Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Israeli apartheid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

"Consensus" lead

The lead should fairly characterise the views of both sides. One of the similarities between Israel and South Africa, as conceived by those who use the term, is that both were colonial states. The comparison is fairly interesting because in both cases land rights are nothing like straightforward. One could bicker over whether Israel is a colony or not, but we are representing the views of both sides, not posting the "truth", whatever we believe it is. Grace Note 03:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's OR to mention colonialism in the lead just because one or two of the quotes attach it to the accusation of apartheid. In fact there seem to be colonialism quotes added to this article, which should be removed if they're not directly attached to quotes about apartheid. It seems like many of them are just added to show how much these people hate Israeli policies, rather than to discuss the accusation of apartheid.

By the way, has anyone noticed how noone cares when protestors talk about apartheid and nazis and colonialism at this point? Great way to ruin a legacy of anti-racism, people! Anyways, focus on the first paragraph I just wrote. This was just my own amused rant.--Urthogie 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As per my edit: The rights and privileges are "disparate" not seperate.

disparate \DIS-puh-rit; dis-PAIR-it\, adjective: 1. Fundamentally different or distinct in quality or kind. 2. Composed of or including markedly dissimilar elements.

The term "separation" refers to physical separation/apartheid. This should also be included in the lead, since the allegations refer to disparate rights AND physical separation of the two groups impose largely by Israel. (i.e. the wall, etc.)

I have tried to make the lead more accurate. Kritt 06:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was considering that word before; I think it's good for clarifying the meaning, though other improvements may be possible. Mackan79 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Apartheid Banner

Is there a reason we have a list of four countries other than South Africa? The banner seems rather ridiculously POV. Was there a discussion of this that I missed? Mackan79 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because South Africa wasn't allegations. Read the template, allegations is the key word. Apartheid actually happened, today we have allegations and analogies. Feel free to add countries to the template. I know I will.--Urthogie 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the banner is a mess. More importantly, your whole premise here is to distinguish real apartheid from mere allegations. Whether accurate or not, that's clearly one POV. I'm going to remove it for now; I think this needs to be discussed before being thrown into the article. Mackan79 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

South Africa said it was practicing "apartheid". The government gave that name to its own practice, in its own language. In the case of Israel, other people are accusing the government not only of practicing similar things, but they are using a word imported from another time, place and language to do it. I would say that is a legitimate distinction. 6SJ7 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is real, I agree. The question is whether it's neutral to make it the premise for a banner at the top of the page. My longstanding problem is making this kind of statement indirectly. If we want to say that this is an important distinction, then I think we should state that clearly, not make it the premise for a banner that's included to illustrate it. Mackan79 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If the distinction between apartheid-era South Africa and current-day Israel were properly made, this article would not even exist. 6SJ7 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, banners that hold lists always go at the top of pages if there is only one. There is therefore no NPOV issue because it's a useful list of related pages, and no style issue because of the traditional way banners are placed. Noone ever got mad at me on hip hop music, yknow? If you insist on adding the content of the banner to the article explicitly, I say go ahead, I'd like that very much. Then again, would it not be kind of retarded to have such redundant information? I like the tidy little template more. Feel free as a bird to make that thing look better. But please don't try to hide it, because it's completely in line with Wikipedia practices and policies. --Urthogie 16:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The banner 1. editorializes, and 2. defaces the article. Both of these are POV issues. Also, banners don't always go at the top, see Anti-Zionism. As far as the helpfulness of the list, I don't think it helps show your good faith when the first article, which you recently (today) created, starts off "Some go so far as to allege that there is racial apartheid in Australia." I'm sorry, but is this really the best you can do to respect WP:NPOV? Beyond that, I'll await further comment. Mackan79 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't editorialize. I used the same method for deciding to create it as is used in any other info box. Info boxes go at the tops of article on the right, usually, so point number 2 is also invalid. Also, the banner on anti-Zionism is at the bottom because the word anti-Semitism isn't in the title of the article. It's a subsection that's part of the series, not the article itself. This ENTIRE article, not just this section, is part of an obvious series of allegations of apartheid. Check the title.--Urthogie 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A series that you created today for the purpose of placing this banner? If you want to play games, we could of course create a very nice big banner here on Allegations of Apartheid, with links to all related articles. Primary articles could include Apartheid, Crime of Apartheid, Allegations of Apartheid, with all of the secondary articles you list here. Is this something you would support? Personally, I would not, for reasons that I would hope you'd see. Mackan79 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, think logically. Are Apartheid and Crime of Apartheid equivelant to, or a subset of Allegations of Apartheid? No, of course not. Info boes aren't based on going up a category. The info box on anarchism doesn't have links to Hobbes's work, despite the fact that they're both political philosophy.--Urthogie 18:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking at. Anarcho-capitalism, Christian_anarchism, Collectivist_anarchism, etc., all have a large banner on Anarchism, as do Anarchism_and_religion, Anarchism_in_Austria, Anarchism_in_Sweden, etc. The banner contains all aspects of Anarchism, as would be most helpful to a person researching the topic. So would you approve or disapprove of something similar here? My feeling is that these banners are much less appropriate on sensitive topics where they look like editorializing. I'd appreciate it if you took this seriously, or if others would offer their opinion. Mackan79 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, the anarchism template proves my point exactly-- Every single title is a subset of anarchism. This is specifically what I made clear about info boxes earlier, and repeating my point for me doesn't really accomplish anything for this discussion. Everything is in the realm of anarchism on that info box. Not political philosophy, but anarchsm. The same paradigm holds logically true for this template, as well-- everything invovled deals with allegations of apartheid. It would be just as much of a complete non sequitor to "play games" by adding Crimes of apartheid to this info box as it would be to add a link to Hobbes's political philosophy to anarchy's info box.

You are yet to shed any light on how this box editorializes in any way whatsoever. Is it a POV that these are allegations of anti-semitism? Sensitive topics which are this large tend to have one box or another, grouping them with other topics. If you view it as normalizing the accusation, I might ask why you don't say the same thing about the anti-semitism infobox. (Aren't we "editorializing" by showing how prevalent anti-semitism is? Perhaps the info box should be removed from every single page??)--Urthogie 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that Anarchism in Austria belongs to a subset of Anarchism, but Allegations of Israeli Apartheid does not belong to a subset of Apartheid? Mackan79 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not saying that, I'm saying that: Anarchism in Austria belongs to a subset of Anarchism, but Apartheid does not belong to a subset of Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. I've been trying to explain that to you for a while.--Urthogie 19:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Anarchism in Austria has a large infobox on Anarchism. Are you disagreeing with this? I'm suggesting we could equally place a large infobox on this page regarding Apartheid. As far as I can see above, you're agreeing with me, but then adding some other point which doesn't seem applicable. Can you please clarify your position? Mackan79 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support putting an an apartheid template on Allegations of apartheid, but not this page. Seperate templates for seperate levels. Allegations of apartheid now has its own template, so it would be redundant to add its content to a seperate apartheid template.--Urthogie 20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in on the fun, but all this talk of subsets and supersets, going "up" a category or down, is a red herring, and a rather lurid and pongy one at that. The banner is just a clumsy POV-pushing effort. It lists nine countries (well, eight plus the amateurishly bigoted catch-all "Muslim countries"), only three of which actually link to articles, only two of which in turn existed before today, when Urthogie revved up his google engines and found six instances where the word "apartheid" was used in connection with Australia. 6SJ7 is right that there's an important difference between South African apartheid and the system of rule in the occupied territories so unsettlingly reminiscent of it to so many. There's an equally important difference between the South Africa – Palestine parallels, which have been the central subject of numerous books and articles, scholarly and popular, on the one hand, and the ad hoc for-the-nonce metaphorical usages Urthogie is busy collating and building articles around in his effort at well-poisoning, on the other.

There's an argument you want to make: Israel's been accused of apartheid, but so has everyone else. Fine. Just find a source that makes that argument, and we'll include it. The sources critical of the analogy on the whole don't say this, though. In fact by and large they say precisely the opposite: they say Israel is being singled out for special opprobrium. That's a pervasive argument, so it's well-represented here. As far as I know, however, the argument that everyone's been accused of apartheid – where apartheid is everywhere it's nowhere etc. has only been made by Wikipedians. It doesn't belong here, and certainly not in the form of a coy banner.--G-Dett 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes actually are based on categorically grouping concepts. This is not a red herring, but a fact of how things are grouped.
Red links are actually supported on Wikipedia. They allow the encyclopedia to grow.
You are assuming bad faith by attempting to describe my "effort" to POV everything here.
What would you propose we replace "muslim countries" with? The article is "Islamic apartheid". Info is on it in the Allegations of apartheid article.
I didn't use search engines, I just read the above page, and noticed that it was actually POV to only have a page for Israel and Cuba.
I didn't find those sources for Australia, they were already on the Allegations of apartheid page. Please don't lie.
The infobox isn't an "argument." It's completely NPOV, and approaching it as an "argument" is the only red herring in this entire discussion.
Since when the hell are sources required for an infobox? I love the double standards, ey!

Yeah, well double standards aren't allowed. We're keeping this.--Urthogie 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I almost but a merge tag onto Allegations of Australian apartheid until I saw it was less than a day old; I imagined Urthogie has plans to expand it beyond a stub. OTOH, Allegations of apartheid is getting rather long. Cuba is a special case anyway, as the problem there is chiefly about a small handful of tourists, not a more general societal problem, so I'm not sure that belongs in this new template per se -- Kendrick7^talk 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, first of all, sorry for attributing to your personal researches what was in fact culled from that content-dump of an article, Allegations of Apartheid. Now, to your bill of particulars:

I know that infoboxes are "based on categorically grouping concepts," but that doesn't mean their use is therefore by definition NPOV. We could, for example, add an infobox to this page categorically grouping "Crimes under international law associated with the Israeli Occupation." That infobox would, like yours, be a violation of NPOV.

You would need an article called Crimes under international law associated with the Israeli Occupation to do that. We already have an article for Allegations of apartheid.--Urthogie 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a secondary question of whether grouping together every country whose policies someone at some time or another has likened to apartheid creates a compelling, relevant, and self-evidently justifiable "category." I would say it does not. The invocations of "apartheid" raked together in this crude manner vary enormously in number and kind in their different contexts, from ad hoc rhetorical flourishes to extended academic comparisons intended with greater literalness. Take a parallel case. "Ethnic cleansing" originally applied only to the former Yugoslavia. It has since been applied to many contexts. Sometimes the comparison is literal and widely used; other times it's metaphorical and idiosyncratic. The difference is important. You wouldn't create an infobox about "allegations of ethnic cleansing," and list therein the Junjaweed's campaign in Sudan side-by-side with the socioeconomic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, or the gentrification of San Francisco's Mission District, even though all three have been the subject of such "allegations."

First off, notice how not every country is on the template. Only those countries which have significantly large sections on Allegations of apartheid (or which already have large articles of their own) were added to the template. This is not a crude manner, it is a manner reflecting the content on wikipedia, namely, an article entitled Allegations of apartheid. As for "Allegations of ethnic cleansing", that is not comparible to apartheid, because apartheid is named after a specific racist south african policy, while ethnic cleansing is concretely recognizable in some circumstances. "apartheid", in short, is subjective outside of its original home (south africa).--Urthogie 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't propose we replace "Muslim countries" with something else; I propose we get rid of it. It's crude and bigoted. There are 20+ "Muslim countries" comprising a billion+ Muslim people. So far as I know no serious scholar has written about apartheid as a common feature of these.

It's crude and bigoted? Well, you're entitled to your POV, as are the accusers. What would you suggest as an alternative text for the link to the soon to be made Accusations of Islamic apartheid?--Urthogie 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The comparisons with anarchism, Hobbes, etc. are misleading. In such cases there are copious reliable sources linking the topics that we link with our infoboxes. So far as I know there aren't reliable sources linking the discourse of "apartheid" in Israel-Palestine to the discourse of "apartheid"-like conditions in the tourist industry in Cuba, or Brazil, or elsewhere. In this case, the categorical grouping of "related" concepts seems to have been performed by Wikipedians and Wikipedians only.

