an encyclopedia. WP:OR refers only to the fact that any bit of information in Wikipedia must be notable and come for a reliable and verifiable source. It does not refer to us making false conflagrations.

That is a problem I have pointed out before in this article (to repeat myself): the allegations and counter-allegations are multiple, complex, and include both political polemic and academic research.

This article, thanks to WP:POINT POV pushing, pushes all of them together, regardless of the sourced context they provide. Not only is comparing Desmond Tutu and David Duke Reductio ad Hitlerum, it is in fact WP:OR because it ignores the substantive, sourced differences between the two notable's motivations and even actual positions (ie David Duke's is a polemic geared towards increasing anti-semitic hate, whereas Desmond Tutu's occur in the background of seeking a South African solution to the Palestinian question - and the sources sustain this). This also happens in the counter-allegations: ultra-Zionism is mixed with Post-Zionism and then mixed with non-Zionist critique.

WP:OR nowhere states that we are forbidden from providing context, as long as this context is also sourced. This is also a wiki, and not all sources have to be in the same page: Desmond Tutu and David Duke, to give just two examples, provide ample sourced context to differentiate between their two positions.

Attempts to provide narrow definitions are as bad as those that try to provide wide definitions. A time line is WP:OR because it is impossible to build a sourced timeline of something that is not an event or series of events, and constitutes "novel narrative or historical interpretation". Making a difference between disparate allegations and counter-allegations is not WP:OR because this doesn't constitute a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". It constitutes clear logic that makes a quality article.--Cerejota 16:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, you are the one that invoked a Hitler analogy here, not anyone else. And you are the one who inserted OR into the article in the form of a sentence that distinguished Duke etc. from the others. There was no sentence conflating them (where's the fire?) so there's nothing to object to there. The article does not say that anybody is on the same coin as anybody else. Your sentence says that they are not, and that is OR. The article is supposed to give the facts, and it is up to the reader to decide what meaning to assign to the facts. And that again goes back to the problem with this article. If the article was something like "Israeli treatment of Palestinians" and it gave the facts (an i.d. card here, a checkpoint there, a fence/barrier over there, a land policy, etc. -- and I believe that there is/are already article(s) that have this information) and then at the end basically said "As a result of this, some people call Israeli's policies "apartheid" and some do not, and here is what each side says and what arguments they use", that might be the basis of a good article. However, when the article is about the conclusion and whether it is correct or not, then the whole thing ends up being about not facts, but opinions, and inevitably there will be disputes over whose opinions people want associated with each "side". If you think that such a situation can result in a quality article, good luck. I think the reason the article is lousy is that the premise is lousy. Or as I have said before, the reason I have done very little editing of this article other than the intro, is that a pile of garbage will always be a pile of garbage, however nice a paint job you try to do on it. 6SJ7 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your reply, because I think you took time to substantially answer. Please forgive me if my answer is long, but I must both be substantial and clarify what I think are misunderstandings.

