Talk:Israeli apartheid

Archives
1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35

The main discussion area for this series of articles is at: WP:APARTHEID

Informal mediation on the title continues

Please note that the informal mediation on the title of this article is continuing at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy. Sign up as an involved party and join the discussion if you have an opinion on the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the informal mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy regarding the title of this article is still proceeding, and we're now discussing a shortlist of preferred titles following a straw poll. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the informal mediation on the title of this article is now calling for opinions on whether the apparent consensus of changing the title of this article to "Israel and apartheid" should be accepted and the mediation closed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent trial

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7901025/Palestinian-jailed-for-rape-after-claiming-to-be-Jewish.html does this belong here or somewhere else?

"In the context of Israeli society, you can see that some women would feel very strongly that they had been violated by someone who says he is Jewish but is not," said a former senior justice ministry official. "The question is whether the state should punish somebody in that situation. It puts the law in the position of what could loosely be described as discrimination. I would feel intuitively uncomfortable about prosecuting someone for something like that."

Unomi (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As a friend commented: "Only if every cad who's ever said that they're interested in a committed relationship - and then never returns calls also gets the same treatment!" RolandR (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz - Gideon Levy - He impersonated a human. Apparently, the woman Sabbar Kashur has been found guilty of raping just assumed he was Jewish based on the name he gave her, Dudu. He has said, though, that it is a name that many people, including his wife, know him by (I should think that she's not very happy).     ←   ZScarpia   22:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (ps: It would surprise me if any sources discussing the case made any apartheid comparisons)

Pardon me for continuing a conversation that's not really relevant to the article, but I thought that others would be interested in this link, which reports information that I hadn't seen reported elsewhere, that the defendant pleaded guilty and that the charge, which originally stated that force had been used, had to be changed during the course of the trial.     ←   ZScarpia   00:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention apartheid. It would require original research to shoehorn it into this article. Even an article like this that does actually discuss apartheid probably isn't useful as a source. Apartheid is only mentioned in passing in that article, despite being included in the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There are other articles where the information would be very relevant. The Racism article cites the founding of Israel as an historical example of settler colonial racism. It also mentions the difficulty of integrating immigrants from Ethiopia and the vigilante-style patrol to stop interracial dating between Arab men and local Jewish girls in Pisgat Ze'ev. The statements in the 2006 Arbcom case said that articles on the topic of apartheid were redirected to "Racial segregation (an article with no material at all on Israel)". That article still doesn't have a section devoted to Israel, despite the fact that there are segregated towns, housing, and roads. In addition, the material in this article was spun-out of Human rights in Israel using the shop-worn "this article is not about..." argument. harlan (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge Racism in Israel

A user has started a new article called Racism in Israel. This article is essentially one of a series of articles on "Racism in xxx". However, the content of the article (very thin at the moment, and no one seems to be expanding on it) is essentially the same as this already comprehensive article. So I suggest that we redirect "Racism in Israel" to point to this article, adding, if necessary, anything we can think of that might have to do with racism in Israel that isn't already here. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Apartheid is a form of racial segregation that constitutes a crime against humanity. WP:NOR limits the ability of editors to add material about racism to this article. In most instances, the original sources mention discrimination or racism, but not apartheid. harlan (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate to merge that article into this one, the subject scopes are too different. If that article discusses an independently notable subject, there's also no justification to merge it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger. Racism is a much broader topic and doesn't only encompass treatment of Palestinians but also treatment of various Jewish communities such as Blacks and Ethiopians, Shephardic Jews etc as well as foreign workers. Round the Horne (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I too disagree with the proposed merger. Racism in Israel is a far broader isue than the structural issues raised here. There are probably many editors who, while opposing the very existence of this article, nevertheless recognise that there is racism in Israel (as in every state), and who might even contribute to such an article. Much of the undoubted racism in Israel is not linked to the structural issue of apartheid; and, as noted above, the targets of such racism are not necessarily Palestinians, nor even non-Jews. A merger between the two articles would be to the detriment of both. RolandR (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor suggesting this merge has changed their mind, see Talk:Racism_in_Israel. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Verwoerd and Fouche

Now... I don't doubt that the major architects of South African apartheid linked Israel to apartheid, but seriously: should they included here? Think -- It seems circular: I walk into a store and steal something, they catch me, I say "well XYZ stole something, too, therefore it's OK!" -- and in turn you go to XYZ and use my claim as a justification to accuse XYZ of theft. Huh? In the same fashion, I am certain that Verwoerd used the analogy to justify SA apartheid, not to accuse Israel. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't limited to accusations, it's about any significant discussions of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in relation to the concept of apartheid. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think Verwoerd in a bullet-pointed list is out-of-context and doesn't belong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Verwoerd is discussed in the article also elsewhere and not only the list. I'll also have to agree with Ryan in that Verwoerd's comments do appear to be relevant to this article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the list in general, per the MoS we should be expressing content of this sort in proper paragraphs, not bullet lists. It's okay as a stopgap, but I hope it will be converted into appropriately formatted text in time. As for the source, it appears just as appropriate in the list as any of the other items. Note that it's also mentioned in the text before the list with appropriate context. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The format was my point. It forces one to give no context. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The South Africans justified their policies of apartheid on divine providence and their religious views before "they walked into the store" as Seb_az86556 puts it, e.g. "The history of Israel proves that the people who keep themselves strictly apart from others and thus protect their purity of blood, morals and religion, can be used by the Lord to fulfil a lofty calling." See J. A. Loubser, The apartheid Bible: a critical review of racial theology in South Africa, Maskew Miller Longman, 1987, page 68.

The New York Times reported that

The Afrikaner sees Israel as another small nation, surrounded by enemies, where the Bible and a revived language are vital factors. As Jannie Kruger, former editor of Die Transvaler wrote: 'The Afrikaners are par excellence the nation of the Book.' The fundamentalist Boers trekked northward with gun in one hand and Bible in the other. Like Israel, South Africa feels the role of language and religion are important to national survival. Prime Minister Vorster even goes so far as to say Israel is now faced with an apartheid problem - how to handle its Arab inhabitants. Neither nation wants to place its future entirely in the hands of a surrounding majority and would prefer to fight. C. L. Sulzberger, ‘Strange Nonalliance', New York Times. 28 April 1971 cited in Apartheid Israel: possibilities for the struggle within, By Uri Davis [1]

Prime Minister Verwoerd said that Jews “took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. In that I agree with them, Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.”[2] harlan (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted contribution to "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy"

I notice that the significant contribution I made to the "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy" has been severely truncated and weakened by some editor. I would like to submit this to discussion on the "Talk" page of the article, to clarify why the entire contribution enhances this section (indeed, that may be the only reason it was reverted - if this is so, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy on POV: the issue should not be whether the contribution agrees with the POV of all editors, merely that it be properly verified and fairly and dispassionately represents the views of the group being reported on). I believe that it is obvious that the points made in this proposed addition to the text are of major significance, and all the references are legitimate ones and verify the statements made in the text. The contribution in question is as follows (I replace the footnote character with a bracket, so as to include the footnote references in this text; they can be checked by editors to verify their relevance):

Many other critics of the apartheid analogy have considered "delegitimization" to be the key intention behind the "apartheid" accusations. [E.g., see Robbie Sabel, "The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False charge of Apartheid," at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2009. Global Law Forum, at: http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=110; David Matas, Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism (Toronto: The Dunburn Group, 2005), pp. 53-55; Alan Dershowitz, The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace (New York: John Wiley, 2009), pp. 20-25, 28-29, 36, 44-48; etc.] Leon Hadar has presented a documentation of the development of the explicit decision on the part of the Fatah leadership and other leading Palestinian spokespeople to use the "apartheid" analogy to delegitimize Israel and create what Hadar calls a "Greater Palestine."[Leon Hadar, "Two Peoples, Two States," January 19, 2010 issue of The American Conservative, at: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jan/19/00012/ and "The One-State Non-Solution," May 6, 2010 issue of The Huffington Post, at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-t-hadar/the-one-state-non-solutio_b_566494.html] He points out that in an article published in Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly early in 2001, after the failure of the Camp David peace talks, Edward Said, a leading Palestinian advocate, said the "two-state" solution was dead, and "The Only Alternative" - the title of the article - was a single state.[Edward Said, "The Only Alternative," reproduced March 03, 2001 on MediaMonitors.net - http://www.mediamonitors.net/edward9.html] While the Israel-Arab relationship was not the same as apartheid, Said admitted, the analogies should be stressed in a "mass campaign" to delegitimize the Jewish state, removing from it its moral justification and working towards its dissolution into a larger Palestinian state embracing the entire region west of the Jordan River. This should be done in the name of democracy and equality, one person, one vote, in the same way the South African political system had already been successfully delegitimized. "Separation can't work in so tiny a land, any more than Apartheid did."

Hadar points out that these comments soon bore fruit at the highest levels of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Diane Buttu, the then legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party in the Palestinian Authority under Arafat, stated in an interview in October 2002, during the Second Intifada, that her office had "basically concluded that if the colonization continues at this pace, we are going to have to start questioning whether a two-state solution is even plausible." So her office had advised Palestinian leadership that they should reassess "whether it really should be pushing for a two-state solution or whether we should start pushing for equal citizenship and an anti-apartheid campaign along the same lines as South Africa."[Interview with Diana Buttu conducted by BitterLemons.org, entitled "Security for freedom," http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl281002ed39.html]

Omar Barghouti, Palestinian founder and coordinator of the global BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign, which constantly refers to Israeli "apartheid" as a chief rationale, remarked, "I clearly do not buy into the two-state solution," at a BDS symposium recorded on video and accessible on YouTube.[3] In an article published in 2010 on The Guardian website, Barghouti connects the BDS movement he leads with the "Right of Return" demand of the P.A. leadership (according to which all Palestinians have a right to "return" and set up residence inside the State of Israel, overthrowing its Jewish majority); it has been pointed out that just as the apartheid BDS polemic delegitimizes the Jewish state, fulfilling these further demands would necessarily spell the end of Israel as a distinct state.[See Chris Dyszyski, "True Colours of the BDS Movement," 12 August 2010, at: http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/viewpoint-true-colours-of-the-bds-movement, citing Barghouti's article "Beseiging Israel's Seige" on The Guardian website, 12 August 2010.]