There are no "sources" for any info box as far as I know of you just made up this concept of sourcing an infobox because you don't like this one. The anarchism info box isn't "sourced", it's just so damn obvious that an article with anarchism in its title fits under anarchism. Same goes here with an article with allegations of apartheid in its title. Also, another point-- the subsets of a given subject's info box don't need to be connected to each other by any given source. If this were the case, you couldn't put Existentialism in a philosophy info box if it hadn't been once linked with Zoroastrianism.--Urthogie 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if you thought or think I'm alleging bad faith on your part. WP:AGF is one thing, WP:NPOV another. Discussions of POV-pushing are pretty routine on contentious talk pages, and aren't usually thought to amount to accusations of bad faith. Everyone has opinions in these areas, and sometimes one has to take a step or three back to see how those opinions are shaping their approach to article content and presentation. All best,--G-Dett 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a good tone to set. Thank you, --Urthogie 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks, the right place to discuss all this (though it may be all the same crowd anyway) is at Allegations of Apartheid. I think the banner would mean splitting that page up into dozens of articles when it has only been so recently unified there so it's pertenent to that article most of all. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you could just create a link from that page to here, since we already have something going on here.--Urthogie 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, what you haven't answered is why you decided the correct infobox here is one which provides the different countries in which Apartheid has been alleged, and yet then nothing about apartheid itself. Your statement about "separate templates for separate levels" is simply nonsensical, as well as inconsistent with the example of Anarchism that you provided. What you're saying here is that all of the United States should link to each other, but shouldn't link to the United States itself, because that's on a different level. Really?

This is the fundamental problem from which the POV is apparent: on a neutral basis, these choices don't make sense. A neutral attempt to give background on this subject would not simply provide other countries where the allegation has been made: it would provide the full information on Apartheid, the crime, the allegations, and everything else. The problem, of course, is that this adds further gravitas to the article, which everybody here is willing to accept is not needed. Equally problematic, though, is what you're attempting to do, which is pick only the information that appears to promote one POV. I say that not as an accusation, but as an objective statement of how it appears to the reader.

Also, you're incorrect again that infoboxes don't have to be sourced. If something is contested as original research, it has to be sourced like anything else. Mackan79 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, you're attacking a straw man. "What you're saying here is that all of the United States should link to each other, but shouldn't link to the United States itself, because that's on a different level. Really?". No, not really. As you can see, this template already does link to Allegations of apartheid, just as you would have the State link to the United States. --Urthogie 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Your second paragraph is barely comprehensible. Please write in clearer english as I can't even follow the logical progression of your thoughts. It might be partially my fault but this paragraph honestly seems to make no logical sense.
Ok, so on to your final point (third paagraph). No, I'm not incorrect to say that infoboxes don't have to be sourced. If they did, then you'd have to consider every info box an "original synthesis" of links.--Urthogie 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See my response below. Regarding the third, though, yes, they are, and are impermissible if they promote a viewpoint. Otherwise, if they're uncontested, they're fine. Mackan79 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we'd need all that in such a template; it does already link to allegations of apartheid which does point the way to all the subtopics of apartheid, and, I would imagine, as the historical etymology of the word becomes less relevant in the coming decades, stands to evolve into the main apartheid article anyway. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid is a redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era, and has been for a while now. It seems somewhat strange that my little template added to an Israel criticism page would spark such a revolutionary change in the structure of Wikipedia's coverage of apartheid. One can't help but feel that such a monumental merger would be out of the scope of this discussion, and more suited for the history of south africa page itself.--Urthogie 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing a merger of anything, I just imagine there will come a point when few people immediately thinks of South Africa when they think of apartheid in much the same way few people immediately thinks of Armenia when they think of genocide. Anyway, Kendrick7 is not a crystal ball. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, nor is Wikipedia.--Urthogie 23:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure the template is necessary at all. I'm simply saying: the assumption of an infobox is that we're providing information that readers are most likely to find useful. That said, would a person ariving at this article actually not be much more likely to want to read more on Apartheid than they would other countries where the phrase has been used? Certainly there's a curiousness to finding out that Australia or Cuba has been accused of Apartheid, but I can't think those are the most notable things people would be looking for.

The reason you say it's not necessary, I'd guess, isn't because you don't think it would be useful, but because you probably recognize it would be too pointed. Surely the information is otherwise useful enough to provide, right? In fact, if Urthogie and I were talking about the Cuba article, I bet we'd both agree that extended links to articles about Apartheid would be useful. Why not?

Anyway, I can't say this is the end of the world for me either way, I just think these things cheapen WP. What we probably need is a better policy on avoiding political use or appearance of templates/categories/etc. Mackan79 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Can you think of any other big article, which has links to its subpages, some of them very big themselves, which have the main article's name in their titles. Can you cite one other example of an article which fit these criteria that doesn't benefit navigationally from having an info box? Perhaps it's your personal POV of the world that makes you think such a template doesn't benefit the article. To me, it is obvious that any educated person should examine how allegations such as apartheid are used today. This doesn't imply a POV. It's possible to think Israel has apartheid and still get some insight on how the word is used from navigating through this handy info box..--Urthogie 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that we should either have a full template or none at all. If you look at Template:Antisemitism or Template:Discrimination sidebar or Template:Anarchism sidebar, you'll see they discuss many issues across many levels and relating to many things. My problem is picking out one group of things which also happens to be an argument from one side. Regardless, you clearly have more energy than me on this issue, so I guess that's to your credit. Mackan79 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are higher level templates. They cover more things because their articles cover more things.--Urthogie 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in infobox/banner debate

Thanks for your point-by-point reply above, Urthogie. May I ask however that in the future you provide a single rebuttal to my posts rather than breaking them up into little pieces? My post was intended to present an integrated set of points, rather than a grab-bag. I also think that interjecting point-by-point rebuttals leads quickly to impasse, in the form of thick, gnarled, weed-like arguments between two people, instead of a vigorous but open debate that anyone can join.

With respect, I think you haven't quite answered the objections raised about the value of this infobox and the NPOV issues it raises. There are, as I said, many ways of "categorically grouping concepts," and some are indeed POV-pushing. Frontloading a "handy" list of all the other countries in which apartheid has been "alleged" is as POV-pushing as frontloading a handy list of all the other crimes Israel has been accused of. Now, you keep saying that infoboxes don't need reliable sources. This is true but only in the trivial sense; we don't, that is, include footnotes for infoboxes. The conceptual groupings they endorse, however, should be ones that are important to – or at the very least ones that have occurred to – the reliable sources that provide us with our understanding of the topic in the first place. Infoboxes are not little free zones where WP:NOR doesn't apply, where Wikipedians get to present their own idiosyncratic conceptual frameworks for the material at hand.

You rather breezily waved aside my point about the parallel case of "ethnic cleansing, saying that it's "not comparible to apartheid, because apartheid is named after a specific racist south african policy, while ethnic cleansing is concretely recognizable in some circumstances. 'apartheid', in short, is subjective outside of its original home (south africa)." I think this won't do, and if you don't mind I'm going to return to it and press you a little. Ethnic "cleansing" is a loanword from Serbo-Croatian named after specific policies in the former Yugoslavia, just like apartheid is a loanword from Afrikaans, named after specific policies in pre-1994 South Africa. The fact that you find the application of the term "ethnic cleansing" outside of its "original home" to be self-evidently justified in certain contexts ("concretely recognizable in some circumstances") is – with respect – beside the point. Many prominent persons with no particular axe to grind find apartheid conditions to be "concretely recognizable" in Israel-Palestine. That's also beside the point. What is not beside the point is that in both cases a morally charged historical analogy (apartheid, ethnic cleansing) is invoked in a huge variety of contexts. Sometimes the analogy is meant rhetorically and used merely for moral emphasis (describing the aftermath of Katrina as "ethnic cleansing" underscores the racial and socioeconomic fault-lines the disaster made visible, for example; referring to Cuban tourism as a form of apartheid, similarly, underscores the hypocrisy and unseemliness of a socialist pseudo-utopia kept afloat by a nakedly capitalist tourist economy). At other times the analogy is meant with much greater literalness, and becomes the subject of sustained historical comparisons by scholars, writers, journalists, activists and politicians (this is the case with ethnic cleansing in the Sudan, or apartheid in the occupied territories). An infobox that flattens these distinctions, and creates a single category for them, a category that is "so damn obvious" to Wikipedians with a given POV (but not obvious enough to have penetrated the thick skulls of our reliable sources), is POV-pushing original research. If apologists for the Janjaweed were well-represented on Wikipedia, they'd have a field day making little infoboxes about "allegations of ethnic cleansing," and neatly arraying within them whatever scraps of heated rhetoric they managed to comb together from their internet researches. I'd be opposing them as doggedly as I'm opposing you, so don't take it personally.--G-Dett 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I wrote above that "ethnic cleansing" is a loanword from Serbo-Croatian. In fact it's something called a calque. Sorry, I learned the word five minutes ago.--G-Dett 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Other countries (other than Israel) that more closely resemble SA Apartheid? Which are they?

The lead includes the following statement that is not backed up by anything in the rest of the article, and the footnote itself doesn't mention a country "that more closely resembles" Apartheid either. The lead should not included weak and perhaps non-existent claims.

"and that the practices of other countries, to which the term is not applied, more closely resemble South African apartheid. [3]" Kritt 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen this argument made before. That the real apartheid is Islamic apartheid. Just add a citation needed template for now and we'll work on getting a source.--Urthogie 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can get a source, that seems like a good solution.--G-Dett 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream sources: Editorial: The 'Israel Apartheid Week' libel from the Jerusalem Post:

Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries deny equal rights to women, Christians, Jews, Hindus and others. Where are the protests against Saudi apartheid?

I can find other sources too if you want to be stubborn.--Urthogie 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Many Islamic nations are criticised for human rights violations, but are RARELY if ever compared to South Africa and Apartheid. Israel, a democracy, is compared to South Africa. That's a big difference.Kritt 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Critics

6SJ7, I don't believe you've explained why you think the lead needs to characterize the analogy as coming from "some critics of Israel." Being gramatically unnecessary, it seems to basically be your OR. If you think it's necessary, feel free to explain why. Mackan79 05:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

removed Jimmy Carter

His book says there is apartheid in Palestine, especially referencing the territories, but he never says that israel itself practices apartheid. He even makes this clear in speeches and interviews, etc., to it's essentially libel to say he makes this analogy for Israel when he only does it for Palestine. Removed him.--Urthogie 15:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"...he never says that israel itself practices apartheid"??? Carter writes "...A system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is the policy now being followed..."[1] I haven't yet looked at the edits being made to this article, and don't have time now, but these words are a clear allegation of Israeli apartheid, which is the title of the article. The title of the article doesn't say "...in Israel" Andyvphil 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i really disagree. Since Carter makes his point using the concept of apartheid, it is really better to leave that information in the entry, where others can find it, and use it. This is an article to describe and detail broad uses of the term "apartheied" in relation to this topic, not to split hairs. --Sm8900 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring what I said. I know he says "apartheid", that's the title of his book. But it's not a reference to Israel, but to the existential situation he thinks the Palestinians and the Israelis find themselves in, respectively. His book, I remind you, is called Palestine: Peace not apartheid. Palestine refers to the entire land both the arab palestinians and the jews are on. Not only this, but he's even devoted speaches and articles to clarifying how his view isn't that there is "Israeli apartheid." He blame both sides (israel for the wall, palestinians for terrorism) in creating this situation they find themselves in. I'm removing the libelous quote unless you have some further explanation for it, or can address what I'm saying here.--Urthogie 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, if you don't like the treatment, you should try to change it as seems appropriate. Suggesting this is libelous because you see a slight distinction from what Carter has said doesn't seem helfpul. As we define the analogy, we say that it refers to several things which are broadly defined. For that matter, where do we say the analogy alleges a policy of apartheid in Israel? Particularly with Sm8900's clarifications, I don't see any possible misunderstanding. Carter is extremely important to this debate, though; again, if you want to change something, do, but we can't just delete him. Mackan79 15:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article does in fact lay the definition square at the hands of Israeli policies: "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy from the policies apartheid era South Africa to those of Israel." Neither Carter, nor Zbigniew Brzezinski use it this way-- to describe Israeli policies. Only to describe the situation that the sides find themselves in. It's not only OR, but it's libelous. I'm sticking to that.--Urthogie 16:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The only way in which Carter is releveant to this article is his many speeches and article in which he has made clear why he named his book what he did:

Well, he [Dershowitz] has to go to the first word in the title, which is "Palestine," not "Israel." He should go to the second word in the title, which is "Peace." And then the last two words [are] "Not Apartheid." I never have alleged in the book or otherwise that Israel, as a nation, was guilty of apartheid. But there is a clear distinction between the policies within the nation of Israel and within the occupied territories that Israel controls[,] and the oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli forces in the occupied territories is horrendous. And it's not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country. . . . (Italics added.)[2]

Please stop libelling the man. The "apartheid" situation in the West Bank is a criticism of Israeli policies there, but not at all referencing anything close to an "Israeli apartheid" policy as defined by this article.--Urthogie 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, here is a quote which I just found from Carter. it completely proves that he does make the comparison. Now could we please stop arguing over this? Thanks.