1. I believe that me not refactoring the re-write means I accepted my construction was OR (I also thank editors for understanding that the Jew Watch sources was a bad source). There is not need to get our underwear all bunched up: we do OR all the time and it then gets fixed and we move forward. Thats what this game is about. Don't dwell on it, accept it. :D
2. I haven't introduced the "hitler analogy" anywhere. I did indicate that when we refuse to allow context by misusing the words of WP:OR, rather than providing context by obeying the spirit of WP:OR (as WP:OR itself requests we do!!!), we are in fact allowing Reductio ad Hitlerum flourish, perhaps without meaning to. That is unacceptable, as you might understand. There is a difference between pointing out the use of Reductio ad Hitlerum and "bringing the hitler analogy.
3. Please do not be disingenuous: If you de-contextualize (in a bureaucratic, narrow definition of OR) quotes and place them as being together, then you you are making editorial comment. This is something you get warned about in introduction to academic writing classes in college: context is important. Wikipedia cannot engage in OR, but it can engage (and does!) engage in contextualization, if this contextualization comes from the sources. (I already mention above two jump-points for the context in this particular case.)
4. I truly hear your argument, and it is in fact an interesting one, because I have said the pretty much the same thing in arguing that the "timeline" should not be put in. What this means to me is that we probably are both correct in our thinking that this is not about events, but rather, about ideas. And that any attempts to make this article about events would actually be redundant: there are dozens, and maybe hundreds of pages related to the events in the Israel-Palestinian conflicts, ancillary events, etc. I agree fully with this line of reasoning, and find it logical and well argued.
5. That said, our conclusions are not the same. I think this article can actually become a quality article, and I think that this article is a valuable contribution to WikiProjects Israel and Palestine, and to Wikipedia in general. I will attempt to outline why my conclusions are different from yours, and I would certainly appreciate, if you so wish, if you could critique my views but also further elaborate yours. Simply calling something "garbage" doesn't make a very convincing argument, as you surely understand.
6. To begin with, wikipedia is full, and I mean full, of articles that deal with ideas and debates, and not with events. Some of the most admired and highest quality articles here, in fact. From sports, to physics, to love, to whatever. I do understand, of course, that you refer not to articles about ideas in general, but more specifically to those about an analysis of a situation, and a conclusion reached. And furthermore (correct me if I am wrong!) it seems it is also about the conclusion being naming something that is construed by one side of the POV as controversial. In that case, we still find dozens of pages that fall into that category, but perhaps one close to this one (and that I have mentioned here a long time ago) is New antisemitism. Like this article, that article is controversial, has been subjected to AfDs, its being WP:POINT, attacked, vilified and all other kinds of things. Like this article, it is about a debate of ideas, not events. And like this article, it is about conclusions and the agreements or disagreements with those conclusions. Both articles deserve to exist in wikipedia, and while both need a lot of work to bring them to quality standards, I believe that they can indeed be brought to quality. However, if we follow your conclusion, that article would have to be deleted.
7. Please consider this: the very fact that a relatively large and important amount of notable people, cited in verifiable and reliable sources, have made these allegations, and an equally large and important amount of notable people, cited in verifiable and reliable sources have answered them, I ask you to please realize this is quixotic endeavor: when Desmond Tutu makes allegations like this, and Benny Morris answers them, the genie is out of the bottle. If it were only them, but there is a whole range of literature and sources around these allegations. Hell, even two-bit, discredited, crypto-nazis like David Duke have jumped into the fray. When there is smoke, there is fire, and fire, my friend, is notability. I think you are being quixotic in trying to sustain this article in unnecessary even after many unsuccessful AfDs. It won't happen. Don't dwell on it.
8. Please remember this: Wikipedia searches for verifiability, not truth. If you hate these allegations, and believe them untrue, and this is a view you share with a notable number of people, then the best tool you have in Wikipedia is to bring in the best sourced, reliable, verifiable counter-arguments, and trust our readers to make up their mind after seeing the evidence. To try to hope beyond all hope that the WP:POINT-motivated AfD's will someday succeed is not trying hard enough to get along with your fellow wikipedians.
9. I am saddened by and do ask you reconsider your position on not editing and trying to make the article better. Your contributions have been and no doubt will be vital to the project, if only you made the choice to make them. :)--Cerejota 07:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on re-facotring the article body...

Based on the comments to my raising several things, I think that maybe a lot of the issues might be resolved by refactoring. I suggest we use the Adam and Moodley model, it is both sourced, and while providing some arguments that are POV, I think they construct the best framework from which to view the allegations.

I propose, each with its own "criticism" and "other views" section:

1. The propagandist/polemical views.
2. The absolutist anti-zionist views.
3. The "seeking-a-south-african" solution views.

Adam and Moodley are a reliable and verifiable source, so I think using their model is better than the currently rather haphazard way it is organized.

Furthermore, sources indicates that there is a difference made between the situation in the pre-1967 borders and in the Occupied Territories, yet the bulk of literature either talks of Israel as including de facto the Occupied Territories or make no explicit difference between the two, in particular when referring to Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Hence a further section on "Apartheid in West Bank and Gaza" might also work.

Thoughts?

--Cerejota 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)