That is the full contribution. Every paragraph is an important, substantial and independent contribution to the text. I believe it is manifest that the severely truncated version left in the main article drastically weakens the points made, and obscures some of the essential points made in the original contribution. It also eliminates most of the documentation of sources in the footnotes that support those points, which just by itself weakens the argument. Furthermore, it is noticeable that the truncated version removes all evidence emanating from Palestinian spokespeople that support the defense of Israel and criticism of the apartheid analogy described in the contribution. However, this evidence is crucial to the understanding of the criticism of the apartheid analogy. Without this, we have at present merely the opinions of critics of the apartheid analogy, contrasting with the elaborate and lengthly presentation of detailed specific assertions of fact by advocates of the apartheid analogy earlier in the article. This constitutes an unbalanced structure and POV to the entire article. Mere opinions on the one side with thin documentation, elaborate and lengthly "factual" assertions on the other which draw upon all sorts of statements from apartheid advocates.Tempered (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when one looks over the other paragraphs in this section dealing with criticisms of the apartheid analogy, one notices exactly the same truncation of views and sources, reducing all those critics cited to non-factual assertions of mere opinion. E.g., the specialist in international law and NGO affairs, Gerald Steinberg is quoted, but not about the actuality of equal rights under the law in Israel, with any details of this, but merely as disagreeing with the apartheid analogy. This adds little or nothing to the discussion. Irwin Cotler, who has written extensively on Israeli law (he is a world-recognized specialist in international law), is also quoted as giving a dissenting opinion regarding the applicability of the apartheid analogy, but all his substantive observations on Israeli law are elided. This goes right through the section. There is actually no defense given to the assertion that Israel is a democracy and gives equal rights to all its citizens. No details at all, even though critics of the apartheid analogy make this a chief issue in their criticisms. This section needs an extensive revision to make it less POV. And let us clarify: POV is shown far more by refusing advocates of one side any substantive presentation of their views and the reasons for them, than it is in presenting those views fairly and dispassionately, in terms that those advocates would accept as fair. WP:NPOV dictates that each side be presented fairly and proportionately. So far, this is not being done, it seems.Tempered (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Going back into the history of the reversion of these paragraphs, I see that the reverter, Dailycare, has objected that various cited sources are not in the category of "reliable sources." This supposedly justifies removal of the comments of Chris Dyszyski, quoted above, and of Diane Buttu, legal advisor to the PLO, which appeared on the bitterlemons website. However, I believe that there is some confusion about the use of such sources. As sources for opinion, e.g., Chris Dyszyski, his citation is justified. He obviously had the opinion stated, and made some significant points, which he then went on to buttress with citations to other published opinion elsewhere. As expression of his view of those opinion pieces, this is a fair reference. Similarly, Ms. Buttu actually said the things stated, and indeed bitterlemons is an internationally known source of current opinion and its material is not reputed at all to be invented or false. No one has ever shown that it is, so far as I am aware. As a source of opinion, it should be allowed. Similarly with Omar Barghouti: he wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian blog, and that justifies its citation as evidence of his opinion. The citation of a video of Omar Barghouti making specific statements is justified by the video itself on YouTube. There Omar Barghouti is shown actually making those statements. It is hard to get more reliable than that. I notice further that, in regard to an just earlier contribution to this section of the article, the paragraph commencing with a reference to the views of Gideon Shimoni, Dailycare reverted even an article by a former israeli Ambassador and former Director General of the Israel Foreign Ministry allegedly because it appeared in the bitterlemons forum. The article is not unreliable: is it seriously being suggested that someone else wrote it? It is even cited from there by other Israeli sources. The authors of the articles there are the people claimed: no one has ever cast doubt on that. The reference should be restored there, it is a significant testimony from a leading Israeli spokesperson: it runs: "The centrality of the strict "separation" of populations, to produce the opposite effect than that sought in apartheid South Africa, is also argued by Alon Liel, former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa and former Director General of the Israel Foreign Ministry.[Alon Liel, "An Israeli View: Apartheid = Separation?!" in a symposium on bitterlemons.org entitled "Democracy and the Conflict": see the August 12, 2002 edition at http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl120802ed30.html]Tempered (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. Please see the policy WP:RS and other policies relating to identifying reliable sources. This is not a question of whether the information in the source is right or wrong, but whether the source is a reliable source in the sense of WP:RS or not. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, the bitterlemons site does not fit into the Wikipedia category of "unreliable" sources. It is a highly reputable website of opinion, to which leading world figures on various sides of debated issues contribute. The reference to Alon Liel's article is to a high-level symposium on "Democracy and the Conflict" on bitterlemons. Contributors included, besides former Ambassador Leil, who was former Director General of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and thus in any view a very high and authoritative source from within the Israeli government, Yossi Alpher, former Director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, and the Palestinians Ghassan Khatib, minister of labor in the Palestinian Authority cabinet, and Mudar Kassis, a professor at Bir Zeit University. The specific occasion of the contributions cited here from Diana Buttu relate to another high-level symposium discussion of "The Quartet's Roadmap," relating to current developments in the Palestinian-Israel conflict, to which leading advocates of both sides again contributed assessments. Ghassan Khatib contributed the article "A Palestinian View: Roadblocks." Yossi Alpher contributed "An Israeli View: Futile - but important." This was followed by "An Interview with Diana Buttu," who was after all the legal advisor to the Palestinian Authority and thus a very significant source, entitled "A Palestinian View: Security for Freedom." And it concluded with a contribution from Yossi Beilin, the well-known left-leaning participant in the Oslo Peace Accords, "An Israeli View: A road map to the house next door." All of these figures are major authorities on their topic, and there can be no legitimate objection to citing their contributions or doubting their authorship, much less reproaching bitterlemons, a site for serious, balanced and responsible current affairs comment, for being a mere insignificant blog. However, I will accept that reference to Chris Dyszyski's comments are to a mere personal blog, and thus are not authoritative. However, the article by Omar Barghouti is from a reliable source, and it can be cited as it stands, even if it is the blog portion of The Guardian newspaper. So I will amend that portion of the contribution to reflect this, and add specific quotes from his article. As for the reference to Edward Said's article, this cannot be challenged as an unreliable source. It therefore should not have been elided with that excuse. I further note that footnotes 34, 35, 36, 98, 116, 117, 148, 180, 191, 201 and others of the main article appear to fall under the category of personal or other blogs or "unreliable sources" according to Wikipedia guidelines as interpreted by Dailycare (including evidently the blog portion of The Guardian!). In addition, many of the cited comments by various figures alleging some metaphorical application of apartheid to Israel refers to comments made in passing by political or other persons trying to polemicize against this or that policy and speaking quite loosely. These too should be reverted as mere casual and unserious personal opinions not even meant literally. Most of these people would not state any real similarity between Israel and apartheid South Africa. E.g., this relates to Meron Benvenisti and Akiva Eldar, among many others. I would suggest that Dailycare first amend all these references and the text in the main article that they try to substantiate, before worrying about this present issue.Tempered (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what an "unreliable sources" category is. I do know what WP:RS is, and Bitterlemons isn't it - it appears to be a vehicle for opinion pieces, lacking peer review and editorial oversight. Now I suppose that an opinion piece on Bitterlemons might be an indicator of what the opinion of the author is, but in terms of deciding whether to include it in wikipedia (per e.g. WP:UNDUE) a piece on bitterlemons can't be an indicator of weight in WP:RS. Now if the case is, as you say, that the balance in the article is wrong then it should be easy to find real WP:RS sources to correct the balance. That you're citing something from bitterlemons indicates quite the opposite, namely that you're scraping the barrel. Concerning the Said citation, I didn't say the source was unreliable. I said the citation was not supported by the source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Use of the apartheid" section and other issues

Use of the apartheid analogy. I don't think it is necessary to enumerate every person that has drawn parallels between Israel and Apartheid South Africa. It clutters up the article. We have a "use of apartheid" section that contains a comprehensive list of characters, but then the following sections - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc...

It doesn't make sense to categorize every single person by their political affiliation after already listing them already, and making unique sections for specific individuals (Jimmy Carter) but not others.

I can't find another article with a similar praise/support section. It was clearly designed by a series of editors without regard to policy. I suggest we simplify the content into 2 sections - one with the list, and two with comments from that list. Then for those who are against Israel/apartheid advocates, 2 sections - one with a list, the other with comments.

This section is extremely undue. Devoting so much space for two academics, even including a thumb of their book, is not consistent with neutrality and balance. IMO the sections makes it very hard to navigate through, with some criticism of apartheid advocates within "use of apartheid" while other peoples' statements go unchallenged (Melanie Phillips). More than half of the article is about people comparing Israel to apartheid. Comments? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

edit: I also think we could expand on Israel as a government's POV. Issues such as the separation barrier and check points, are said to be inspired by security-related issues, rather than racism. I don't think it would be wrong to emphasize this POV rather than saying something is racist without including challenges. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is quite noticeable that the sections relating the sharp criticisms of Israel as guilty of apartheid go on at enormous length, but that reserved for defenses of Israel and criticisms of the apartheid analogy are quite brief. The first section consists of 9,722 words, according to my computer word count, and the last section is just 2,435. This is highly disproportionate and suggests systemic bias. It needs correction.Tempered (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, to suggest that "pro" and "con" sides should have similar wordcounts is a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. We should reproduce the respective views in rough proportion to their occurrence in reliable sources, not try to give each viewpoint equal space in the article. There are fewer WP:RS sources for the "no it isn't apartheid because of X" since for most people it's pretty obvious that Israel does practice apartheid against the Palestinians (not to mention that Israeli cabinet ministers have admitted it). On a practical note, I agree that the Adam&Moodley section is probably too long and may be a good candidate for making shorter, which would also serve to make the article as a whole a bit shorter. --Dailycare (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tempered brings up a valid point, the "sharp" criticism of Israel is very pronounced while the opposition is given a very small and barely noticeable space in the article. I'm sorry Dailycare but the Israel/apartheid movement is a minority POV. This article shouldn't simply be a collection of what important people think about Israel. The criticisms should be cut down significantly, no need to quite entire passages of a book. Keep things short and concise. There is plenty, if not more sources that provide a comprehensive POV but they are currently not in the article. For now it's best we start with removing the unnecessary and minimizing redundancy. Honestly, I prefer the article focus more on Israel's relationship with the West Bank and if it resembles apartheid South Africa, rather than an almost exclusive focus on non-expert opinions (politicians, activists, foreigners, etc...). I don't want to start working on the article just yet without some understanding that it won't be subject to vicious edit-warring. How about I create a sub-page and start from there? Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"There is plenty, if not more sources that provide a comprehensive POV but they are currently not in the article." Could you offer them please? un☯mi 13:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare claims that the proportions of the present article, with its overwhelming stress on the applicability of the apartheid analogy, reflects the "rough proportion to their occurence in reliable sources," and that "for most people it's pretty obvious that Israel does practice apartheid ..." This indicates the sort of sources Dailycare prefers to read, and his own POV. Ironically, the extended section in the pro-apartheid portion of the article devoted to Adam and Moodley referred to just above by Wikifan, which uses them as advocates for the apartheid label, actually begins:

"Heribert Adam of Simon Fraser University and Kogila Moodley of the University of British Columbia, in their 2005 book-length study Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians, apply lessons learned in South Africa to resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They divide academic and journalistic commentators on the analogy into three groups:[150] (1) "The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals." (2) "'Israel is Apartheid' advocates include most Palestinians, many Third World academics, and several Jewish post-Zionists who idealistically predict an ultimate South African solution of a common or binational state." (3) A third group which sees both similarities and differences, and which looks to South African history for guidance in bringing resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.[11]"