"When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa." (ref: Jimmy Carter: Israel's 'apartheid' policies worse than South Africa's, haaretz.com, 11/12/06).

--Sm8900 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, very well. If we're keeping him though, it needs to be specified he's not talking about all of Palestine, but only the West Bank. This is a key point that seperates him from the bi-national supporters.--Urthogie 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My most recent change creates a section to specify between the two, so that this issue doesn't get confused. Some people say all of Israel is just apartheid because they believe Palestinians should own all the land. Others, like carter, believe Israeli policies perpetrate apartheid in the West Bank. Important distinction, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the writers of that article discussed in the overview section. --Urthogie 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, Urthogie. This article should make that distinction very clear.--G-Dett 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

that sounds fine. thanks. --Sm8900 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you work to help me remove examples of original research in the arguments sections? That is, remove any link that doesn't talk about the relevance of whatever issue to apartheid in specific.--Urthogie 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove mentions of Gaza?

Israel unilaterally disengaged. Unless the criticism was written after the unilateral disengagement, I'm suggesting we remove it, as it makes a joke out of the arguments for the analogy, and for those who are ver ignorant on this subject it actually makes them think that Israel has done nothing to leave Gaza.--Urthogie 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that as long as Israel continues to control all land, air, and sea access routes into Gaza, then the territory is still under de facto control. Removing a ground presence was only a small part of the equation. Tarc 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the mentions of Gaza in the article relate to ongoing cantonization and border control issues that are still very much current. Don't see how removing these allegations makes sense solely because Israel has no feet on the ground there. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tarq.Kritt 20:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the mentions of Gaza in this article seem to deal mainly with occupation of land, not with border control or land, air, and sea control to apartheid. I'm saying we should remove those that talk about the land control, pre-gaza withdrawl.--Urthogie 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you are seeing. There may be a need for a historical section of allegations that are no longer current. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How about, to be more specific, "Historical uses of the allegation"?--Urthogie 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical allegations or something, sure. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I really lean against any wholesale removals of any material. So let's keep it in, for reasons stated above. thanks. --Sm8900 19:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I d'know how moving it to a new section is "removal"--Urthogie 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hows the new lead?

I like to think of myself as a neutral person, because I'm rabidly pro and anti Israel at the same time. How is this lead?--Urthogie 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't under the impression that anyone opposed this lead, but it seems like G-Dett might. Lemme exlpain why I wrote it this way:

When the allegation of Israeli apartheid is made, it can mean one of two things. The first thing it can refer to is the claim that Israeli policy in the West Bank is analogous to apartheid. It can also refer to a seperate claim--which by default accepts the first one as well-- that Israel is a South Africa- style apartheid state.
The issues involved the first allegation are the conditions and restrictions placed on Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank, while the issues involved in the second allegation are supposed similarities between Israel and South Africa. A book-length study on the subject of these allegations said that the second claim is made most often by "Palestinians, many Third World academics, and several Jewish post-Zionists who idealistically predict an ultimate South African solution of a common or binational state." The first claim, however, is associated with a seperate 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."
The majority of intellectuals and journalists, however, disagree with the allegation being used in any way "and deplore what [they] deem its propagandistic goals."

As you can see, the entire article is framed in a way which represents the largest piece of summarizing literature on the subject. This is about as close as we can get to fairly representing this material, and as far as we can get from original research. This stands in stark contrast to the mud-slinging fights that occured on the editing of the former lead, in which various people with opinions would add sentences that had subtle POV's.--Urthogie 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I like it? I like that what you wrote (which I've reverted by the way) drew the distinction between the situation in Israel and the situation in the territories. I didn't like that the phrasing was so casual and chatty and unencyclopedic. I didn't like the last sentence distorted a sentence of Adam and Moodley's, and I didn't like that you threw it up there so casually without getting consensus here.

I do like that you're interested in neutrality, and look forward to working with you.

I also gotta admit that I do kind of like how you've swanned in here, made a bunch of crazy suggestions (my favorite so far is that we should remove reference to Carter because he's talking about an "existential apartheid" for which Israel is blameless), and then cheerfully opened up edit wars on two or three fronts to defend them. The chutzpah of it. You're a man after my own heart.--G-Dett 19:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to give me credit though-- I recognize when I'm wrong :) Anyways, am I right to say the issues you have are with

The style of speech being too chatty.
The sentence: The majority of intellectuals and journalists, however, disagree with the allegation being used in any way "and deplore what [they] deem its propagandistic goals."

I can reasonably understand point number 1, although personally I'd take an informal voice over POV any day. I think that can be fixed as the article evolves. Point number 2... how does that misrepresent the authors who explicitly say: "The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals."?--Urthogie 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It misrepresents them because they're not talking about "allegations of Israeli apartheid." They're talking about broad historical comparisons; they're talking about any work (like theirs, for example) that attempts to "draw strategic lessons from the negotiated settlement in South Africa for the unresolved conflict in the Middle East." The mistake is hardly your fault; Adam and Moodley have been cherry-picked to death on this page. They're worth reading in the unadulterated original.

You say you prefer chit-chat to POV. Who was it who said, "I'd rather be rich than stupid"? Yogi Berra? Jack Handey? Help me here.

Have you recognized you were wrong about the infobox/banner issue? Because that silly tendentious thing with all its eager & hopeful red links is still sitting there at the top of the page.--G-Dett 20:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, of course I wasn't wrong about the banner issue.

You're ignoring the basic fact that the three groups concern commentators on the analogy of apartheid. You're ignoring it by pointing out what the entire essay is about. Yes, the essay as a whole is about "broad historical comparisons", yes, but this ignores the fact that it's broken down into sections, and this is from one that deals with how people comment on the analogy. What you're saying is the logical equivelant of someone saying we can't use a book on dogs for a source on dalmations, because that quote doesn't deal with the "broader context" of dogs as an entire species.

As a sidenote, I have read them in the article/essay in its unadulterated original format and I think this cherrypicked quote is actually one of the best quotes to use for framing this article. Apparently, so do others, because they've chosen to use it for an overview before I even came here.

As far as Yogi Berra and such, how about you fix the voice, then if you're such a good editor in deciding how a sentence should sound. It's not a "false choice" as you would suggest, but it can be a win-win situation if you'll just improve the voice. I hope I've shown that there's no NPOV issue by highlighting your mistaken logic.--Urthogie 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Adam & Moodley material is from a book, not an essay. One chapter of it is available online; that chapter has tended to be read in isolation here (as an "essay"), and it's that one that's been cherry-picked to death. Now, it is absolutely clear that the tripartite division you're quoting from refers to attitudes towards the broad historical comparison, not the apartheid "allegation" (a word, incidentally, never used by A & M). You will see this if you read the paragraph which precedes the tripartite division, especially the first two sentences of that paragraph (p.19 in the original, p.12 in the online pdf file). For Adam & Moodley's presentation of the various components of that broad comparison, which include but are not limited to the apartheid analogy, see the next section (p.21-27 in the original), "Uses and Abuses of the Israel-South Africa Comparison."

As for your last suggestion, I don't spit-polish shoes I don't intend to keep.--G-Dett 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are allegations of apartheid not a broad historical comparison or analogy between Israel and apartheid South Africa?--Urthogie 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Read pages 21-27, especially the first paragraph.

Regarding the infobox, I'm still waiting for a reply to this.--G-Dett 20:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One sec, if the overview already had conensus, why would putting similar stuff in the lead suddenly be "cherry-picking"? My lead already has consensus based on this fact alone, that the overview stayed so solid. The only element of my lead that needs improvement is it's style-- an issue you brought up just to denigrate my edits to stop them from staying in the lead. If you continue to take this approach I'll just revert you whenever I get a chance. Chances are, more people will help me with that than you think. So my advice is for you to try and more actively gain consensus.--Urthogie 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the points made by G-Dett, as well as his overall approach and concerns. Thanks. --Sm8900 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, because I'd hate to have to discuss this with two people who have unique points of view on the issue. It gets confusing.--Urthogie 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, if you were being reasonable, you would admit that you came here a couple weeks ago to insert this argument in the lead,[3] failed, and so then decided to replace it in template form.

Either way, if you get around to responding to G-Dett's post, please also try to explain again why you think we should have this particular "lower level template" here rather than any "higher level template." As I pointed out above, your example of Anarchism actually cuts directly against your point, since all of the Anarchism in Austria, Anarchism in China, etc. articles actually have a plain Template:Anarchism sidebar, not a narrow one on Template:Regional Anarchism. It's gotten a little silly here to ask you to actually argue your point consistently, but since three editors are disagreeing with you, perhaps it's worth asking again. Mackan79 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second Mackan79's last post. Again, I agree with both him and G-Dett. And Urthogie, I am glad you see the merits of aruging with one point of view. perhaps you will realize that the essence of Wikipedia discussions is that each user usually represents a larger group of users who have a similar set of concerns. Since that simple idea seems to be in doubt here, i am using this to express my support for the other two editors, as a group. Thanks. --Sm8900 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, I'd be fine deleting the template, but simply tend to take a more minimalist approach. The problem with this template happens only to be specifically in regard to this article, where it was included as a sort of WP:POVFORK, and serves to promote a particular argument. Does it make sense to require the deletion of the whole template because it presents a POV problem in one article? I'm afraid the result would be an unnecessary deadlock. Mackan79 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe apartheid, as a crime against humanity, is evil in all its forms, and while I certainly believe that Israel is the most egregious current example of its practice, I don't think a template listing it whereever it might reasonably said to be in practice is a terrible thing. I do understand that Urthogie's motive might not be pure, but considering the pre-existance of the general allegations of apartheid article, I can't say I disapprove of an overall (re)split with a navigatible template for this whole topic. Rome wasn't built in a day and I'd be happy were he to flesh out this template more fully, but I wouldn't mind giving this a week or two. At which point WP:TFD would be the best place to address your concerns. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I, like the majority of journalists and commentators believe the analogy is complete propaganda in regards to calling Israel an "apartheid state", and hyperbole in regards to the West Bank. The wall, the west bank, all of this is because of Palestinian terrorism. The Jewish state of Israel, unlike apartheid South Africa, is here to stay, no matter how much it's smeared.--Urthogie 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You, like the majority of those who employ the analogy, don't think it applies to the situation within Israel proper.--G-Dett 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unindent. Lead had gotten quite ugly, with a fourth paragraph repeating an element of the third, a misplaced plural, etc. So I tightened it, not removing any substantive element, I think. Andyvphil 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

andy, the fourth paragraph did not in any way repeat the third. In fact, it directly recgonized and addressed some key allegations regarding apartheid. it did not deny them, but provided a rationale based on security considerations. Thanks. --Sm8900 15:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a few hours ago, and therefor old history, but the fourth paragraph redundantly repeated the now-removed third (equally badly written) paragraph phrase "...that the cited practices of the analogy are based on security needs...". What's missing from the fourth paragraph now is the "instead of" component... Of course, apartheid had a real security component too, so it's a badly thought out argument for the illegitimacy of the analogy. The analogy is an attempt to appropriate the opprobrium earned by the racist components of apartheid to a situation where those elements are a much less important part of the ideology... But, I didn't remove the argument from the lead because it is a poor one. I just removed the then-existant repetition. Andyvphil 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

another request for editors of this page

Can you guys check to make sure that everything listed under "Israel alleged apartheid state" doesn't more accurately fit under "Israel alleged apartheid in territories." We don't want to libel anybody, so check the sources :)--Urthogie 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag replacement

Can I suggest use of Template:Noncompliant. Problems with this article appear to be not just WP:NPOV, but that this article reads in parts like an essay and contains non-encyclopedic content. Some people may feel WP:NOR applies to, but this seems to have plenty of references.--ZayZayEM 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

This article has been tagged as POV for a year.

NPOV is the most basic of wikipedia policies.

I think we should set a date until which this article would become NPOV. If we fail by that date we should remove the article. Zeq 07:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, the reason people are removing the statements you're putting into the proponents sentence is that those are not what proponents say. It's not up to Wikipedia to try to rebut what the proponents say in the middle of the sentence where it's being put forward. What you're adding is right there in the next sentence, under what those who reject the analogy say. Mackan79 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

lead shouldn't give undue weight

I reverted back to a somewhat earlier version (not the version I wrote, but only with a small modification by me). It is a violation of WP:NPOV to give undue weight in the lead to those positions which accept the allegations. In fact, only in the final paragraph do we actually figure out what most commentators think about the allegation. Please don't remove this important fact, as we are otherwise giving undue weight to supporters (who are a minority in the press), and taking away the deserved weight of detractors (a majority in the press). If I were really being stubborn I'd insist we give more weight to the majority view on whether these allegations are valid, because the majority view is by definition deserving of more weight. However, I have been willing to compromise and give slightly less weight to the mainstream opinion which deserves immensely more. I've also compromised by not restoring my own lead, because I listened to consensus, despite the fact that I think it's immensely better than this lead.--Urthogie 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, you're the one who keeps saying we should acknowldge that some allegations pertain only to the West Bank, not to Israel itself or even the Gaza Strip. I am simply trying to reflect that difference. As for the restrictions, almost all commentators do accept that there are restrictions. They only differ on the cause. --Sm8900 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some editor just removed this verified statement that most commentators reject the allegations as propaganda with the edit summary "RV POV". How is this qualification a point of view? Does anyone disatgree with it? It's a verified statement of fact.--Urthogie 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Chill out on the lead for G-d's sake

Can we slow down a little with these incessant modifications of the lead? The usual protocol is to copy whatever version of the lead has enjoyed some stability (meaning weeks, usually) and paste it in on the talk page, list your objections to it and propose a substitute in draft form. Then others either echo your objections or dismiss them. If the latter, you're out of luck. If the former, then they make suggestions and modifications to your draft rewrite. By and by the draft rewrite tightens and refines and gets backing; and when it reaches some critical mass of consensus and stability it's moved, with a certain amount of fanfare, into the article itself.

The lead isn't the place to build sandcastles to be knocked down by the next caprice of the tides.

I'm not going to edit-war with you, Urthogie, but it may interest you to know that the last paragraph of the lead as you've got it now is virtually a word-for-word repetition of the second-to-last. Then again, that's probably all changed in the three minutes I've taken to write this.--G-Dett 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, this edit comment warring is a waste of time.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I hate that last paragraph too. I just kept it because I saw there was a seperate edit war going on over it. Feel free to remove it and edit war on it as I don't like it either. Sm8900 might get in your way though.--Urthogie 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what problem you have with that paragraph? i thought it was constructive, as being fairer to Israel. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well like other users said, it's redundant.--Urthogie 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it redundant? it refers directly to the West bank, unlike the third para, which focuses mainly on Israeli Arabs. --Sm8900 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any Wikipedia policy that talks about "stability". I wish there was one and only after an article would be stable (no editors change it) for 3 month it will become viewable to the public.
until such policy is in affect we will follow NPOV and LEAD policies. Zeq 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's how the last two sentences read when I posted my exasperated comment:

They also assert that Israel's limitations on Palestinians in the West Bank are justified by the ongoing hostility to Israel of numerous Palestinian groups.

They who reject the analogy also assert that Israel's limitations and protective measures against Palestinians in the West Bank are made necessary by security concerns, due to ongoing hostility to Israel from numerous Palestinian groups.

The protocol for lead revision that I outlined at the top of this section ensures that the lead, whatever other faults it may suffer from at any given moment, will not stammer and chatter its way through these faults.--G-Dett 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

gaza should have its own section, as should west bank

Every single accusation of apartheid in Gaza before unilateral disengagement should be placed in a seperate section. While Israel controls the air space, and the borders, I'm yet to see any sources that say that this amounts to apartheid in the settlements. What reasons are there to oppose this rather logical division, aside to confuse people who haven't heard of the disengagement, or make this article not be taken seriously by those who have?--Urthogie 17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

any secondary source for this quote?

"The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state" -- south African prime minister. I think it's likely true because South Africa was attempting to defend itself from criticism by associating with a morally just cause, but I'd still like to see a primary or secondary source even though my intuition is that it's true. The only source I could find was the guardian one, which is a tertiary source. Anyone know of a document or video from that era for this quote?--Urthogie 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

questionable examples

Shulamit Aloni, former education minister, Israel Prize winner, and a former leader of Meretz,[4] and Tommy Lapid, leader of the liberal Shinui and former Justice minister, used the term "apartheid" when describing a bill proposed by the government of Ariel Sharon to bar Arabs from buying homes in "Jewish townships" within Israel proper.[19][20][21]

Aloni's article clearly does not use the "Israeli apartheid" allegation in reference to Israel itself, but rather to its actions in the territories:

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

He therefore belongs in that section on settlements, not this one.

Lapid never even says there's apartheid. He variously says it "smell of apartheid" and that it's "getting close to apartheid". Note, he's saying this individual law is apartheid, not all of Israel, as well. Perhaps we need sections for specific laws and policies within Israel, so that we don't make it look like anyone who calls a given policy apartheid is saying the whole state of Israel is "apartheid state."--Urthogie 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel is an apartheid state if they are creating apartheid conditions in the West Bank, right? I understand the distinction you are trying to draw, but you need to make it more explicit. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We intentionally created a new section just so we could distinguish between the claims against all of Israel vs. Israel in the territories. Do you still oppose my move, to that section, then?--Urthogie 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe your resplit into three sections makes more sense. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

my mistake

I just noticed that most of the quotes mention the West Bank and Gaza in the same sentence, so it's literally impossible to seperate the two from each other. I'm going to try to make clear in the lead of that section that Israel no longer occupies Gaza land. --Urthogie 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Two problems with Kritt's changes

First off, Tutu's apartheid allegations are solely based on Israel's actions in the territories. He goes out of his way to say that Israel proper is democratic.
Second off, "most" is not a POV in the lead sentence. It's referenced to a source which, in dividing academic and journalistic commentators on the analogy into groups, says:
Note: not some, but "the majority." Important distinction.

"The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals."

This page is called Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Kritt changed the lead to just have Israeli apartheid bolded, going against both style guidelines and NPOV. This is clear evidence that Kritt is not up to date with knowledge of Wikipedia policies.
Kritt butchered a sentence in the lead which explained reasons that mainstream critics cite for not accepting the analogy, thus removing perfectly good references without anything on the talk page.

I've reverted Kritt. --Urthogie 22:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the lead: I believe Urthogie's format used here better and more consise, and I made the same improvement: Allegations of Islamic apartheid. Why the diffence?

Tutu talks specifically about Jerusalem, not the West Bank and Gaza. Please read his comments, he talks about "Holy Land" (Tutu's own words), not the "occupied West Bank".

The lead should not contain the quotes of one person as a set in stone summary. The lead you restored is POV, and it removed the issue regarding physical separation.

Please do not Edit War.Kritt 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tutu doesn't say Jerusalem is apartheid though. He criticizes the situation in Jerusalem, but doesn't call it apartheid. He calls the situation in the territories apartheid.

Feel free to add back physical separation (as long as its made clear that its Palestinians, not Arab-Israelis who are physically separated.) T

The quote is not one person, but from a book length study on the comparison, which actually doesn't agree with the majority. To play it off as a POV issue is therefore ridiculous. Also, note how it has had constant consensus in the Overview section.--Urthogie 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs. Tutu knows everything there is to know about apartheid, he's leveled the charge against Israel, and his direct quote refers to Palestinians that no longer can access their homes in Jerusalem inside of Israel itself. It's clear as day what Tutu is saying. Please stop trying to obfuscate the issue.Kritt 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're the one confusing the issue. You're saying that anything bad Tutu says about Israel is a reference to apartheid, even though he only uses the term explicitly in reference to the territories.--Urthogie 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The word apartheid doesn't have to appear in every sentence. Please cool it. Urthogie, kindly do not try to censor Desmond Tutu. His comments are clear.Kritt 07:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his comments are clear. For example:

Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or - I hope - to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.[5]

Sorry Kritt, but he think justice means leaving the territories, not destroying the Jewish state of Israel. So your reading of him is not only original research, but it's also wrong.--Urthogie 12:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead: "and that other countries whose practices more closely resemble South African apartheid are not accused of it."]

Who says other countries practices more closely resemble South Africa's than do Israel's? Let's see some sources for that before it makes into a Wikipedia lead paragraph. Israel is accused of apartheid far more than is any other country in the world. South African anti-apartheid individuals have not accused Islamic countries, Cuba, Brazil, or Australia anywhere near the level they have Israel. The lead is POV and unsupportable.Kritt 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the sentence carefully. It's specified as an argument among those who oppose the analogy only. Sources seem to be already provided.

Israel is accused more of apartheid more than any in the world because a large portion of the world doesn't think Jews have a right to a Jewish state in Palestine. But this petty argument has nothing to do with the article.--Urthogie 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the two sources you have are very weak for the claims you make in the Lead. They belong elsewhere. I read those sources and they do not agree with the sentence you support: "whose practices more closely resemble South African apartheid". The sources you have provided do not make that claim. Even so, it's a very small contingent that you are using, it's very much like cherry-picking, to support a point-of-view. Islamic nations may commit human rights abuses, but nobody calls it "apartheid" as they do democratic Israel. It truly doesn't belong in the lead and it's POV and unsupportable. Please reconsider it. Thanks.Kritt 22:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Just noticed I misread you...Two sources work for that argument to establish that its made. I can add more if you insist.

Some Islamic nations bar non-muslims from entry, most treat women worse than anywhere in the world, most of them you can't live in safety if you're Jewish, and some of them you'll have econd class status in a lot of them if you're christian. I don't call it apartheid, though, because that's an insult to South Africa. People call Israel apartheid, despite the fact that arabs there have better lives than in any of their dictatorships, because they truly believe Palestinians own the entire land, believing that the Jews have no right to a Jewish state there. Such is politics. And that's why most educated commentators don't resort to such rhetorical violence.--Urthogie 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I said that I read through the sources that are provided as the footnotes ( I think currently #3, #4), and they do not say what the Lead sentence says. It's POV and maybe your personal view of things.

Because you might hate Islamic practices, doesn't mean that the world calls them apartheid, that's what I'm saying, and you haven't shown where the back up is for other countries whose practices more closely resemble South African apartheid, where is it? We are talking about a lead paragraph, and there's no back up.Kritt 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the world does call it apartheid-- in major newspapers, policy magazines, etc. Two sources are enough to establish the argument exists for this page, by the way. I'll add more in a sec.--Urthogie 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

also, can I ask how you came here all of a sudden, having edited almost solely this page, and knowing how wikipedia works from the very first second? This is just a sidenote.--Urthogie 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I read through tons and tons of the Discussion page here.Kritt 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, the sentence's own sources and footnotes (as weak as they are) do not back up the sentence! It's misleading and doesn't belong anywhere near the Lead. It's POV and speculative.Kritt 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the sources, they do work. For example, from "Editorial: The 'Israel Apartheid Week' libel":

Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries deny equal rights to women, Christians, Jews, Hindus and others. Where are the protests against Saudi apartheid?

You need to look more thoroughly it seems.--Urthogie 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That one rhetoical question is all there is from a newspaper editorial? That doesn't warrant a sentence in the lead. It does not say that it "more closely resembles S. African apartheid", and there are literally zero South Africans that have made that claim. Come on now, please stop disrupting the article with unsourced POV claims.Kritt 06:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

why i moved shulamit aloni

She is not saying Israel is an apartheid state, she says that only the territories are. From the source provided[6]:

Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us.

1967, people. Not 1948.--Urthogie 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

don't put examples in the issues subsections

Examples should go at the top of the allegations sections. I've moved (or removed, in the case of repeats) examples that are in the individual issues susbections. The point of these subsections is to explain the reasons for various POVs, rather than to just quote more allegations.--Urthogie 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a criticism per se, but the sheer volume of edits lately is getting out of hand. I see little reason for a single editor to make two dozen separate edits in approximately 30 minutes, for example. Perhaps work should be done off in a personal sandbox or some such, and then incorporate the change in one shot? Tarc 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm being bold, but not reckless. Any possibly controversial change is mentioned on the talk page. Do you have specific concerns with my edits?--Urthogie 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said; the volume. It makes the history page a nightmare to navigate this way. Just suggesting that you do what you want to to in one edit rather than 30 in a row. 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well with many edits users can revert to a certain point, rather than whole sale. It's actually done so that consensus is easier to reach, even if it's hard to navigate.--Urthogie 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

removed Zbigniew Brzezinski

This is the actual quote from the source:

Zbigniew Brzezinski: President Carter, in my judgement, is correct in fearing that the absence of a fair and mutually acceptable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid: ie, two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation.