So it is evident that to other observers than Dailycare, the majority of views on this issue is critical of the use of the apartheid analogy and repudiates it, even according to a source Dailycare wants to stress against Israel. I am afraid that Dailycare is grasping at straws. Contrary to him, there are plenty of defenders of Israel against the apartheid claim, and they cite facts to support themselves, not just giving their disapproval but substantiating it in detail and at length, and all of this is entirely absent from the article. Those views are effectively silenced. They are referred to, often misleadingly as in the cases of Steinberg and Cotler already mentioned, but not explained or justified, entirely unlike the treatment given to pro-apartheid advocates. The tendentious POV of the article is manifest.Tempered (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to present more sources to consider for the article. un☯mi 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to believe that you are right, Unomi, but somehow it is a bit difficult, seeing that I am being reverted when I attempt just that. See the comments just above. What is more, I observe that many other editors have tried over the years to make significant contributions to redress the blatant anti-Israeli POV of this article, and they too are steadily reverted, that is, silenced. The best they can hope for is a highly truncated reduction of their contribution to a mere helpless expression of opinion, with anything substantive from their sources that actually refutes the anti-Israeli views carefully cut out. Moreover, I do wonder how all those pro-apartheid polemicists got all their contributions into the article, creating the extreme and unbalanced article that we all see before us? This has gone on for a long time. In my case, the alleged justification for cutting out some of the most significant of the material I wanted to add was that the website sources, such as bitterlemons.com, were "unreliable" as sources of opinion. This, apparently, was because those websites were pro-Israel or at least not sufficiently anti-Israel (bitterlemons is an open forum for all viewpoints, and well respected as such, with major international figures contributing articles and opinion pieces to it), because looking over the footnotes to the main article, it becomes clear that very many references to pro-apartheid polemicists are to blogs or web magazines with a strong anti-Israel agenda -- and they were left in. So a double standard is operating here. This makes the slip by Wikifan quite accurate: he refers to me just below as "Tampered": right he is.Tempered (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree Tampered, but I think it's best to focus more on the material and article rather than attacking a specific editor. Editors are entitled to their own opinions and we all have them. There are major problems in the article and this has been exemplified in the half a dozen AFDs and latest mediation. I really think we should get started on rewriting the "use of apartheid analogy." IMO it is a euphamism for criticism. In fact, the whole section is mostly criticism - redundant criticism. Better we follow guidelines and use other controversial israel/palestine articles as a template. There is no precedent on wikipedia that remotely resembles israel and the apartheid analogy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What this looks like is an end-around of the soon-to-be-finalized work accomplished by others at the recent mediation. As Ludwig went to great pains to explain, obviously you as a non-participant are not bound by the findings there. But if this matter again has to go to a binding mediation or even ArbCom, admins are likely to take a more favorable view of a group of editors who tried dispute resolution (them) vs. one who refused (you). These suggestions by you and this WP:SPA seem aimed at gutting the article of criticism rather than improving it in any meaningful way. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, can you please focus on the content of my post rather than attacking me as an editor? The only relevant message in your above quote is an inference that my presence here is predicated on "gutting" the article of criticism rather than improving it. You're right - the article should be gutted, redundant material needs to be deleted and irrelevant, non-expert opinion shouldn't be given disproportionate representation. The section title should be replaced with "criticism" and specific critics do not need to be enumerated in their own special section. There is nothing controversial about my proposal. Feel free to link a single wikipedia article that remotely resembles this one. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I created a revised draft of the "use" of apartheid section. I eliminated virtually all of the commentary. Opinions and POVs belong in another section. Including paragraphs of statements from non-notable "experts" or partisan activists is totally undue and I don't know how it remained in the article for so long. Specifics arguments FOR apartheid should be mentioned in a separate, unique section. Right now the article is mostly about People who say Israel is an apartheid. In fact, that should be the title. I also removed individuals who were caught or allegedly caught "referencing" apartheid. People like Ehud barack and others do not believe Israel is an apartheid. Cherry-picking a token comment and saying this represents the individual could be seen as a BLP violation. The section title itself is ambiguous. "Use of apartheid analogy" is a bogus header. Referencing apartheid or saying "Israel might become an apartheid" is not the same as explicitly supporting an apartheid. Drawing parallels is not an analogy. I also removed excessive paragraphs and excerpts from books that merely represent the POV of individuals rather than actual content supporting Israel is an apartheid. The list of people who say Israel is an apartheid is endless. It's best we keep the list to a notable individuals and scholars, not irrelevant talking heads who don't explain why Israel is an apartheid. I also removed criticisms of the apartheid analogy because it doesn't belong in this section. It is totally dishonest to make a huge list about Israel being an apartheid, including entire pages from books saying Israel is an apartheid, categorizing those who say Israel is an apartheid by their occupation and ethnicity, while couching small statements from opponents. Those who do not support apartheid deserve their own section. The rest of the article should explain the arguments for apartheid, not about x group of activists wrote a letter condemning Israeli racism. Really guys, this isn't rocket science. There is a reason why this article has been a start class for years. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think the MoS says that the current list-style is not favoured and should be replaced by elegant, flowing text describing the issue. Yes, I'm being a bit ironic and cognizant of the difficulties that's bound to entail. Again, editors who feel the balance in the article is wrong are welcome to bring in WP:RS backed content to rectify the issue. Naturally, the title of the article is worded in a way that invites more content describing how Israeli policy is apartheid than the opposite, and it's still also my wiki-editorial view that the balance in the article is roughly correct. Writing ultra vires (yes I'm drunk too), the question really isn't complex. Are there Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Are there Jews-only roads? Yes there are, and that's apartheid. This isn't rocket science. Good night, --Dailycare (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Daily, there is not a single article on wikipedia that utilizes the same MoS as editors have designed on their own accord here. The "current-list style" would be okay maybe in a List article, but here it is not only unnecessary but might qualify as original research. My original argument is sound: We cannot enumerate every single person who says Israel is an evil country, nor can we make dedicated sanctions for individuals that editors like (Jimmy Carter, Adams and Mooley) while not others. I'll start on the section later today, but the crux of the issue is really about content. It will be best for the article to cut out the junk and redundancy, remove fringe characters or regulate them to minimal status, and don't quote entire pages of a book. IMO it would be a lot better to list Israel's relationship with the Palestinians in a bullet-styled format, and the follow it with a bullet-styled format response. (I.e, Critics: Arab citizens of Israel are marginalized because they don't have the same rights as Jews: Opponents: While inequalities exist, Arabs have the same rights as Jews, blah blah blah.) Then provide 3rd party characters to support (Jimmy Carter). The main issue is the fact that the criticism section is about 70% of the article, and the responses are left at the bottom of the page. This is totally unacceptable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare thinks that the bias of the article is right because, he says, Jewish settlements on the West Bank and "Jews-only" roads there (actually Israelis only, giving access and safe passage to Israeli Arabs, Israeli Jewish Ethiopians, Vietnamese Buddhist and Christian citizens of Israel, any of the 10,000 resident Sudanese Muslims and Christians who entered Israel via the Sinai borders, risking their lives to do so -- and still do, knowing Israel to be less racially discriminatory than any other Middle Eastern country: see the recent http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=185084 -- in fact even including non-Israelis (of all races and faiths) such as tourists and visitors from elsewhere who can also use those roads), are all solid evidences of Israeli "apartheid." It is not "rocket science," he says. Alas, Dailycare, what seems so clear and persuasive to you is anything but to others: your POV is not the bottom line for acceptability in this article. Others do differ on these matters: they should be allowed a voice and permitted to explain their views decently and courteously.Tempered (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, I'm a bit confused as you're criticising bulleted lists as OR and then inserting them to the article. We'll have to work on them once the protection is lifted. I agree with you that there is no need to enumerate every person who says something about the issue, but I also agree with you in that people who matter, such as archbishops, presidents, governments and cabinet ministers (for example) should be mentioned and their views presented. I don't follow what you mean by "dedicated sanctions" or how one might present Israel's relations with the Palestinianns in a "bullet-styled" format. Encyclopedic text can be much richer than bullet points. Tempered, again, the relative weight given to viewpoints comes from the weight the viewpoints have in WP:RS, not from a gallup poll. You're welcome to add content to this article (once the protection is removed). Content, however, has to be verifiable and relevant. It's incorrect to think that if the charge of apartheid is fleshed out in 2.000 words, then the charge should also be denied using 2.000 words. The opposite in fact applies, since all relevant viewpoints must be presented and in rough proportion to their "market share" in WP:RS. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation on title closed with consensus to move to "Israel and apartheid"

The mediation on the title of the article has closed with a consensus to move the article to Israel and apartheid with a disambiguation line to clarify any ambiguity. An ARBCOM remedy states that mediation is how article names in this area should be resolved, if other negotiation is unsuccessful. I'll leave it to someone with a better idea of how to go about it to do the move of the article, talk page, and talk page archives, but I'm happy to help with the redirects. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Please see if everything is in order. un☯mi 20:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was done but has been reverted by Brewcrewer with an edit note saying "no such consensus. please use wp:rm," Can someone familiar with wp:rm get this moving. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow Brewercrewer. Really? Really? Talk about childishly flying in the face of consensus. The debate's over Brewcrewer. This one has been milked for everything it's worth. Move on. NickCT (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No. you guys kept harping on it and harping on it, until you found a two day window where you formed a 5 man consensus for this. this had been discussed for years with literally hundreds of editors. I'm sorry, but this little "consensus" will not do.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It was 13 for and 2 against, it was the people opposed who kept harping on about miscarriage of justice or whatnot. You guys could have chosen to participate rather than derail. un☯mi 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The mediation was a dead-end. Mediator recommended taking the dispute to a higher authority. So no, there is no consensus to justify a name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:00

You guys are going to kick and struggle till the bitter end huh? I've notified Ludwigs2. NickCT (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I feel the mediation resulted in a consensus, the choice by a significant number of editors to boycott the mediation weakens the result. If you want to rename the article, I think the matter should be brought to formal mediation or arbitration for a binding decision. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To quote Ludwig2's full closing comment: 'This mediation progressed to a strong but incomplete consensus (14 participants supporting, 2 against, 6 offering no comment) to change the name of the article to Israel and Apartheid, with the inclusion of a disambiguation line to clear up any misconceptions that might arise from that title. At least two editors did not agree with this consensus, and further attempts at discussion seem unlikely to reach a more complete consensus on the matter. Given the strong opinions evidenced in this mediation, I recommend that the participants consider taking the issue to formal mediation or arbitration for a more authoritative solution than is possible in informal mediation.' (italics mine) Consensus to change the name was very much present. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the remainder of the comment you highlighted? "Given the strong opinions evidenced in this mediation, I recommend that the participants consider taking the issue to formal mediation or arbitration for a more authoritative solution than is possible in informal mediation." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I did. Note that I didn't say anything about whether or not that recommendation was made, merely that there was consensus for the move. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik - I'm a little disappointed you'd take this position. Would you really ever expect to get 100% consensus on any I/P issue? Now, I'm not sure I like the new title either, but the conversation has been had. Let's move on. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect 100% consensus (and I don't expect the move request below to result in a consensus to move). Instead, I recommend that those in favor of moving the article ask for a binding decision from formal mediation or arbitration. Then the holdouts—whoever they may be—can complain as much as they'd like, but we will have a final decision. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Malik. I find that a little hard to swallow. I don't really see why we're waste more time mulling over this topic. Seems like a delay tactic. NickCT (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

just to comment (because NickCT dropped me a note): I think the 'requested move' section below is the correct approach. The mediation gave the issue focus but did not create a perfect consensus. now that you have that focus, however, the more conventional request to move process can proceed. A requested move is not a consensus-building process but rather a consensus-determining process; it does not require unanimity, and if the same kind of 7:1 split occurs here that will almost certainly indicate that a page move is in order. It would be useful if one of the mediation participants copied over a short list of the arguments in favor of the move to the section below, for easier reference.