This is represented in the article as an allegation of apartheid, which it isn't. This article isn't called Allegations of likely future Israeli apartheid. Apparently someone went googling for everything with Israel and apartheid in its text :)--Urthogie 15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps the article should better clarify at the front the way in which the analogy is often used, which is how Carter and Brzezinski use it. Your problem gets to G-Dett's earlier comments about the problem with this compromise title, in taking an often somewhat waffly discussion and turning it into a formal allegation against Israel. That wasn't the intent of the title. In theory, I think we have still been treating this as a page on "Israeli Apartheid" and discussion of that analogy, which was not limited to formal allegations, but intended to include the entire discussion. Mackan79 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current title was formed by consensus and has stayed that way in line with Allegations of apartheid. To me, it's like holding a grudge on the article when you guys (and girls) treat it like it has a different name.--Urthogie 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't what it means to "hold a grudge on an article." There are some editors who think the apartheid analogy is justified and some who don't. And early on there was a debate about whether this article should address the substantive issues behind the analogy or whether it should treat it as some kind of epithet. The compromise word which allowed the article to move forward was "allegations." Common usage has conferred upon this word dual connotations: it can sound grave and detailed ("serious allegations") or spurious and concocted ("wild allegations"). This makes it diplomatically useful to us, which is presumably why we chose it. I've grown weary explaining, however, that our use of the word in the title is inaccurate and misleading, because an "allegation" strictly speaking is an assertion of fact that is in theory falsifiable, not an interpretation or comparison that can be debated but not proven or disproven. The vast majority of "allegations of Israeli apartheid" described by this article aren't allegations at all. The only actual "allegations" as such are those pertaining to the crime of apartheid as defined under international law.

The title in other words is merely a flawed attempt to name and summarize the contents of the article. It's not a blueprint for the contents of the article; to treat it as such puts the cart before the horse. In any case, if we were to begin using the title as a blueprint for appropriate content, then this article would be about a paragraph long and no more. And then all of the material that doesn't deal with the legally defined crime of apartheid, but instead with ethically and historically based comparisons that animate so much popular, political, and scholarly debate, but can't be proven or disproven – that is to say, everything here from Jimmy Carter to Adam and Moodley to Desmond Tutu to Benjamin Pogrund – would have to be moved to some new page, and we'd be back to square one, trying to figure out what to call it.

Speaking of square one, Urthogie, do you think you could make a practice of using this page to propose edits you intend to make, rather than announce ones you have made?--G-Dett 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Carter and Tutu do belong here. People who say the jewish state is apartheid belong here. people who say the territories are apartheid belong here. those who criticize israeli policies and call them apartheid belong here. Does the apartheid of the future belong here? No, no it doesn't. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Urthogie 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all part of the analogy, which is what this article is about. That includes "We have apartheid," "We don't have apartheid," "We ended apartheid," "We're on the cusp of apartheid," etc. Discussion of this issue is what we should include, not merely people who say "Yes" or "No." He's also discussing Carter's view about the apartheid analogy. Again, I think the issue here is really framing, not whether to delete promient references. Mackan79 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That includes "We have apartheid," "We don't have apartheid," "We ended apartheid," "We're on the cusp of apartheid," etc.

Yes, I agree that all of those are included, too. However, what is not included is someone's prediction of what will likely happen in the future. And I agree, also, that this quote could be kept in the article if it was framed in reference to Carter's view. For those who want to keep it, I suggest attaching it as a comment made by him on Carter's view.--Urthogie 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Urthogie, but I don't find this reasoning compelling. A good many people who talk about "Israeli Apartheid" and have given the term currency hedge on the question of whether apartheid is a fully present reality now or an ineluctable future consequence of present policies (Carter, for one, says both things). It makes no sense to divide this into two articles, one for debate of the first position and one for debate of the second, because out there in the real world the discussion just isn't divided up in this way. --G-Dett 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's simply not an example of the allegation. That's a fact. I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the article. I'm saying he shouldn't be in the examples section at the beginning of that section-- because he's not an example of someone who's made the allegation.--Urthogie 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's what he defines as apartheid: "two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation." You're saying there's some aspect of this he thinks isn't happening now, but might one day happen? I think you're putting terrific strain on the obvious meaning of his words. The future-tense aspect of his statement (not that it matters) is rhetorical: it's a way of saying it's not too late, we can stop this thing before it becomes permanent, and so on. This is a pretty common rhetorical mode when you're imploring someone, directly or indirectly, to change their ways: "If you go on drinking like this, you're going to have a serious problem." --G-Dett 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the quote, Zbig says he agrees with his old boss, and then misquotes him (Carter alleges present apartheid, in the territories). Are there other refs for ZB on this subject? Andyvphil 13:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This really is a non-issue. Brzezinski's not misquoting Carter. He's phrasing Carter's argument diplomatically. There are plenty of situations in the English language in which temporality of verb tense doesn't correspond to temporality of subject matter. The second and third sentences of the very post I'm writing, for example, use the present tense for something that plainly happened in the past. We quote past statements in the present tense; it's an idiomatic formula deriving from a literary convention of honoring the continued relevance of past authors, who still "speak" to us. There are many such idiomatic formulas. In the case of Brzezinski's quote, the idiomatic formula is that of the diplomatic imploration, in which what is obviously a present reality is deferred into a grammatical future tense, in order to stress that it's not too late for something positive to be done. Someone who says "if you don't knock it off, I'm going to get annoyed" is already annoyed, not speculating about a possible future mood. Someone who's told "if you don't come clean with us, you're going to lose credibility" has already lost credibility. It is exactly the same thing when Brzezinski says if Israel doens't change it's policies there's going to be "two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation." That's already the situation; Zbig's saying it's not too late to change the status quo. Let's not be thick-skulled here.--G-Dett 17:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If I tell you to tell Urthogie that that if he doesn't knock it off I'm going to kick his ass and you tell Urthogie that if he doesn't knock it off I'm going to be annoyed you aren't speaking in some diplomatic hopeful tense. You're misquoting me. I take it the answer is we don't have a second source for Zbig on Israel/apartheid? Andyvphil 13:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your verve is coming through loud and clear, your point less so. How does Brzezinski misquote Carter? Is your concern the same as Urthogie's, about Brzezinski's verb tense? When you say you want a "second source for Zbig on Israel/apartheid," it's not clear to me what you're asking for. Do you want the second source to give a different Brzezinski quote? Or just gloss this quote in clear terms as an example of the Israel/apartheid analogy? I hope you're not demanding that the source use the word "allegation," because not very many of our sources – not even Adam & Moodley, our central source – use that word, because it's the wrong word.--G-Dett 14:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking if there is a second instance of ZB using the a-word. ZB says Carter "is correct in fearing that the absence of a fair and mutually acceptable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid". But what Carter actually said is that apartheid is is Israel's "present policy". I don't think that what's going on in the "Ask the Expert" article is ZB "phrasing Carter's argument diplomatically". He's being diplomatic, all right, but what's really happened is that "Sy Lippman, Los Angeles, CA" has dropped this radioactive turd in his lap and he is staying as far away from it as possible without letting the words "I disagree with Jimmy Carter" pass his lips. He does this by "agreeing" with a misquotation of what Carter has said. We ought to be careful not to misrepresent ZB as a supporter of the analogy without including the context and all the caveats he does, unless we have another citation that enables us to go further (which is what I've asked about). Urthogie was absolutely right that the 29 March version didn't come close to doing this and while the current situation is much improved as regards what he said it's still somewhat deficient in context. I don't know that this is fixable in the appropriate amount of space. Andyvphil 21:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil, I agree with you in one respect, that we shouldn't foreground with great fanfare a quote taken from a Q & A (even a formal, written and prepared Q & A with a former national security advisor in a major international newspaper). Your interpretation of Brzezinski's response to the question, however, strikes me as totally unfounded. He doesn't toss this "radioactive turd" out of his lap; on the contrary, he emphatically states a) his support for Carter's thesis; b) his disgust with Carter's critics-cum-character assassins, and c) his concern about the climate of intimidation surrounding the topic broached by Carter. His response is energetically forthright and entirely free of weasel words. It is also provocatively detailed and explicit: "two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation." And yet you're asking us to believe that his choice of verb tense – idiomatically ordinary as it is – amounts to a "misquotation" of Carter, and that this misquotation reveals his underlying desire to make clear that his endorsement of Carter's argument is really a rejection of it. The logic of this is perverse: you're insisting that we scrutinize his words with extreme literalness, idiom be damned; but then on the basis of that literal reading, we should conclude that he really means the exact opposite of what he says. Go figure.--G-Dett 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the difference between what Zbig says Carter says and what Carter actually says is a matter of verb tense is, again, nonsense. Carter says the current policy of Israel is apartheid. Zbig "agrees" that if things aren't worked out something resembling apartheid may result in the indefinite future. If you insist that he's saying, in some obscurantist (but assertedly, somehow, not weasel-like) idiom, that the current policy of Israel is apartheid then it is you who is suggesting "we should conclude that he really means the exact opposite of what he says" about the subject of this article. That he may agree with Carter that America should promote a "fair and mutually acceptable resolution" without undue inflence from the pro-Israel lobby may be interesting, but is not on point here. Andyvphil 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Brzezinski doesn't see a difference between his own position and Carter's. I don't see a difference. But you do. Do you think that the other Brzezinski material I've posted below would not be on point in this article, on the grounds of its verb tenses? Having read it, do you still think the apartheid comparison was a "radioactive turd" thrown on Brzezinski's lap by an impertinent Angeleno, or would you agree he's been willingly invoking it for a decade now?--G-Dett 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, stop making original research arguments combining your apparent knowledge of linguistics ("no, no, he really means this") and the Brzezinsky quote. Please, learn to choose your battles, this is a relatively minor loss considering how many other examples you could find in the time you spent arguing. Thanks, Urthogie 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a loss, Urthogie, you're being ridiculous. If this is merely a discussion of "allegations," then we would not be able to have any opposition to those allegations either. "Sorry, that's not an allegation." I'm waiting for you to get done with your revamp for the time being, but there is no way we would remove this reference. Mackan79 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a battle, Urthogie, just a diversion. You've mistaken a patient, painstaking explanation of the obvious for a detailed display of expertise. I don't know the first thing about linguistics; the issue here is idiomatic competence, which all editors are expected to have.--G-Dett 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if you guys insist I suppose I can be pragamatic-- I don't want it outside the context of Carter's views though. Remember, it's merely a response to a question about Carter's views. And I'm not changing my mind on this. Since I'm making a reasonable comrpomise to be fair rather than correct, I'll revert either of you on a daily basis if you try to remove this compromise.--Urthogie 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

More Brzezinski material, going back ten years

Brzezinski has apparently been invoking Israeli apartheid for a decade now. In 1997, sitting alongside Madelaine Albright on PBS's Newshour, Brzezinski said of then-Prime Minister Netanyahu:

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

In May of 2002 the Toronto Star reported that:

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

I can't find relevant quotes from him in 2002, but I doubt the Star was referring to his five-year-old statement on Newshour. Could be, though.