also, I suggest that the disambiguation line suggested by the mediation be added now, while the discussion is ongoing. I can't see how that would be problematic, and I suspect it would be a useful clarification regardless of the ultimate page title. can someone do that? there were three or so possibilities listed on the mediation page - I can copy them here if you like. --Ludwigs2 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Malik. A lot of the editors involved in mediation have not touched the article. Personally, I question whether or not they read it. Most of the article is about people who say Israel is an apartheid. That isn't the same as "Israel and apartheid." Apartheid South Africa is backed by a thorough, scholarly history. To justify "Israel and apartheid" the article should closely resemble Apartheid South Africa. But unfortunately, there isn't a lot of history to compare as arguments for apartheid are rather recent. If the title is going to be changed the article needs a series rewrite comparing Israel's government to an apartheid regime. As I mentioned in another section, it is only the result of individuals who have drawn parallels between south africa and Israel. The concept of apartheid is not unique to South Africa, it is/was evident in Kenya, Australia, and other nations well before South Africa. Since this article is exclusively about South Africa, perhaps the title could be something like "Israel and the South Africa apartheid analogy." Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the Semantics Olympics here, no. I think it is fair to say that the actual term "apartheid" is far more commonly associated with South Africa, despite similar state-sponsored segregations in other nations. Tarc (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Australia and Kenya were both apartheid states and British exports. In fact, Australia was the original apartheid - SA's government was modeled after it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You either dodged or missed the point that the common usage of the term "apartheid" is only in reference to South Africa. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move

Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid — Based on extensive discussion and subsequent 13 to 2 consensus through mediation. un☯mi 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, the mediation referenced above was informal MEDCAB and not formal MEDCOM, for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, please do read through the discussion indicated to understand the concerns and motivations. un☯mi 21:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There are also archives dating back to 2006 which discuss this article's name at length; they should all be read as well -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move - With no further delay or discussion. This is clearly an attempt by a POV pushing group to take a second bite of the apple. Consensus in the mediation was quite clear.NickCT (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The term "apartheid" is neither accurate nor totally applicable. There is a vested political interest in having Israel compared to apartheid South Africa. As such, the key issue is discussion of the analogy and whether it is applicable, not a de facto statement that said conditions exist. Therefore, the current title is both more neutral, more accurate, more appropriate, and should be maintained as opposed to the suggested title. -- Avi (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say that the key issue is "discussion of the analogy and whether it is applicable", you ignore the chief problem with including "analogy" in the name. A number of significant sources in the article, including a United Nations representative, a body of the South African government and others are not making an analogy, they are discussing whether Israel is committing the crime of apartheid. That's why the mediation started, that's what was agreed in it, and that's why the "analogy" title is too flawed to stay. By continuing to ignore this fundamental point, those opposed to the move are refusing to engage in rational discussion of the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The comparison to the South African apartheid is at best controversial. This omission in the lead does not reflect NPOV nor the consensus of multitudes of editors that have discussed this over the last 5 years.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a comparison between Israel and South African apartheid (which the "analogy" title describes) is controversial. The suggestion that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid (which the "analogy" title fails to include in its scope) is also controversial. Almost every editor here agrees this is a controversial topic. Just like Race and intelligence is a controversial subject. Is there a relationship between race and intelligence? Is Israel committing the crime of apartheid? Both are controversial, the significant sources on these topics are in disagreement. That is part of what makes Israel and apartheid and Race and intelligence such appropriate titles, because those titles do not imply the existence of any specific connection between their subjects. They describe a discourse about whether a connection exists and if so what the connection is, without prejudging the subject in any way. And unlike the current "analogy" title, Israel and apartheid describes the entire content of the article, rather than only describing one aspect of the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The analogy to "Race and intelligence" doesn't work because (1) no specific race is named to be judged and (2) 'intelligence' is not a pejorative; it is neutral in this context. A fairer analogy to "Israel and apartheid" would be the hypothetical title "Negroids and stupidity", which would ostensibly discuss the disagreements between significant sources on the connection that the title implies. Both the proposed title for this article and the hypothetical title from my example are obviously not neutral. Quigley (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The content of Race and intelligence doesn't solely address whites and blacks, it also discusses hispanics, east asians, etc. Therefore the use of a general term like "race" or "ethnicity" is required in the title to describe the content. By comparison, the content of this article is solely about Israel and whether its treatment of the Palestinians resembles/is apartheid, because there are numerous significant sources specifically about Israel and apartheid. Therefore "Israel" must be in the title of the article in order to describe its content, it cannot be "Nations and apartheid". Apartheid does indeed have negative connotations, because racial segregation is widely despised in the modern world. Similarly, intelligence has positive connotations, to be "smart" is usually considered a good thing. However, Wikipedia cannot shy away from describing a subject accurately in article titles just because many terms in common use are value-laden, that would be self-censorship. For another appropriate comparison, see United States and state terrorism. There is no doubt that terrorism has negative connotations. But there is a notable public discourse that suggests the US may have committed state terrorism, and therefore there should be an article on the topic, and the title must dispassionately describe the subject matter discussed. Israel and apartheid, like "United States and state terrorism" and "Race and intelligence" does not prejudge the nature of the relation between the subjects, and rightly so because any suggested relation is highly controversial. But it does include the full scope of the article's content, which any title including "analogy" does not. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I understand the motivations; however, the suggested title would have to result in a completely different article, e.g. Israel's role in dealing with and relationship to South Africa between 1961 and 1994. Whether one likes it or not, Apartheid was and remains the Afrikaans term for the policies instituted by the South African government; any comparison must be labeled as such ("analogy"). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The (imperfect) consensus at the end of Mediation was that Israel and apartheid be adopted as the title and disambiguation text used to indicate that a different article deals with Israel's relations with apartheid South Africa. Apartheid is now used as the name of a crime in international law and is no longer confined to the regime that existed in South Africa.     ←   ZScarpia   01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... that could be a point; however, why is apartheid a redirect to South Africa's apartheid, then? But I admit, that's probably a different discussion. (see this diff and others) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is your sole reason, I urge you to reconsider. The word "apartheid" has two meanings. It means both the general concept of racial segregation (as used by scholars and by the United Nations to define the international crime of apartheid), and the specific historical instance of racial segregation in South Africa from which the name originated. The subject of this article is the discourse about both comparisons of the State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to apartheid (in both senses), and whether the State of Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid. This article isn't about Israel's relationship with apartheid-era South Africa. However, that potential ambiguity was discussed at length in the mediation with the resulting decision to include a disambiguation line to clarify the scope of the article. The editors in the mediation agreed that this issue is much less concerning that the use of "analogy" in the title, which inaccurately describes significant content in the article. This isn't about finding a perfect title, but the least flawed one. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I s'pose... I don't have any strong feelings either way. I didn't know this point had come up during mediation. Thus, neutral on the title... as long as people take care of the content. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title was the result of a discussion that was broader than the informal mediation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This Seems to have been the discussion forming the basis to the move to this title, if so, it involved 15 editors and a significantly smaller consensus for the move than the one we just had. un☯mi 07:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move There was an extended discussion aided by mediation, see here. It ended up with a 13-2 consensus for the move, based on the arguments presented. The current article name has been used to argue for exclusion of relevant sources. The current article name has also been found to be of limited value to the reader. Israel and Apartheid is short and adequate, the consensus also included the writing of a header which would properly explain the scope of the article. It is deeply unfortunate that many of the involved editors choose not to engage in the detailed discussions, resorting to filibustering and derailment at the last moment. un☯mi 21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment The discussion years ago had significantly more participation than 15 people, if I remember correctly. -- Avi (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you had chosen to participate we would have had more than 15, actually we did have more, but they turned out to be sockpuppets. un☯mi 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation is not the best dispute resolution venue for articles where the disputes are both very widespread and based on strongly held political beliefs. It is more appropriate for smaller discussions. For example, the main Ahmadinijead argument about the "wipe Israel off of the map" quote in the lede went to formal mediation; issues about Rashid Khalidi, IIRC, we were able to handle informally. -- Avi (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That does not seem like a compelling reason to not participate at all, or if you found it to be the wrong venue then to recommend another in the first place, am I to expect that if this RM ends with a consensus to move that you will argue that RM is inferior to formal mediation? The mediation was announced on all the relevant wikiprojects as I remember. It is hardly fair to complain of low participation when people choose not to participate. un☯mi 21:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus to move arises out of this discussion, then so be it; it is within policy. However, a poorly advertised informal mediation remains inferior to a widely advertised formal setting in my opinion. I also noticed that I had to inform the relative wikiprojects of this request, as the originator did not remember to do so. Ensuring the widest possible participation is key to gaining consensus. For example, there was a consensus reached to move the three pages corresponding on the articles regarding the Jewish temples, but it was overturned with the argument that the consensus may not have reflected the wider English wikipedia audience as it the discussion was not broadcast in the proper places. We would not want this discussion to suffer from the same issue. -- Avi (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) By the way, it seems that the discussion that formed the basis for the previous move to the current name is the one here which, by my count, had 15 editors involved and significantly less consensus for the move. If I am mistaken then please do let me know. un☯mi 04:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move concur with comment made above by Unomi. Mo ainm~Talk 21:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move How many times to we have to do this? Bjmullan (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move As I've written previously, the debate was thorough and the consensus reliable. I second unomi's comment as well. Shoplifter (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Totally Oppose. After reviewing the article in its entirety the current proposal is simply bogus. More than 50% of the article is about individuals and groups who say Israel is an apartheid. Actual, real content explicitly describing and contrasting apartheid South Africa and Israeli relationship with Arabs is remote in comparison. A better title would be "People who say Israel is an apartheid" but "Israel apartheid" does not in any way connect with the source material. A democratic consensus is irrelevant. I ask any editor here to point to a single guideline that supports half the information in the article. Most of it was designed by specific editors without regard to policy, which is why the article has stayed in start class for years. Better we improve the article before changing the title to give it false credence. I do believe Israel apartheid could be a proper title in the future, but now the article is simply important people who believe Israel is an apartheid. Specific parallels between Apartheid South Africa and Israel is barely noticeable. Apartheid analogy is the fairest and most honest title at the moment, because most of the content is about people who compare Israel to South Africa. This isn't the same as "Israel apartheid." And in any case, South Africa does not have a monopoly on apartheid. Kenya and Australia were original apartheids (Australia was the template for apartheid), so if the article is going to about South African apartheid then perhaps the title should reflect that. No mainstream consensus has determined Israeli government is an apartheid, nor as the United Nations, US government, European Union, or major bodies say Israel is an apartheid state. It has not been subject to international sanctions in the way South Africa was. In an unrelated note, I'd say the origins of apartheid analogies could be expanded on. "Israel is racist" school of thought was designed by the Soviet Union, Soviet Anti-Zionism and Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public. While Israel has been occupying and controlling most of the Palestinian territories for the last 40 years, the concept of Israel apartheid is a relatively recent phenomenal that is really a decedent of Soviet foreign policy. I might expand this in another talk section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikifan, the proposal is to move the article to "Israel and apartheid", not to "Israel apartheid". There is a world of difference between the two. If you want to comment on the proposal, fine, but please don't misrepresent it. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Semantics. "Israel and apartheid" is the same thing as "Israel apartheid." Maybe not to scholars and historians, but to everyone else it will be interpreted as a definitive reality akin to South Africa's apartheid. Even if we assume "Israel and apartheid" it still doesn't remotely fit the content of the article, and my rationale is strong and concrete. Feel free to debate it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not "semantics" at all, there is a very clear difference. See the responses from Ryan Paddy and Carwill below. Gatoclass (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why is Apartheid capitalized? Apartheid is universally understood to an era in South Africa. What appears to be insinuated in the Crime of apartheid, as such lowercase, not uppercase on apartheid. If the article were to concern Israeli-Apartheid South African relations, then the suggested title might work. The mediation process established the naming format and, as far as I can tell, it was done openly and fairly. So, I won't speak of other options. Support Israel and apartheid, Oppose Israel and Apartheid.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I blame my fat fingers un☯mi 23:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move per the findings at the informal mediation. Users who purposefully boycotted the mediation and now jump in to oppose at the 11th hour are stuffing themselves with sour grapes, IMO. Doubly so those who have sought by hook or by crook to delete the article outright over the years. Tarc (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move per mediation consensus, but to the lowercase Israel and apartheid, as Labattblueboy suggested. ← George ^talk 22:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. And by that I meant, I have changed the proposed title to reflect the capitalization issue. un☯mi 23:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move. I don't love Israel and apartheid as a title, but the current title is an abomination. "The apartheid analogy"? Seriously? What does that even mean? john k (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Move As a participant in the Mediation case, I came to agree with the reasons given there why the current title is inadequate.     ←   ZScarpia   01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Malik, Wikifan. Controversial, POV push move. Current title long-standing from debate among much larger pool of editors. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This Seems to have been the discussion forming the basis to the move to this title, if so, it involved 15 editors and a significantly smaller consensus for the move than the one we just had. un☯mi 04:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Malik Shabazz.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Move - I opposed the original move to "Israel and the apartheid analogy" and always thought it a little weaselish. "Israel and apartheid" may not be perfect either but it's more straightforward and just as NPOV in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Move The existing title violates NPOV policy by implying that official reports regarding Bantustanization;,deprivation of human rights; and allegations of crimes against humanity are trivial analogies. harlan (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's anything "trivial" about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Move/Support - the proposed title is better than the status quo, NPOV and clear. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• OFF-WIKI CANVASSING: There has been off-wiki canvassing to this rename discussion to push a pro-Israeli pov:[4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice spot again Supreme Deliciousness. This kind of activity is very disturbing. NickCT (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move - The word "analogy" is very inaccurate and misleading, since many of the sources cited in the article do not describe the relationship between Israel and apartheid as an analogy (e.g. those sources that assert apartheid is a fact). Some editors opposing the move cite the fact that prior Talk page discussions, involving a larger number of editors, decided on the "analogy" title, but that ignores the fact that (1) consensus can change; and (2) the material added into this article in the past year about the international crime of apartheid (which has nothing to do with an analogy). Finally, in the "oppose" !votes above, I don't see any rational, sensible discussion of the pros/cons of the 2 or 3 candidate titles (such discussion did occur in the Mediation) instead the oppose !votes appear to be based on emotion or sentiment. --Noleander (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What significant changes have been made since the previous calls for a move? the sources (partisan groups, specific individuals, etc..) "assert" Israel is an apartheid akin to south african apartheid, but this is not demonstrated in the article. The intro switches off from "crime of apartheid" which is apparently independent of South Africa's history, while section 8-end revolve around Israel/South Africa analogies. If we assume for arguments sake the reaction section is removed, there is very little content that supports an "Israel and apartheid" title. "Accusations of apartheid in Israel" or "Collection of people who think Israel is an apartheid and why" are more accurate and suitable titles with the information we have now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments here are WP:Tenditious and WP:Disruptive - you are pointing out that the current title is inaccurate, and you are listing 2 other titles that are more accurate. That is precisely the logic that - 2 months ago - led to the mediation and to the detailed pro/con evaluation of about a dozen candidate titles. You did not participate in that evaluation, and - worse- you are not acknowledging that the evaluation happened. Instead you choose to disrupt the WP dispute resolution process by repeatedly going back to the beginning and starting over. It is contrary to the spirit of consensus-building to re-hash irrational arguments over and over. --Noleander (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It would seem from the comments in this section that there are quite a few others whom you might consider "Tendentious" and "Disruptive," Noleander, because they clearly do not agree with the proposed name change. Are you leading up to a call for a block on them all, expelling them from the discussion? That would of course greatly simplify the discussion.Tempered (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Avi and Malik Shabazz. There is indeed vested political interest in having Israel compared to apartheid South Africa. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 17:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the mediation consensus - going through the debate again to prove consensus is pointless. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Move There is an ARBCOM remedy stating that "Editors of articles concerning apartheid are directed to negotiate in good faith appropriate article names using relevant policies and guidelines. If negotiation is unsuccessful, interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter." (my emphasis). In this instance, discussion of the name stalled here on the talk page, so a mediation was opened in keeping with the ARBCOM remedy. The mediation went on for many weeks and saw a great deal of rational discussion on the name. Editors were required to enter into good faith mediation on the name, however a few chose instead to ignore or boycott the mediation until its discussions had reached a consensus that they did not like, and then protest. These editors have failed to respect the required process. Following the ARBCOM remedy, is clear that the article should now be moved to Israel and apartheid, per the unusually strong consensus of the mediation. If editors continue to have an issue with the name, then they can follow the correct procedure to attempt to form a new consensus to move it again. The existing name cannot stand for the reason made clear and widely agreed in the mediation: it fails to include in its scope the significant content of the article that cannot be described as an analogy, especially the content regarding reliable sources that suggest that Israel may be committting the international crime of apartheid. The new agreed title Israel and apartheid does not have this issue, and it is a neutral title that does not suggest any specific relationship between Israel and apartheid. This is appropriate to this article, the subject of which is a varied public discourse relating Israel to apartheid. Unlike "Israeli apartheid", the agreed title does not imply the existence of apartheid in Israel, which would be inappropriate as there is not a strong enough agreement between reliable sources to imply the existence of apartheid in Israel. Rather, like Race and intelligence, the agreed title describes the subjects of the notable public discourse without inappropriately implying the fact or nature of their relationship. These were the reasons for the move that were discussed at length in the mediation, reasons that those who boycotted the mediation have never engaged with, preferring endless delaying tactics to consensus-building discussion of the pros and cons of title options. That's just not good enough. I urge editors to take account of the process that has been followed, especially the mediation and the reasons discussed in it. Prior to the mediation, I myself took some convincing that there was a problem with the "analogy" title, and it was the laying out of the reasons that convinced me. You have to look at the reasons carefully, this isn't an appropriate topic for a "gut feel" response. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Move per mediation discussion. "Analogy" is a poor cover for legal allegations, but the and avoids violating NPOV. --Carwil (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Move per the mediated consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Apartheid" with no qualifier refers to the practice in South Africa. The proposed title sounds like an article about Israel's approach to South Africa's pre-1990s policies, not an alleged form of these policies occurring in Israel today. The current title isn't exactly great, either, but the new one suggests an article that ain't here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read the mediation on the title and reconsider. Apartheid has two meanings. It refers to racial segregation in general, and is used this way by the United Nations to define the the international crime of apartheid, a crime against humanity. It also refers as you say to the specific historical instance of racial segregation in South Africa, where the name arose. The content of this article doesn't just compare Israel to South African apartheid (an analogy), significant sources suggest that Israel may be commiting the crime of apartheid. This is exactly the reason why the "analogy" title is unsuitable, there is nothing "analogous" about suggestions of a crime against humanity and therefore the "analogy" title unduly deemphasises one aspect of the article, and is therefore not a neutral title like Israel and apartheid is. Please also note that the participants in the mediation considered the ambiguity you mention, and decided that including a disambiguation line at the top of the article to clarify the scope of the article, as is common in many articles, would be sufficient. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, reconsidered. Still opposed. If the the problem were an ambiguous title, fine. This title is not ambiguous; it's misleading. The primary meaning of "apartheid" is the system in South Africa. This article is about ways in which Israel's policies have been compared to apartheid. A hatnote is not sufficient to compensate for a misleading title. And no, I'm not really a fan of the current title, either. I'd prefer something like "How Israel's policies are compared to apartheid" made more concise. As an aside, it really does seem to me informal mediation has been used here in a way inconsistent with how it's supposed to be used in that it is never binding, but some participants here seem to want to treat it as such. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say "This article is about ways in which Israel's policies have been compared to apartheid", you seem to ignore the important point that portions of this article are not about that. They are about ways in which Israel's policies have been suggested to violate the crime of apartheid. That is not an analogy. Further, the word "apartheid" is the word commonly used in the English language and in the sources of this article to denote the general concept of apartheid (as opposed to the South African Apartheid regime). This is a peculiarity of the English langauge, that the word for this specific historical regime and the general concept are the same. For example, the Holocaust can be described as genocide, which is the general term for such crimes against humanity. However, the general term for crimes against humanity such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa is apartheid, which is widely used in this manner by the United Nations, national bodies including South Africa government research body the Human Sciences Research Council, academics, political commentators, journalists, historians, activists, and others. The key point here is that significant sources in this article are not comparing Israel's policy and practice to Apartheid in South Africa. Rather, they are saying that what's happening may be "apartheid", the general term that means racial segregation with various specific characteristics, which is a crime against humanity under international law (without specific reference to the Apartheid regime in South Africa) much as genocide is a crime against humanity (without specific reference to the Holocaust). That is why the "analogy" title is inaccurate, and the best alternative proposed to date is "Israel and apartheid". It's not perfect, but it's better than the current title and alternatives that have been suggested to date. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Avi, Shabazz, Heimstern, nsaum and others have made a variety of legitimate objections. In my view, too, the present title, while not perfect, is far less tendentious and POV than the alternative suggested. The alternative presumes that there is a valid connection between "Israel and apartheid," similar to other "and" links such as "bacon and eggs" (which does not say the two are identical, but grants the propriety of linking them), but precisely this is the debated issue. So the proposed new title prejudges the outcome and weighs in on one side. It was also arrived at after booting out strongly negatively disposed editors. It seems (although I may have missed someone) that only one possible editor remained who disputed the connection alleged in the title; the others accepted it, some with waffling caveats. So the "consensus" arrived at seems to have been already from a selected group tending toward one side only of the topic.Tempered (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The participants in the Mediation discussion rejected the more sensible title, "Israel and the crime of apartheid", on the grounds that editors would (as they now) use the title to exclude information relating to direct comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa, and Israeli policy to specific parts of apartheid. In fact, the current title is accommodating of both of these topics, and this should be politely explained to those editors who remove valid information because they think it doesn't fall under the article's scope. And yes, the current title is a messy Wikipedian construction, but so is "Israel and apartheid". Quigley (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the mediation rejected a move to "Israel and the crime of apartheid", for the very good reason that many of the sources in this article make no reference whatsoever to the crime of apartheid. Conversely, the current title is absolutely not accomodating of discussion of the crime of apartheid - in what way is it an analogy to say that a country may be committing a crime defined by the United Nations? Per WP:NAME, article titles must describe their content. Neither of the titles you've outlined describe all of the content of this article, but Israel and apartheid does. It's also a somewhat more concise and less awkward fomulation that the existing title, even if it's not perfect (nothing is). The importance of the title covering the full scope of the content isn't solely about disagreements about what content can be included, even if Harlan did place a great emphasis on that in the mediation. It's also, more importantly, about neutrality. The title "Israel and the apartheid analogy", by failing to describe the significant sources in the content that suggest that Israel may be committing the crime of apartheid, acts to lesson the emphasis placed upon them by the overall article including the title. This is not a neutral treatment. Israel and apartheid, on the other hand, does not act to emphasise or deemphasise any aspect of the article's content, and thus is clearly a more neutral formulation. I urge you to reconsider the reasons given for the proposed changed, it appears from your post that your reading of the mediation may have emphasised the poorer reasons rather than the better ones. Think of it more in terms of whether the titles fully describes the content, which it must, rather than how it affects editor behaviour, which is a side-effect. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• The way I see it there are a few options here. We can continue to have this incredibly silly title and have an article that focuses on an "analogy" between Israel and Apartheid South Africa (and in that case "apartheid" should be "Apartheid"). If that is the choice then it would be logical to start an article Israel and the crime of apartheid. Sources discussing the crime of apartheid are not making an analogy to Apartheid South Africa, they are accusing, alleging, asserting, whatever word you want to use, that Israel is committing a violation of international law. Such material does not belong in an article on an "analogy". And honestly, an article just on the "analogy" is pretty dumb thing to have.The other option is to use the title Israel and apartheid which will allow for content that makes "analogies" to Apartheid South Africa, and for content the applicability of the conventions on the crime of apartheid and to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, in Israel proper or the occupied territories. I think the latter option is the wiser as it allows for a full range of views on the overall topic. So, support move. To those saying that Israel and apartheid "presumes a valid connection" between the topics, that is a mistaken view. That title presumes that sources discuss apartheid, with multiple meanings, and Israel. nableezy - 05:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move per Ryan's well argued point timestamped 20:03, above. Israel and apartheid is a broader title that encompasses the various aspects we now have here and (contrary to what some claim) doesn't imply anything one way or another. And, to top everything, it was what was agreed in mediation. Consensus doesn't require unanimity (see WP:CONSENSUS). --Dailycare (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move I originally had reservations about the new title, but the discussion above about a disambig note at the top has satisfied me. The current title was always unsatisfactory; the proposed new title, while not my first choice, is much better. RolandR (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