In October of the following year, in a speech at the New American Strategies for Security and Peace conference in Washington, D.C., Brzezinski said:

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

In fact, it seems that Brzezinski has been pushing the meme for longer than Carter. I note moreover that he always uses what I'm calling the diplomatic future tense. The bad moon always rising and waxing, never quite full: "Increasingly the only prospect if this continues is Israel becoming increasingly like apartheid South Africa," he says in 2003. And then in 2006: "the absence of a fair and mutually acceptable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid." Then again when Z-Big orders a hot dog, he probably says "I would like a hot dog," like I do, just to be nice, not because his hunger is hypothetical.--G-Dett 01:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your good work! This is exactly what I asked for, and we can now pull Zbig out of the Carter paragraph and attribute his own views to him, weasel-wording and all. (I still reject the "diplomatic future tense" as being anything other than weaseling.) BTW, I think one says "Xenophon says..." not as part of a convention of honoring past authors but because he "speaks" to you in the present instant whenever you are reading him; and "I would like a hot dog" is not an example of temporal shift at all -- it is perfectly correct to say "I would like a hot dog now". Andyvphil 14:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a man who puts the word "increasingly" before every verb in a sentence, and throws in "prospect" and "becoming" and "if this continues" for good measure...is trafficking in weasel words. Can't argue with that. Put it down to a career spent in state service and a retirement spent in public punditry. Thanks for the kind words and the interesting exchange about idiom. I'm off (well, not just yet, but will be) to my four-martini-and-three-hot-dog lunch, cheers,--G-Dett 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie's edits

This is a final appeal for Urthogie to refrain from major edits without consensus. I've thus far avoided edit-warring with him, and haven't touched the page for days. At this point, however, the article is losing any semblance of being encyclopedic and is instead becoming Urthogie's highly idiosyncratic and wildly unreliable blog. Here's one of his latest additions:

Indeed, some Palestinians have gone so far as to encourage settlement of their land so as to make Israel look like an apartheid state.

This piece of lunacy is unsourced, naturally.

Urthogie, if you stop your frenzied editing now, we can group what you've done into various categories and go through it systematically. If you don't, I'm going to begin reverting, starting with what is patent nonsense, and moving through to what has been merely compromised by haste and lack of editorial judgment.--G-Dett 00:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I follow the article, though I have only become seriously involved in editing on occasion. However I do watch. I was away for about 3 days, and the degree of undiscussed editing is massive. Much of it is likely to be quite contentious. Why has nobody reverted Urthogie to this point? Jd2718 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few attempts, but U is pretty dogged. Some of it is contentious; some of it is totally off the wall.--G-Dett 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a couple of us felt the article has been such a battle ground that we may as well let Urthogie do as he likes for a few days, and perhaps some new compromises could be found. If you look at Urthogie's talk page, you'll see he actually has been reverted a lot of times, but at least I decided to let things slide for now. That's not to say it should go on forever; if people are starting to get more fed up, anybody could start reassessing things. Mackan79 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at G-Dett's anecodtal evidence of how I am editing in an irresponsible fashion, turning this into my "blog." She mentions this sentence,

Indeed, some Palestinians have gone so far as to encourage settlement of their land so as to make Israel look like an apartheid state.

Instead of trying to gain some insight into why I wrote this, she ignores completely the possibility that this sentence could be sourced with information already in the article. The source, of course is:

* Michael Tarazi, a Palestinian proponent of the binational solution has argued that it is in Palestine's interest to "make this an argument about apartheid", to the extent of advocating Israeli settlement, "The longer they stay out there, the more Israel will appear to the world to be essentially an apartheid state".[20]

There are several other Palestinian intellectuals who take this approach as well-- their argument is that ties between Israel and the territories should be strengthened so as to give an appearence of oppression and apartheid over indiscriminate economic and political boundaries.

So, while you can argue with how I summarized that source, you can't claim that sentence is "off the wall" given that it's completely sourcable. I just hadn't yet added the source(s). A more valid, and rational criticism of it would have been that it misleadingly uses weasel words-- something I hope we can discuss. I've removed it though, because--like before-- I've decided to be pragmatic rather than correct. This anecdotal sentence, meant to show my edits in a bad light does far from that-- it reveals how there is a knee jerk response to me on this page, and how well I handle critique. --Urthogie 02:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The most generous interpretation I can come up with is that you innocently conflated a reporter's interpretation with the comments of notable individual. Your style of editing, quite frankly, does not inspire me to generosity. You are on a controversial page. Discuss major edits before making them. Jd2718 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

By "my style of editing" are you referring to the fact that I removed the offending sentence as soon as I saw the complaint about it?--Urthogie 03:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dozens of consecutive undiscussed edits. And be careful about the bad faith comments on the talk page. Jd2718 06:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, first of all don't feel embattled. This has always been a contentious page. Secondly, the reaction to you here has not been "knee-jerk." In fact there's been an unusual degree of forebearance, with veteran editors of this page standing back while you rapidly dismantle work achieved through months of difficult editorial negotiations, and – without consensus or even discussion – replace it with casual, bloggily tendentious prose riddled with errors both typographical and factual. I think you timed your dramatic debut on this page very well, insofar as many here (including me) have been worn down by months of bitter edit-warring. We've been more stunned than roused to action by your five-day barrage of dubious edits.

What follows is a preliminary list of what I intend to clean up in your wake, along with detailed explanations.

1.The lead that existed before you debuted here will be restored. What you've written in its place is wordy and vague ("Those who use the analogy point to the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank") as well as inaccurate ("Most journalists and academic commentators reject the analogy as propaganda"). This last misrepresents Adam and Moodley's work in both letter and spirit. For background on this, see the detailed talk-page discussion regarding "the uses and misuses of Adam and Moodley"; it's archived here. As I wrote in that earlier discussion, Adam and Moodley stress that

"the main focus of this study" is to "draw strategic lessons from the negotiated settlement in South Africa for the unresolved conflict in the Middle East," and they make very clear that this is the analogy that provokes the three types of commentary they list. That's the general analogy that is the centerpiece of their book. There is a more specific analogy which is the centerpiece of our article, between Israeli policies toward Palestinians and Afrikaner policies toward black South Africans during apartheid. They deal with that too, but that's not what the tripartite classification refers to.

In short, Adam and Moodley are describing a taboo that casts its shadow over any attempt, like theirs, to look to South Africa for historical guidance in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their subject is the average attitude towards a broad analogy that includes but is not limited to the moral equation our article covers; and they make clear that they regard this average attitude as representative of an unfortunate taboo, rather than a consensus of expertise or even considered judgment. Your selective and distortive use of them in the lead has the effect of suggesting the exact opposite. (It also conflates their broad subject with our narrow one.) There is no justification for this kind of distortion, and there's no need for it either, as the material in question is presented accurately, and with appropriate nuance and detail, in the very next section of the article, "Overview."

2. I'm going to remove the "allegations of apartheid" banner, per our previous discussion, which you walked away from following a series of serves you couldn't return.

3. You added this sentence last night: "Tutu has also leveled allegations of apartheid against China's actions in Tibet[50][51], the United Kingdom's treatment of suspected terrorists[52], and the United States's treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.[53]" This is at best an inadvertently grotesque distortion, at worst a serious misrepresentation of source material. In each of these occasions, Tutu weighs in on some issue of 'might vs. right,' and in doing so offers vague parallels, drawn from his own experience, about the perils of power unchecked ("I never imagined I would live to see the day when the United States and its satellites would use precisely the same arguments that the apartheid government used for detention without trial"), the inevitable triumph of popular resistance ("We used to say to the apartheid government: you may have the guns, you may have all this power, but you have already lost. Come: join the winning side. His Holiness and the Tibetan people are on the winning side"), etc. etc. On none of these occasions does he make an "allegation of apartheid." To say this would be like going through every Elie Weisel speech touching on contemporary political or moral issues and arguing that he's making "Holocaust allegations." I'd be inclined to read your misinterpretation as mere sloppiness, but the way you've given a double-listing, each listing cited separately to the same source ("the United Kingdom's treatment of suspected terrorists[52], and the United States's treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.[53]") for Tutu's single quoted statement about Guantanamo Bay, suggests to me that you were knowingly writing spin. Do refrain from this.

4.Lastly (for now) there is the ill-conceived section on "The Debate on [sic] the one-state solution," which opens with a false assertion and a cheerful volley of typos:

As Moodly [sic] and X [???]observed, the allegation of apartheid is often made by those who support a one state solution.

They don't observe this, and it'd be beside the point if they did. What Adam and Moodley wrote was this:

"'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."

Read that carefully. It's these "several Jewish post-Zionists" specifically, not the "'Israel is Apartheid' advocates" generally (much less the Palestinian masses), who are doing this idealistic predicting of a binational state. Binationalism, at any rate, is a separate issue. What I said about its place in the lead ([7]applies to its place in the article.--G-Dett 18:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You've raised several valid points. In regards to point number 3, I apologize for that-- I was working off of the allegations of apartheid page-- I shouldn't have trusted its use of sources, my mistake. But you are being a complete asshole and assuming bad faith when you assume I'm trying to "spin" the page just because I trusted that page's use of sources. Point number 4 is definitely worth discussion and possibly implementing.

But not all of your points are valid. Feel free to remove the sentences mentioned in point 3, but the other ones I'll just revert pending discussion. Please start new talk page sections or continue the old ones if you want to implement your suggested changes of points 1, 2, and 4. Thank you for assuming good faith, -Urthogie 18:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented your third point, removing the offending sentence, once again showing how open I am to criticism.--Urthogie 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

How did allegations of Israeli Apartheid, get twisted into an article that first highlights Apartheid within Israel Proper, as opposed to the general apartheid policies carried out by Israel? The article is not structured correctly. Is Urthogie trying to structure the article so that the allegations get buried deep within the article? Is this good faith? The allegations are what a reader wants to learn about, not about refutations and discussions about whether the apartheid is within Israel, West Bank, or Gaza, etc. All those issues can be covered within the context of the allegations themselves. It's not an article about geography. I think the article is being stuctured as to sneakily hide and bury facts.Kritt 07:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kritt, this division has consensus, scroll up to see how people agreed with this division. You are editing against consensus if you try to remove this 3 way division of the article. It's already been explained to you that Tutu's accusing Israel of apartheid in the territories only:

Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or - I hope - to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.[8]

Same with Carter:

Jimmy Carter states that Israeli Arabs are equal citizens, and says that the apartheid-like system in the West Bank is not based on racism.[9][10]

They both criticize policies inside Israel proper, but they never call Israel proper an apartheid state. That's why we have separate sections, per consensus.--Urthogie 12:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are editing in a POV fashion, and there is no consensus for what you are doing, mostly complaints. Please stop edit warring. Placement of Idi Amin before Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter is highly POV and it lacks good faith. Tutu and Carter comment on Israeli apartheid comprehensively, and to attempt to slot them deep into the article under "West Bank" is not practising good faith. Kritt 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Idi Amin is before them because he is in a section before them. There is in fact consensus for having these sections, whether you deny it or not. As I said, please scroll up. This arrangement has consensus. I also highly oppose your removal of that sentence in the lead, which is adequately sourced. Please discuss before removing it again.--Urthogie 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a discussion in order to delete weasel words. Tarc 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The arrangement is being used by you, Urthogie, to push POV and hide the most basic information and allegations from the reader. Please be fair. Kritt 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kritt; I'm not sure which concensus Urthogie is talking about. The placement of the West Bank discussion at the bottom is very strange. If we're going to keep all the other changes, I think we should simply invert the discussions. Mackan79 13:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I support putting that section first. I'll do it myself. What I opposed was putting content in the wrong section.--Urthogie 13:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried something new for the lead, which I think is an improvement. I said "other human rights abusers"; this was meant to frame the argument so analogy-opponents are not admitting to any validity to the analogy (saying "other countries are just as bad" gets it wrong, I think). Perhaps the word "other" needs to be removed then, though, I'm not sure. Mackan79 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

While this change is worth considering (to me, it seems to say the same exact thing as we currently have, but it in a longer way...) I disagree with your changing "Most journalists and academic commentators reject" with The analogy is rejected by many. The source says the majority, not "many."--Urthogie 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're taking the quote out of context, though, changing the language, and placing it in an inappropriate position. I'm sure you can see the problem with this. Should, for instance, the page on Republicans state in the lead that more Americans are Democrats? Should the page on Pro-Life say in the lead that most Americans support abortion rights? Should the page on Latter Day Saints say that most Christians are not Mormon? There are of course sources for all of these statements. My attempt was to strengthen the argument itself, while fixing that problem. Was this not a fair representation of the anti-analogy position? The thing is, if we want to quote adam/Moodley, we should put all three of their categories, not just the first. We could place that as a third paragraph of the lead; I happen to think it's better where it is, as the first material in the body of the article. You should also see, though, that saying "other countries who also resemble Apartheid" is problematic, something I simultaneously tried to fix. Mackan79 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your metaphors are amazingly misleading. the demographics of mormons are notable. the demographics of republicans are notable. the demographics of the pro-life cause are notable, too. The article on shakers would make clear that there are barely any shakers left.--Urthogie 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Most" is not a synonym for "a majority," Adam and Moodley aren't talking about "allegations of Israeli apartheid," and we're not going to quote them out of context in the lead in an effort to poison the well.--G-Dett 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It actually is a synonym, and they are talking about the comparison/analogy to apartheid south africa. By the way, accusing me of an effort to poison the well is assuming bad faith..--Urthogie 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, it was a simple question to get you to acknowledge the NPOV issue, which you have tended to skirt. The demoraphics of all of these things could be relevant, which is why I said it's very appropriate in the first part of the article. The question is whether NPOV allows us to say in the opening to the second paragraph of an article that most scholars disagree with the theory in this article. I'm saying that would not be normal. The use of Adam and Moodley to make this point, when they then go on to argue that the analogy can be useful, is particularly problematic. To take them out of context in this way is also problematic. If you would please look again, I think you'll see that my version of the opposing position is very fair, while Adam and Moodley's views are fully laid out below as they should be. Mackan79 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's where we disagree, I suppose. To me, it's immensely important that such context be given as soon as is reasonably possible (perhaps, even, right after defining the allegations). I would demand the same exact thing on an islamofacism article. "Most commentators reject the connection between fascism and islam as inflammatory." Yep. (Adam, and Moodley, by the way, argue that the "differences outweigh the similarities" in their lead paragraph)

And G-Dett, before you chime in, the subject of that chapter is the comparison between apartheid South Africa and Israel. On that subject, they categorize the commentators into three groups. The majority who say "no, that's propaganda", those who say israel is an "apartheid state", and those who see similarities and differences. Thanks for being logical and not assuming bad faith, --Urthogie 17:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

But Islamofascism doesn't say that. In fact, there seems to be pretty broad concensus that this isn't the way to start an article. With Adam and Moodley right there in the first paragraph, I don't see the problem. The way I phrased it, the oppositional statement seems very strong, which seems like the most it really has a right to be; not for WP to immediately assert which view is more popular (and in such strongly worded fashion, which really goes beyond what Adam and Moodley say).

I see G-Dett's version now, which is an improvement. I also strongly agree that Adam and Moodley should simply be discussed below, but also that if we are going to mention them in that position, we can't misrepresent them. Mackan79 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

N.B."Poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy, not an act of malevolent scheming or criminal nastiness.--G-Dett 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett's version is a blatant misreading of Adam and Moodley. Here is proof. The lead of this chapter reads:

Although Israel and apartheid South Africa are often equated as "colonial settler socities," we argue that the differences outweight the similarities. This analysis questions these popular analogies.

Then there are several paragraphs concerning how we could learn to reconcile differences in light of the ideas this model offers. Then, we are back to discussing the main subject (see above blockquote):

Academic and jouranlistic commentators on the topic can be roughly divided into three groups:

The topic, of course is the "analysis" of "these popular analogies."

Then, of course, it obviously follows that the three groups are based on their views towards the analogy. They are divided into three groups: those who think the analogy is propaganda, those who think "Israel is apartheid", and those who see merits to both positions. However, G-Dett's revision to the lead completely mixes up the paragaphs on reconciliation with views on the analogy. Thank you, --Urthogie 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Read the last sentence of the first paragraph from which you cherry-picked your quote about "popular analogies": "the South African model of postconflict reconciliation may indeed inspire revisions of unworkable policies." The topic of the tripartite division is not simply "these popular analogies." That it isn't is made abundantly clear by the third grouping, which obviously includes Adam & Moodley themselves: "A third group diagnoses similarities and differences, but, above all, looks to South Africa for guidance." Looking to SA for guidance is the explicitly stated goal of Adam & Moodley's book.

The "subject these three groups are based on" (your words) is a broad one, and obviously and explicitly includes both the specific "Israeli apartheid" analogy as well as the subject of how reconciliation should occur. This isn't a matter of interpretation, but rather of words on the page.--G-Dett 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Again and again, they make clear that "the subject" under discussion is the broad analogy, especially as it includes prospects for peace. Look at the title of their book: Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians. And look at the concluding sentence of the very chapter you're talking about: "Despite the earlier-noted differences, probing the Israel-South Africa analogy does furnish insights in conflict resolution and obstacles to a negotiated settlement, while at the same time revealing the limits of such comparisons."--G-Dett 18:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how a broad analogy of apartheid doesn't include views on the claim/allegation of apartheid? The latter seems to be included intrinsically in the former.--Urthogie 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

suggested compromise

How about we compromise as follows: we move the "most" clause to the "Israel as an apartheid state section." I'm willing to take it out of the lead if everyone opposes it, but we'd have to move it somewhere like that section.--Urthogie 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the new approach is creating a better article

With all due respect, I think this article is in a lot worse shape that it was back in mid-March. I for one would support a wholesale reversion back to what had been a stable, well written article, somewhere around this edit or so. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Not to ratchet up the pressure, but I'm looking with a worried eye at the current move to delete the article. The editors who have opposed this article's existence from the get-go have been conspicuously quiet as this latest busy visitor makes himself at home – rolling up the carpets, tearing down the curtains, throwing out the china and replacing it with dixie cups and plastic sporks. It's a lot easier to condemn a building as structurally unsound if someone's already taken a wrecking ball to it.

Kendrick, I would join you in supporting a wholesale reversion. The need for it is nothing if not timely.--G-Dett 20:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A wholesale reversion is the equivelant of censoring the only person consistently editing here who has a POV that these allegations are completely untrue (a rather mainstream view). Perhaps the reason people asked to have this deleted is because they had trouble dealing with a group of "israel is apartheid" editors? I'm inclined not to agree with them, but a wholesale reversion of my edits would only confirm their avoidance of this article-- which to me, seemed ridiculous, but now somewhat reasonable.

The group of editors here has nothing even resembling consensus. Consensus means various editors from various viewpoints on the subject matter can come to an agreement. If you all think there is some value to the idea of Israel as apartheid, I'm willing to accept that and work with you all to improve the article. However, don't claim you have even a turd of consensus if all of you agree to unilaterally destroy my contributions (the most significant of which, such as the 3 way split, and the allegations template have gained consensus from Kendrick...who started this talk page section).--Urthogie 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a reversion to the version of May 28, 2006 would be best. (OK, in order to save people the pain of scrolling back through pages and pages of edit history, the article was not created until May 29, 2006. This is a really long way to go for a joke, but I'm not proud.) 6SJ7 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I might actually have to offer a word or two for Urthogie here. While I haven't compared the full extent of the changes, I think his effort to better organize the article actually makes some sense, disagreements notwithstanding. Looking at the version before, for instance, one serious problem is the huge reliance on quotes, and beyond that, quotes which offered almost nothing in the way of explanation. If you look at the old "Use of the term" section, specifically, the explanation really stopped with Adam and Moodley, then proceeding into a quote farm of people making the allegation. We then had an explicit list of the same kinds of quotes, apparently by more prominent individuals though not clarifying this. We then had a section on the UN, slightly out of place, followed by the long section on people lambasting use of the term, again without really any explanation. Only after all that did we actually have an explanation of what all these people are talking about.

Urthogie's version, while quickly done, actually seems to solve much of this, by splitting it up into three ways in which the allegation is used, so that we can actually have some context and explanation. Already this division is contextual information the other didn't provide. He then provides the quote list, but followed directly by a discussion of the conditions. At least on a surface level, this seems to make sense. Perhaps partially as a result, he's also then trimmed up the "Use of the Term" section to remove what were really just examples, to something that could be built into a more encyclopedic explanation (possibly using the rest of Adam and Moodley).

In any case, that's not to say I agree with all of the changes. For one thing, I'm not sure the "Allegations that Israel is an Apartheid State" section should really be a section of its own. If anything, I'd move it to third, as in "Some people make the allegation without specifying what exactly they're referring to." Perhaps others should give it another look, though? I'm sure there are other issues that I haven't picked up yet, but I think the organizational approaches might have some merit. Mackan79 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorsed this division when Urthogie first discussed it, but the way it's been implemented has left me exasperated. --G-Dett 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the current run-on sentence in the lead is bordering on nonsensical. Scroll up to see my suggested compromise. Also, I think "apartheid state" allegation section should stay because some people think Israel is a colonial apartheid state ever since 1948. So they are purposefully referring to all of Israel, not just being vague--Urthogie 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of what this article is: Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. It should explain them, who makes them, and discuss criticism of them -- using reliable sources. What I see happening is a restructuring of the article to support turing everything upside down, and focusing on "criticism" and denial. This really isn't fair to the reader who comes here to get facts. Urthogie, if you want to represent a POV, then work on the criticism sections, but please do not deny or censor the many, many allegations themselves because they are sourced.Kritt 22:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think you can reliably predict the motivations of every single person that comes to this article but the simple fact is that no single person can change an article in order to match it to their vision and then announce that people are not permitted to revert them. Call it what you want but as long as it is allowed by wikipedia policy, it is allowed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam/Moodley in lead

Another problem with the "majority of journalists and academic commentators reject any analogy" quote in the lead is that the book it's cited to was published before Carter's. Carter's book has blown the topic wide open and rather transformed the discussion. The A & M statement may very well still hold but I think we'd need a current source for it.--G-Dett 13:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's dubious and the cite is only 2 years old. Find a source that Carter's book "transformed the discussion". <<-armon->> 07:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me maybe one of our problems is the failure to note the diversity of use at the front, to make clearer that this isn't simply an allegation, but a rather more involved discussion. Looking through the article, it's kind of striking how many people have discussed this. That said, I'm not sure our "Some people allege it and some people call it slander" really paints an accurate picture. What if we started with something like this:

Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy from the policies of apartheid era South Africa to those of Israel. Those who use the analogy point to Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, policies of physical separation between the two groups, and/or allege second-class treatment of Arabs citizens in Israel proper.

While some argue that the situations resemble apartheid currently, others argue that such conditions are at risk of arising in the future. The analogy has also been invoked by Israeli political leaders and studied academically for parallels if not outright allegations.

Many journalists and academic commentators have rejected any analogy from South African apartheid to Israel's policies and conditions.^[1] Those who reject the analogy argue that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy democratic rights,^[2] and that other countries also resemble South African apartheid are not accused of it.^[3]^[4] These critics also maintain that Israel's limitations and protective measures against Palestinians in the West Bank are based on security needs,^[5].

I'm not sure what else could be done with a middle paragraph like that, but if we're following WP:Lead, it seems like an approach we might try. Mackan79 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It would all be much simpler if this article (cut way down because it is way too long, there is no need to list everybody who ever said anything on the subject) were just a section of some other article, like maybe Human rights in Israel. Then there would be no need to worry about titles or leads or anything, although I am sure some people would edit-war over the section heading and introduction. But that would be much less disruptive than this mess. 6SJ7 16:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, I like your idea of making clear at the outset that the discussion is more nuanced and involved than “pro/con” would suggest. But I don’t know about the second paragraph of what you've proposed:

While some argue that the situations resemble apartheid currently, others argue that such conditions are at risk of arising in the future. The analogy has also been invoked by Israeli political leaders and studied academically for parallels if not outright allegations.

Who argues that there's a risk of such conditions arising in the future? Brzezinski makes very clear that he’s talking about present conditions becoming permanent, not new conditions arising. I’m not looking for a reprise here of my debate with Andyvphill, so let’s just bracket Brzezinski for a moment. Who else besides him could be thought to be talking about future Apartheid-like conditions arising?

How about this for the “nuance” paragraph:

While some who invoke the comparison allege Israel's culpability as a "colonial state," others argue that understandable security measures, when combined with the expansion and consolidation of Israel's settlement program, have produced a status quo that if left permanent will constitute a de facto form of apartheid. Broader analogies between apartheid South African and the Israeli-Palestinian impasse have also been invoked by Israeli political leaders, and studied academically for parallels if not outright allegations.

I know, Urthogie, there's some cruft there. :) --G-Dett 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a big improvement. I was thinking of Brzezinski and Carter, which wasn't to say they don't also consider the conditions in some ways comparable now, but perhaps that they also seem to suggest things could go more in that direction in the future. Actually if you look at Barak's statements as quoted by Adam and Moodley, they also have a quality of "if we don't act now" to them. (p. 21) Partly I was thinking this would render moot the debate with Andyvphill, while making a little clearer that it's not always necessarily an outright allegation of full on Apartheid right now. I think your proposal is very good, though; I'm curious what others think. Mackan79 17:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I object totally to inclusion of that sentence. That one single quote does not belong in the Lead. As I recall, the word colonialism, having more sources was taken out of the lead. Let's be fair here. Also, somebody needs to find a copy of the Adam and Moodley book and NPOV all of their quotes. As it stands, Adam and Moodley have been cherry-picked to support a pro-Israel POV. It's not honest, and it doesn't fully represent what they say.Kritt 22:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What did you think about this proposal for the lead? Combining G-Dett with my suggetion, we have:

Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw a controversial analogy from the policies of apartheid era South Africa to those of Israel. Those who use the analogy point to Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, policies of physical separation between the two groups, and/or allege second-class treatment of Arabs citizens in Israel proper.