• Oppose. I have not been convinced that any attempt has been made to resolve the differences of opinions, and instaed the mediation was treated as a vote, and this is not how consensus is achieved in Wikipedia. This is evidenced by the statement by the opener of this discussion claiming "13 to 2 consensus". As I stated in the mediation, despite the majority of the mediation participants support the new name, no consensus exists for the new name, and more neutral names such as "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" were rejected without discussion. And it is totally clear from the poll above that there is no consensus despite claims that the mediation was successful. Marokwitz (talk)

If you look through the discussion you will see that the 2 Oppose votes choose to largely not participate. There was voluminous and largely constructive debate prior to the polls. 13 vs 2 consensus is overwhelming by wikipedia standards, I am sure that everyone wished that more people had participated from the get-go rather than jumping in now when it truly is just a vote. un☯mi 13:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Apartheid was a crime against humanity here in South Africa. No matter what Israel is doing, it does not come close to what happened. Either the pro-Palestinians don't know what apartheid was, or don't care. --Luckymelon (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Apartheid (with a lower-case 'a') is also a crime under international law, and I find it rather hard to believe that Desmond Tutu, fr'ex, would either not know or not care what South African Apartheid was. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• this guy actually helped topple the apartheid and has rejected the israel-is-an-apartheid movement. Regardless, we need to avoid fallacies when justifying content. Stick with policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per reconsidered Heimstern. I was not notified of the mediation, and don't consider it relevant either. --Shuki (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Article scope wording

Per the mediation outcomes I have added an initial phrasing for the disambiguation line. It was lifted directly from the suggestion of an editor and should not be taken to be a consensus wording just yet. Please feel free to propose alternative wordings below or edit the passage directly. un☯mi 01:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of putting it in a {{dablink}} template, for consistency with other articles. --Ludwigs2 02:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about claims that Israel is practicing a form of apartheid

Can someone please justify this edit? I have yet to see an article with such an obnoxious and POV note. Israel's foreign policy is a totally different issue and the inference that Israel's relationship with apartheid South Africa is somehow part or inspired by Israeli racism is original research on the part of editors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Because once you and your wiki-comrades stop stonewalling and obstructing the article title move, a dablink would be useful to the reader to locate similarly-worded topic titles. It's not rocket science. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, can you please justify the edit? A dablink with such loaded languages is simply unwarranted. Just because the mediation failed and the title change dispute is still on-going does not mean we start the article with false and dishonest subheadings. Israel's foreign policy with apartheid south africa has nothing to do with the apartheid analogy. It is original research, plain and simple. We cannot make inferences. The note itself is dishonest because it implies Israel supported South Africa's "apartheid" in the sense that it supported and expressed solidarity with its racist government. Again, an inference made by editors and also not predicated on what reliable sources tell us. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan - rather than turning it into an issue of deletion, what you you like the dablink to say? a disambiguation would be useful to clarify the article's scope, regardless of what the eventual title turns out to be. or do you disagree? --Ludwigs2 03:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than assuming a dablink is required, why not prove its necessity? The dablink is clearly a substitute for the title that many editors want (Israel and apartheid). That failed, so hey, let's paint the article with a loaded and biased heading in the intro! Can you please direct me to another wikipedia article with a similar heading? In any case, the last line is complete and total OR. Editors have taken it upon themselves to connect Israel's relationship with apartheid south africa as inspired by racism, and this somehow lends credence to the article's overall theme. Sorry, foreign policy itself has nothing to do with domestic policy. USA supports and arms Saudi Arabia - is the United States a racist, Islamic dictatorship? No. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the intention was to link them per se, merely to offer the casual reader a link to the article they might have been looking for, that is the use case for dablink, the wording was not final and if you took objection to it you could simply have engaged in normal editing behavior and changed it. un☯mi 04:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? This is an encyclopedia, editors cannot take it upon themselves to offer a "casual reader" a link. I'm still hoping one of you here can explain and justify the necessity of such an obnoxious tag that sits on top of the article and has zero to do with the apartheid analogy. Referencing Israel's historic foreign policy is nothing short of bogus, really people. It goes beyond original research. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, disambiguation lines are a normal and conventional way to clarify article topics and redirect people to related issues. Editors can (and do, and should) take it upon themselves to do anything that will help a reader understand the topic better or find information they are looking for more quickly.

I understand your tactic, of course: you really want to see the article deleted and salted, and so you are strongly resisting anything which might be seen as an article improvement, because that reduces the likelihood that you will succeed in getting it destroyed. That is the wrong way to approach this issue, and I cannot respect you for it. Stop trying to get in the way of everything, and start trying to make the article better, and this problem will resolve itself quickly. --Ludwigs2 20:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, you really need to stop with the name-calling. Instead of reverting to the classic "zionist conspiracy" canard, focus on my argument instead: The huge heading at the top was written buy fellow editors without regard to policy because they are upset that the article's title has not been changed. You and others have yet to cite any sort of policy that supports such statements. The heading is dishonest: This article is not about claims that Israel is practicing a form of apartheid, the article is about allegations Israel practices a form of a apartheid while others disagree. I could just as easily write my own sub-heading that said "This article is about claims that Israel is not practicing a form of apartheid" because a quarter of the article is about notable people who cannot draw analogies between Israel and Apartheid South Africa. The second sentence about Israel's relationship with apartheid South Africa is just bogus. It has nothing to do with the theme of the article, it was inserted by an editor. In the least that must be removed. I'm really sorry many editors have been afraid to touch the article for fear of being accused of destroying it, or hunted by its protectors - but I'm not here to destroy your precious. I want to see an article that is consistent with wikipedia standards and hope editors, regardless of their POV, would be willing to embrace the flaws of the article and try to correct them instead of attacking any editor that points them out and wants to see some changes, hopefully with a consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by the classic "zionist conspiracy" canard, and I don't think I care to know. There are plenty of grounds under policy for using a disambiguation link, and plenty of examples of them being used effectively on other pages. Whether or not the article title gets changed, a disambiguation line would be useful, since the entire dispute is about ambiguities in the meaning of the title. My objection to your behavior is not name-calling - you are being purely and maliciously obstructionist. If you had any interest whatsoever in the development of the page, you'd stop trying to edit war the dablink away and start trying to edit it to make a clear statement about what the article does and does not cover. The fact that you are only interested in deleting it, and only interested in arguing against it, tells me that you are not interested in the development of the article but are using the page to wage some personal war (be it over an ideological position or mere egocentric nonsense - don't know which; don't care). again, I ask you to stop it. wikipedia has no room for people who are not interested in working cooperatively with others. understood? --Ludwigs2 01:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"You are being purely and maliciously obstructionist." Do we need to take this discussion to wikipedia civil board? I've been more than explicit about what I see wrong with the article and how we can improve it, for years content remained in the article that had nothing to do with the article and yet no one here made an attempt to fix it, including you. Here I am, proposing a fair and balanced solution and I'm not one not interesting in working cooperatively with others? It seems you are incapable of accepting edits that are not consistent with the years of mob-rule in this article. Now I have some time to promote policy rather than personal agenda (as much of this article is predicated on user-bias, inventing their own rules and designing bloated and large paragraphs). Please pay attention to what I am saying Ludwig rather than demonizing my status as an editor. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be amusing. please feel free to take it wherever you like, and in the meantime I will gather a list of diffs supporting the statement. That is not a battle you will win.

Now, since I seemed to have missed it, what precisely are you referring to when you say: "Here I am, proposing a fair and balanced solution..." I'm all for that, and if you can convince me that your solution is actually fair and balanced I'll be entirely behind you. Keep in mind I made my first edit to this article yesterday, and never heard of it prior to the mediation, and don't have any interest in the subject except that it gets a balanced encyclopedic treatment. what are you proposing, and why is it better than what's here? --Ludwigs2 03:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been explicit, you have yet to provide a rationale supporting the editor-designed "note". [Numerous editors including an administrator with me. Do I need to spell it out? The note was designed by editors who are upset the move hasn't passed. There is no precedent and policy to support its conclusion. Just because it was mentioned in mediation doesn't change the facts. We can debate the first sentence, but the mention of Israel's relationship with apartheid south africa is 100% irrelevant and has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with the article. An editor decided to insert this factoid to promote a philosophy independent of the article and guidelines. I'd appreciate it you stopped attacking my character, you've inferred my presence here is to "destroy" the article and swore at me numerous times during the mediation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

First: I agree with you - I don't think an explicit link to South African Apartheid is needed. I actually rewrote the dablink and removed it, though no one seems to have noticed.

Second: You're just plain wrong about precedent and policy - dablinks are used all over wikipedia to clarify things. I'm not attached to any particular wording, but from what I've seen here this issue definitely needs clarifying. I'm having a hard time understanding why you are rejecting it out of hand this way, with zero discussion. This has nothing to do with the mediation, it's just a good idea (or at least an idea worth considering).

Third (and most important): I did not ask you about why the dablink should be removed. I asked you to tell me what your proposed "fair and balanced" solution is. If you actually have one, please tell me specifically what it is so that we can discuss it. I'm willing to work with any good idea. however, if you refuse to tell me what this 'fair and balanced' proposal is, I'll be forced to presume that you don't really have one, but are just talking through your hat. So if you have a proposal, spell it out please. --Ludwigs2 04:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

P.s.: I don't care about your character any more than I care about my own. I am (put simply) brutally honest about what I see, both in myself and in others; If you don't want to experience the 'brutal' part of that, please don't put me in a position where I have to explain to you why what you're doing is wrong. because I will. --Ludwigs2 04:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If editors on wikipedia had a right to be "brutally honest" I'm sure the majority of users in the Israel/Palestine area would be topic banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

1. being 'brutally honest' is quite a bit different than being brutal for other reasons
2. getting a number of editors here topic banned would probably be of great service to the encyclopedia
3. you once again failed to answer my question

So, I'll ask the question one last time: What is this 'fair and balanced proposal' that you have made? please explain it so that we can discuss it. Nota Bene: If you refuse to explain it this third time, I will take that as proof that you are lying in order to confuse and obstruct the discussion, and the next time you use the tactic I will point out this thread to an administrator and ask to have you sanctioned for tendentious editing. do we understand each other? If you have an idea for progressing beyond this dispute I want to hear it; If you don't, quit lying just to screw things up. --Ludwigs2 16:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Read my comment again. I asked for you to justify the note that you or someone else as an editor wrote up without regard to policy. My proposal was a strong delete, which is more than fair, but in the least the reference to Israel's political with apartheid south africa must be removed because it is irrelevant to the article. The note itself wasn't balanced, removing it creates balance. Or perhaps editors should write up their own note that says: "This article is about claims that Israel did not practice apartheid..." because that would be just as accurate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hate to throw a spanner into the works but

... I'm not really all that keen on "Israel and apartheid" as a title either. Can someone explain why this article cannot simply be named "Israeli apartheid debate" - a format that is used for dozens of other articles on contentious topics? Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I woujld like that, if the article was a collection of pros and cons, support and oppose, etc. Instead, more than half the article consists of individuals accusing Israel of being an apartheid - and the evidence is redundant. I would like to see most of the blatant OR and reliance on non-notable figures to be cut down or eliminated entirely, while Israel's specific policies towards the Palestinians needs to be fleshed out, supported by individual and scholarly research. Editors have taken it upon themselves to enumerate every human in history that says Israel is an apartheid, even categorizing them by their ethnicity, identity, job-title, etc. Meanwhile, the opposing side is given little representation at all and is couched at the bottom of the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, okay, but they are content issues and don't relate to the question of the best name for the article. In my experience though, getting the article title right helps to give the content an appropriate focus, and I don't see why that shouldn't also be the case for this article. Gatoclass (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As an admin do you not see the connection between the title of an article and its content? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I said I do see a connection - in that a correctly named article helps focus content. You were complaining that the article was too much a list of names using the word "apartheid" in relation to Israel, rather than a discussion of the evidence, and you may well have a point there. My point was that giving the article a more appropriate name, like "Israeli apartheid debate", should help the article become more focussed in just the way you have suggested. Gatoclass (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This attack has been tried and tried again over the years, most notably by Zeq coincidentally enough. You ready "Israel and apartheid" in the title as it is making a conclusion that Israeli apartheid is a proven fact. It doesn't do that. Remember verifiability, not truth; all this or any other Wikipedia article is here for is to reflect what reliable sources say, not to make conclusions or to "prove" something. Tarc (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't go off on a tangent. Gato is proposing a title that simply isn't consistent with the source material. More than half the article consists of various individuals groups stating Israel is not/is an apartheid state akin to South Africa's apartheid. Very little information is actually devoted to enumerating specific south african apartheid policies and comparing them to israel (though many scholars have made explicit comparisons but they are not referenced in the article). I've sarcastically proposed changing the title to "People who think Israel is an apartheid state" but in reality it would still be more accurate than "Israel and apartheid." Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a tangent, it is pointing out that what we are discussing here is "Israel and apartheid"; no conclusions should be made or drawn from the title. That is all. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a tangent - don't dodge the main issue here. I am discussing the fact that the content in the article does not support the proposed title, "Israel and apartheid" or "Israel apartheid." That is all. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And I disagree with that assessment completely. As I have said before, I do not believe someone who has actively sought to delete the article can be a good-faith contributor to it, so I rally do not put much stock in your assessment. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Way to make the issue personal. My reasoning is sound and concrete - all you can do is attack me, and assume bad faith of course. My concern is policy, the fact that I sent this article to AFD years ago does not somehow negate the validity of my statements. Feel free to respond to my original, unchallenged arguments. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your suggestion would also be better than either the current title or Israel and apartheid, which may imply an article about Israel's relationship with apartheid South Africa. Nonetheless, my current feeling is "anything is better than the current title." john k (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We can move the article to "Israel and apartheid" as per the mediation outcome, and then anyone who wishes can start the process again to discuss other name options. I can see an immediate issue with "Israeli apartheid debate" in that it implies a disagreement between opposed advocates, whereas many of the sources can't be described this way (e.g. John Dugard and the ICSPA are not involved in a "debate"). Another considered discussion would be needed to consider other options like this one, and that can happen, but first we need to complete the appropriate process we've followed regarding the options discussed to date. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. The present title is a compromise. The original title was "Israeli Apartheid". After years of debate, several arbitrations, a desysop, and some topic bans, we ended up with the present title. I'm inclined to not change it, simply because of the headaches. --John Nagle (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a terrible reason. ;-) Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but an understandable one.

I should add a bit more context to Nagle's remarks, for the benefit of readers who weren't involved in this discussion two years ago. When the article was created (in 2006, if memory serves), it was indeed called "Israeli Apartheid." That title didn't stand for long. After a period of intense discussion (and more than a few afds), the truly horrible title, "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," was chosen in its place. I don't think anyone really believed this was an encyclopedic title, but a general impasse in dialogue prevented change from taking place. The low point in this sad episode of Wiki-history probably came in 2007, when some editors created a series of dubious "Allegations of [possessive case for country x] Apartheid" in an apparent attempt to undermine this article.

In 2008, I initiated the process that the led to the article being accepted under its present name. I recognize that "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is an imperfect title, but it was a clear improvement on the previous ordo rerum and was probably the best name that could have attained anything like consensus at the time. I don't regret my decision.

As things stand now, I'm not against changing the title to "Israel and apartheid" or to "Israeli apartheid debate." I suspect there won't be a clear consensus for either move, and I'm not inclined to invest too much energy in the matter. Whatever the flaws of the current title, it basically conveys its subject matter in a clear and straightforward manner; I don't think there's the same urgent need for change as there was the last time around.

I can't rule out the possibility that someone involved this discussion will come up with a title that all (or basically all) participants can accept, but the track record on this front isn't inspiring. It's also possible that a transformative change in the actual Israel-Palestine dispute could help resolve our discussion, but there's no guarantee of that either. 131.104.85.72 (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This article degrades what apartheid really was

Here in South Africa, apartheid was a disgusting racist crime against humanity. To use claim that Israel is practicing apartheid is to disregard what apartheid really was and water it down. The Palestinians are not treated anywhere near to how black people were discriminated by white people for decades. This article is an example why some people don't take Wikipedia seriously. It merely seems like an anti-Israel piece better put in some blog. --Luckymelon (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. Now go and tell Desmond Tutu that he is "degrading what apartheid really was". RolandR (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing. No one cares if the article "degrades" what apartheid really was. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

With all those walls and barriers, evictions, and occupation, settler violence, Palestinians are treated even worth. All proofs are in the article. The article is not-biased, since the opposite views (Israel is not apartheid) are also stated.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 00:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I know he says this, it's embarrassing to us and misleading. Wikifan, if you witnessed apartheid segregation first hand, you would not talk like that. I don't think this is soapboxing, it's a concern I have with this article and the encyclopedia. --Luckymelon (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Luckymelon. Thats why I argue this page's points should merged with the "racism in Israel" article, because much of the stuff on that page is the same as here, and after all, this page's material is part of the debate, which it is. There is no full page for a "Palestinians and the Nazi Analogy" despite the huge amount of anti-Semitic stuff in their media and society and the history of Al-Husseini, there is no "Putin and the Communist analogy," or for that matter, a "Bush and the Fascist Analogy" despite that those three comparisons have been made just as widely in media. Also, most of the stuff in this page is people saying the same thing, or opinion and it is overly long. The comparison is only accepted as valid on one side, and in political circles elsewhereTallicfan20 (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources have compared "Palestinians" to Nazis? There simply aren't any. Your attempted analogy is unpersuasive to say the least. Gatoclass (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't going anywhere so better we try and improve it rather than forcing a deletionist agenda. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Luckymelon, it states at the top of this page that This is not a forum for general discussion of Israel and the apartheid analogy. You are entitled to your own personal opinion about whether or not the analogy is valid, but article content is determined not by the personal opinions of editors but by what reliable sources have to say on the topic, and whether you agree with them or not, it's clear there are many reliable sources who have made the analogy or discussed its relevance to the situation in Israel and the occupied territories. Gatoclass (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Luckymelon, you have identified the main problem with the current title of the article. I doubt that you or the others can supply a published source which says the crime of apartheid is only applicable to South Africa.

The United Nations decided that apartheid was a crime against humanity, and that the "crime of apartheid" is a general denomination crime[5] that does not have a specific geographical limitation to South Africa. The original convention used the term "Southern Africa", and included practices similar to those of the other racist regimes in the region. For example, the ICERD contained the first prohibition of apartheid in international law. The CERD panel of experts observed that the Portuguese government had adopted policies and practices that were not in compliance with the convention, including a publicly announced national objective of keeping Angola and Mozambique under white domination.[6] The United Nations also refused to recognize the establishment of the racist regime in Rhodesia, e.g. [7]

During the MEDCAB, it was established that the current title violates NPOV policy. Much of the content is derived from sources that are discussing the crime of apartheid, including several authors who explain that they are NOT making comparisons to South Africa. e.g. [8] Here are some of the relevant facts that were discussed:

• Published sources included in the article say that the various international conventions constitute the only applicable legal standards used in determining if state practices constitute the crime of apartheid, not casual comparisons to South Africa. e.g. [9] [10]
• The "crime of apartheid" is a legal formulation, not an analogy to South Africa. Several sources used in this article point out that it is generally agreed that the criminal offense includes constituent acts that were not practiced by the government of South Africa. See for example page 17 of the HSRC study [11]
• UN Special Rapporteurs, with legal mandates, have conducted fact finding missions that reported on serious violations of international law, including the crime of apartheid, and reliable public reports that Israel is pursuing a policy of Bantustanization that creates isolated enclaves.
• The government of Israel has been charged with the crime of apartheid in national and international court cases.
• Constituent acts of the crime of apartheid are listed in Article 2 of the apartheid convention. Article 3 of the convention provides that international criminal responsibility applies irrespective of the motive involved. It is irrelevant if the motives involved are analogous to those of South Africa.

If the current title isn't changed, then all of that material is going to end up in a non-intersection article about Israel and the crime of apartheid. harlan (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, has the state of Israel been placed on trial for practicing apartheid? Is there a binding-UN resolution that claims Israel of being an apartheid and provides methods of enforcing a change? UN-appointed "special" administrators are not authoritative sources. "Charges" of apartheid are akin to allegations or criticism. No serious government has claimed Israel is an apartheid, in fact th EU has made it clear any claims Israel is racist is antisemitic under the working definition of antisemitism. Nod50 and Balid are not reliable sources nor do they represent international consensus - reliance on fringe references seem to be quite common in your edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, it could be argued with equal force that South Africa was never placed on trial for the crime of apartheid. The credentials and qualifications of the authors of those articles at Badil and Nod50 are the only thing that matters, not the organization that hosts the content. If you want to try your hand at discrediting those published sources at the fringe theory noticeboard, be my guest. There were about a dozen states that submitted written statements in the Wall case which said the construction of the wall and the resulting situation either amounted to Bantustanization or corresponded to constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The Supreme Court of Israel said that the ICJ based its findings of fact on the reports of two UN Rapporteurs who had specifically described the barrier as an apartheid fence; outlined public reports of a deliberate policy of Bantustanization; and described the use of curfews to imprison Palestinians in their own homes as an obscenity and collective punishment.

Palestine said that Israel's violations of the applicable international conventions gives rise to criminal responsibility and devoted an entire chapter in its written statement to the crime of apartheid. The ICJ found that the wall and the associated regime were illegal and that Israel could not cite its own security to preclude the wrongfulness of its actions. The Court also noted that in their written and oral statements many participants in the proceedings before the Court contended Israel is under an obligation to search for and bring before its courts persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, grave breaches of international humanitarian law flowing from the planning, construction and use of the wall (paragraphs 144-45). The Arab League's Independent Fact Finding Commission incorporated the Wall case in a report on the the situation in Palestine that it referred to the ICC Prosecutor. harlan (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Tl;dr, The SCI did not rule the security barrier was inspired by racism. No international body or mainstream consensus has concluded Israel is an apartheid. Token UN observers that are appointed by the UNGA are not authoritative, and non-binding IJC resolutions are meaningless. South Africa's apartheid was recognized by the international community, the US congress passed sanctions crippling the economy. With Israel, the US and European Union have yet to subscribe to the apartheid analogy, and have even passed laws condemning accusations of racism as antisemitism (whether that's true or not isn't part of the dispute). And yeah, balid and nodo50 (spanish-based) are not reliable sources at all. The rest of your comment is OR. You are inventing your own methodology, I must say your mentioning of the Arab League "fact finding commission" is laughable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

thing at the top of the article

at the top of the article, someone put "This article covers assertions that Israel may have violated the UN-defined crime of apartheid, and authors who have compared Israeli treatment of Palestinians with the Apartheid system in South Africa." Well duh, can't people read the article? my problem is that before this "caveat," another one tried to claim Israel supported South Africa's internal racial policy. So the thing at the top is in bad faith first, only changed because I pointed it out. I think the current thing at the top is redundant, as people can read the article to see what its about.Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's obnoxious and no policy supports its conclusion. Some editors are butt-hurt over the fact that the move hasn't happened yet, so a tag was placed to emphasize the argument that Israel is an apartheid state, even referencing Israel's relationship with apartheid south africa as if it somehow relates to the analogy (PS: it doesn't). I really don't have a problem with a tag, but it should be supported by policy and not user bias. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no point in the addition. Gatoclass (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dudes - you all have been complaining that the title is ambiguous and unclear. now you are complaining when we try to add a disambiguation line to make the title clearer - is there anything under the face of the sun that you would actually agree to, or are you simply going to continue to blindly revert any and all changes?

I've requested a page lock over this edit-warring. a couple of weeks to talk things out here should suffice. --Ludwigs2 02:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The intro is there to introduce the topic. Adding a hatnote which attempts to do the same thing is obviously redundant. Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why is there so much dispute about the article title? can't have it both ways... --Ludwigs2 03:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the definition of the crime of apartheid was deleted from the lede by an editor who claims this article is about the analogy, not the crime of apartheid.[12] There never has been a published or agreed-upon definition of "the apartheid analogy" in the lede either. If editors and readers swear those are separate subjects, then surely some form of disambiguation or definition is required. harlan (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of the crime of apartheid belongs in crime of apartheid. The section had nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Has Israel been accused of committing the crime of apartheid with respect to the Palestinians? --Ludwigs2 05:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's cut through the hasbara. Yes Israel has been repeatedly and officially charged with the crime of apartheid in both the Israeli courts and in the ICJ Wall case. If that material is going to be in this article, the lede needs to define the "apartheid analogy" and "the crime of apartheid". The two are clearly not synonymous. harlan (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, please allow Wikifan to answer the question for himself. you may see this as hasbara (whatever the hell that is), but until wikifan explains for himself what he thinks we will not be able to resolve this issue. it will just keep going around and around. look at the debate - it's just one deflection after another; every time I ask wikifan about X he responds with something about Y; when I ask about Y he responds with something about Z. We can chase him around that circle endlessly and never get anywhere. It's time to get him to say what he thinks, and assuming he has any thought in his head beyond contradicting everyone else, we stand a chance of pinning him down to actual discussion points. wouldn't that be cool? so please: let him answer for himself. --Ludwigs2 06:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comprehension Harlan. The section of "Crime of Apartheid" had nothing to do with Israel or South Africa. The IJC case and Israel Supreme court issues (both of which you misrepresented) were not mentioned in the section either. The fact that Israel is "charged" with racism doesn't matter. Israel has been charged with committing or being complicit in the 9/11 attacks, baking the blood of Arabs into matzo, and forcing Muslims to detonate their children because its existence is so offensive. But I digress - the section had nothing, nothing, nothing, and oh yeah, nothing to do with Israel and the apartheid analogy. The article is bloated enough, readers don't need a background check on crime of apartheid, that can be found at the pertinent article. I love being accused of "promoting hasbara" as if this Harlan has been victimized by muscular Zionists. Have some self-respect harlan, there is no conspiracy. If this really irks you I suggest you make a new section because this one is about the dblink. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan I didn't say I had been victimized by hasbara, I said lets dispense with it. The fellowship's talking points don't cover the crime of apartheid, just the analogy.

I was waiting for the results of the MEDCAB before putting all of the information about the court cases into an article. "The apartheid analogy" is irrelevant to formal court proceedings involving charges of the crime of apartheid, so that material won't be coming to an article by that name any time soon. There are a number of people on the talk page who are trying to generate drama in order to demand that other editors agree to publicly trivialize official reports of crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid. Realistically, that just isn't going to happen on Wikipedia. harlan (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why there needs to be a definition of the crime of apartheid in the intro. The intro has prominent links to both "apartheid" and the crime of apartheid, so anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with these topics need only click on the links. "Crime of apartheid" is also only one facet of the debate, so adding it to the intro in this way lays undue emphasis on this aspect. I noticed that another user added the disputed text to the body of the article, and that seems sufficient to me. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the editor in the diff said this article isn't even about the crime of apartheid. You didn't mention the total absence of a cite in the lede to a published definition of the so-called topic of this article - "the apartheid analogy". This talk page is perpetually filled with posts from editors who claim that Israel is not an apartheid state, and that "the apartheid analogy" is only a publicity campaign designed to delegitimize Israel. Therefore, the "crime of apartheid" and "the apartheid analogy" are entirely different topics to like minded readers and editors. If that is the case, they should not even be in the same article, e.g. Holocaust and Holocaust Denial. harlan (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I suggest you make a section to promote your complaints rather than hijack this dispute. I agree with Gatoclass that the section was unnecessary. Even if the title were to be changed to "Israel and apartheid" the "crime of apartheid" background just adds more drama to an already biased article. Unless that "crime of apartheid" somehow has references to israel in a meaningful way, there is no support for its presence in the article. Also, can you please link me the source where the Israeli supreme court declared israel's security barrier as an example of apartheid, inspired by racism and ant-arab hatred? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there was no place for discussion of the crime of apartheid in relation to Israel in this article, I simply said we don't need a definition of the crime of apartheid in the intro. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass I assume there needs to be a definition of the topic of the article in the lede. According to many of the editors here on the talk page, and a multitude of Zionist websites, "the apartheid analogy" is an organized publicity campaign to delegitimize Israel. You cannot ask other editors to trivialize formal criminal charges and official reports of crimes authored by treaty bodies by accepting an article title that labels everything a publicity stunt without offering the readers some explanation. harlan (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, if we don't know what this article is about, that's a serious problem. If this article discusses viewpoints that link the 'crime of apartheid' with Israel, then obviously we do need a definition of 'crime of apartheid' in the lead. If the article does not discuss such viewpoints, then we may or may not need a definition (depending on whether we need to disambiguate the issue from other issues). so which is it? --Ludwigs2 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is, and should be, both about the suggestions that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid and comparisons to the historical Apartheid regime in South Africa. The reason that both of these notable subjects should be discussed in the same place is that similar reasoning is used by sources in regard to both subjects. Any given source may both compare specific actions of Israel to specific actions of South Africa during Apartheid, and also suggest that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, and two different sources may cover the two different points but use the same examples of Israeli actions to do so. If we were to make a separate article called Israel and the crime of apartheid that would be a valid content fork, however there would be a lot of redundancy between that article and one solely about comparisons to Apartheid in South Africa. This was discussed in the mediation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

merge with "Racism in Israel"

I say that this article should be merged into a "racism in Israel" article, because much of the stuff on that page is the same as here, and after all, this page's material is part of the debate, which it is. There is no full page for a "Palestinians and the Nazi Analogy" despite the huge amount of anti-Semitic stuff in their media and society and the history of Al-Husseini, there is no "Putin and the Communist analogy," or for that matter, a "Bush and the Fascist Analogy" despite that those three comparisons have been made just as widely in media. Also, most of the stuff in this page is people saying the same thing, or opinion and it is overly long. The comparison is only accepted as valid on one side, and in political circles elsewhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallicfan20 (talk • contribs)

This was just suggested a few weeks ago. Racism is a much broader topic, while the apartheid issue is specific to charges that Jews and Palestinians are treated differently by the state. Don't get hung up on the "analogy" part of the article title, as that will likely be going away once the requested move discussion is completed. But if for some reason it remains, making WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments will not get you very far. Recall that a few years ago, a bunch of partisan warriors tried to water this article down by creating a dozen "Country X and the apartheid analogy". IIRC, all the articles were deleted, redirected, or renamed, and the offending editors sanctioned heavily. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)