While some who invoke the comparison allege Israel's culpability as a "colonial state," others argue that understandable security measures, when combined with the expansion and consolidation of Israel's settlement program, have produced a status quo that if left permanent will constitute a de facto form of apartheid. Broader analogies between South Africa and the Israeli-Palestinian impasse have also been invoked by Israeli political leaders, and studied academically for parallels if not outright allegations.

Many journalists and academic commentators have strongly rejected any analogy from Israel to South Africa's apartheid era.^[6] Those who reject the analogy argue that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy democratic rights,^[7] and that other countries also resemble South African apartheid are not accused of it.^[8]^[4] These critics also maintain that Israel's limitations and protective measures in the West Bank are based on security needs.^[5]

Needs more work, I think, but might be a way to reduce the tension by beefing up the discussion a little. Mackan79 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that the 3 paragraph version is a bit repetitive at the moment. <<-armon->> 07:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I cut a little verbiage, which may or may not help. Am I overlooking something obvious? Mackan79 13:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Op Cit

The first cite in this article (to a study, apparently) seems to be malformed. It says "op cit" in the footnote, but "op cit" refers to earlier citations. There is no earlier citation, so the study seems impossible to look up at the moment. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 23:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I think I fixed it. I think it should have been:

Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians, University College London Press, pp. 20-21. ISBN 1-84472-130-2 <<-armon->> 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Picky picky V. I think editors need to get used to Op cit possibly refering to what has since become later citation due the the ease of reoganizing sentences on the wikipedia. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Allegations of apartheid

Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Benny Morris

Why is Benny Morris and the following blockquote the largest in the article? This article is about Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and the reader wants to learn about them, who makes them, and what the allegations actually are. I find the emphasis on Criticism to be POV. Let's not deny or hide the allegations of Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter. Discuss criticism, but let's not suppress allegations or bury them for POV purposes. Here is the largest quoted source in the article. WP is not supposed to be a soapbox? Let's be fair. The Allegations themselves should not be suppressed or denied.

According to historian Benny Morris, one of the most widely quoted scholars on the Arab-Israeli conflict,

Israel is not an apartheid state — rather the opposite, it is easily the most democratic and politically egalitarian state in the Middle East, in which Arabs Israelis enjoy far more freedom, better social services, etc. than in all the Arab states surrounding it. Indeed, Arab representatives in the Knesset, who continuously call for dismantling the Jewish state, support the Hezbollah, etc., enjoy more freedom than many Western democracies give their internal Oppositions. (The U.S. would prosecute and jail Congressmen calling for the overthrow of the U.S. Govt. or the demise of the U.S.) The best comparison would be the treatment of Japanese Americans by the US Govt ... and the British Govt. [incarceration] of German emigres in Britain WWII ... Israel's Arabs by and large identify with Israel's enemies, the Palestinians. But Israel hasn't jailed or curtailed their freedoms en masse (since 1966 [when Israel lifted its state of martial law]).

[Morris later added: "Israel ... has not jailed tens of thousands of Arabs indiscriminately out fear that they might support the Arab states warring with Israel; it did not do so in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 or 1982 — despite the Israeli Arabs' support for the enemy Arab states."]

As to the occupied territories, Israeli policy is fueled by security considerations (whether one agrees with them or not, or with all the specific measures adopted at any given time) rather than racism (though, to be sure, there are Israelis who are motivated by racism in their attitude and actions towards Arabs) — and indeed the Arab population suffers as a result. But Gaza's and the West Bank's population (Arabs) are not Israeli citizens and cannot expect to benefit from the same rights as Israeli citizens so long as the occupation or semi-occupation (more accurately) continues, which itself is a function of the continued state of war between the Hamas-led Palestinians (and their Syrian and other Arab allies) and Israel.^[9]

Kritt 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Morris is a scholar. Carter and Tutu are deranged politicians and Tutu is a Christian Church leader. The quotes you added to the Overview section surely do not belong there. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If we're quoting Morris because he's a scholar, then why aren't we quoting his scholarship? This is a statement he made to CAMERA, presumably in an email but possibly on the phone or something. They asked him what he thinks of Norman Finkelstein, and this was his response, which we've gone and pasted into our article in its entirety. Only the first sentence has anything to do with apartheid; it's just one item in his rhetorical-checklist-style response to Finkelstein via CAMERA.

The reason CAMERA (a pressure group that lobbies the media for coverage more favorable to Israel) is asking Morris what he thinks of Finkelstein is because Finkelstein has made extensive use of Morris' scholarship.

For those who don't already know: Morris is the most prominent of the New Historians. His landmark book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem argued that ethnic cleansing played a central role in the 1948 Palestinian exodus and the creation of the state of Israel. This book was recently reissued and updated with further research buttressed by declassified government documents; the new edition makes the case about ethnic cleansing in even stronger terms. Between the two editions, however, Morris' politics shifted 180 degrees: he went from being a leftist post-Zionist to being a Sharon supporter. In the new edition of his book, he argues that ethnic cleansing is sometimes morally justified, and that Israel made a historic mistake in not completing the job. Morris is a rare bird, one of the few scholars of the Arab-Israeli conflict who keeps his scholarship and his advocacy thoroughly distinct. His scholarship creates a problem for mythologizers like CAMERA, but his advocacy creates an opportunity for them. So they often ask him for a political statement like this in order to neutralize the effect of his academic work. Alan Dershowitz, to take another example, emailed him and then quoted his emailed response in his book The Case for Peace. The goal in that case was the same, to use "citizen Morris" to obviate the work of "historian Morris" (Morris emphasizes this distinction and coined both of these phrases himself). --G-Dett 22:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement goes to the credibility of Finkelstein and thus is relevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not everything that "goes to the credibility of Finkelstein" is relevant to an article on Israeli apartheid.--G-Dett 15:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Humus Spapiens: Benny Morris representing criticism, should not be the most quoted person in the article, that is just dishonest.Kritt 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

He should be the most prominent quote in the article. He's the most scholarly. G-Dett, by the way, is suggesting we add original research by adding notes on his scholarship. That is for his article, not this one. A link is given on his name. This whole talk page section is unneeded. Thanks, --Urthogie 15:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Original research? A link is given on whose name? I'm not suggesting we add anything at all; the point of my only edit on this matter was to subtract the bulk of a rambling quote that had been lovingly copied-and-pasted in its entirety from the CAMERA website into our article. I left in the part that addressed "Israeli apartheid," since that's the subject of this article.

My longer post about Morris was written for the benefit of editors who might be scratching their heads wondering why Wikipedians who exalt Morris as "the most scholarly" of our sources never use or refer to his scholarship, but instead prefer to quote his emails, phone calls, casual statements to partisan pressure groups, etc. What I wrote was not a proposed addition to the article page, for G-d's sake. WP:NOR applies to article pages, not editorial discussions. I thought all of this was clear; apparently not.--G-Dett 14:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I think the quote should be kept in full. It's all relevant. Your opinions on morris's opinions should be on forums, not here.--Urthogie 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are for collective discussion of editorial decisions. A key editorial decision always facing us on this page is the question of what material to include in the article and how prominently it should figure there. It is exasperating to have to be so explicit, but here goes: if we are quoting Morris because of his authority and status as a scholar, then it is his scholarship we should be quoting. --G-Dett 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu is a better authority on Apartheid than is Benny Morris. The POV to bury Desmond Tutu is dishonest. If you want Morris, then kindly stop burying Tutu. Let's try to be fair here.Kritt 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens, you wrote: "Carter and Tutu are deranged politicians". Can you be NPOV? Kritt 20:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

reverted redundancy

It's redundant to have a separate examples section when we already have all these examples specifically integrated for clarity.--Urthogie 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, let's integrate the examples. But first let's get A-M's POV out of the center and down to the Crit section where it belongs -- they are NOT the subject of this article. Kritt has it mostly right, it's just his steps are too small. Seems to me I saw G-dett complaining about other editors putting A-M at the top, too. Go ahead and organize by topic if it can be done (which is not clear) BUT A-M DON'T GET TO WRITE THE "OVERVIEW". Their POV doesn't get to be priviledged. Andyvphil 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you plan to push A & M off their burnished thrones and into the regular ranks of commentators, I don't think you'll run into too much resistance. The only reason they've enjoyed such prominence here is that for a long time very few had actually read them, and the radically distortive version of them presented on this page made out that they had rejected this article's analogy categorically. So those who felt their POV had been echoed by the only full-length study of the subject gave that study glowing blurbs, said that A & M are the only real experts here, we should foreground them, structure the article around them, quote them and Benjamin Pogrund and no one else, etc. etc. Until it was brought to general attention that A & M had been distorted beyond recognition, that the phrases cherry-picked so as to imply a rejection of the analogy between Israel and South Africa were, in their original context, only A & M's qualified misgivings about an analogy that their book, after all, is premised on. When this, as I say, was brought to general attention, all the candles and cigarette lighters held aloft in A & M's honor guttered and went out, the house lights came on, and collective belief in their infallibly abruptly subsided, mid-swoon as it were. Like I said, I don't think you need to worry about a lot of editorial resistance if you plan to demote them.

What I complained about was citing them misleadingly in the lead. I wasn't suggesting that we take the "overview" section out of their hands, but in principle I have no objection to doing just that.--G-Dett 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I kind of liked the A & M material, though, for at least providing some sort of overview. Would some other format be better? I'd thought the proposed "nuance" paragraph might actually go into this kind of overview, if it doesn't fit the lead. Otherwise, my concern was simply that we're jumping to the raw data rather quickly for an encyclopedia article. Mackan79 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think the A & M material is good. Andyvphil's point as I understood it is that they shouldn't "own" the overview.--G-Dett 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not one person editing the article that has read, or has a copy of A & M's book. It's not mainstream at all. The A & M information has been "cherry-picked" to represent pro-Israeli POV. People should endeavour to get a copy of that book first. They are NOT the only or ultimate source. I wish people would be honest.Kritt 06:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are pro-Zionist and Criticism blockquotes longer than Allegations of Apartheid themselves?

I think we need to NPOV the amount of blockquotes and/or even them out. A reader who comes here to learn, finds less text about the allegations themselves. Please do not bury Apartheid expert Desmond Tutu's allegations. Kritt 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's put Tutu and Carter and Barghouti and the Durban communique right at the top. Just keep the quotes on topic. Tutu on someone's general unhappiness with the occupation is not on topic. Tutu drawing the analogy with pass laws is, and is absolutely important to defining the subject of this article. Which has to preceed commentary on the analogy. Andyvphil 21:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A & M actually give an overview of the analogy, while noone else does, aside from short articles in newspapers. This is why we give them weight in the article. Also, integration actually has consensus support. You keep editing against consensus by reworking the article structure, andy. Everyone here but you and Kritt support having the sections in the form they are right now.--Urthogie 03:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really getting tiresome that some editors appear totally unwilling to collaborate here. Please be fair and honest. This article is about allegations, not playing games with the article structure to deny or hide them. The level of blockquotes for Criticism needs more brevity, and I will work on that.Kritt 07:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Many editors suport the longer blockquote for Morris.--Urthogie 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is 1 editor or a 100 isn't terribly relevant if it is running afoul of undue weight concerns. Tarc 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tarc here. If we're going to lean on Morris' scholarly reputation to justify a lengthy block-quote, then that lengthy block-quote should come from and/or be representative of his scholarship; otherwise we're playing a shell game.--G-Dett 14:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is not measured by number of words. As it is, the comparisons between Israeli practices and apartheid are of several different types, ranging from those who say there are some worrisome similarities to those who categorically say it's all apartheid to them. As for collaborating, the recurring theme on this article is an insistence by some editors that the allegation be accepted as a premise. --Leifern 14:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, can you point to a single example of such insistence on the part of a key editor of this article?--G-Dett 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is not measured by number of words? Then why do pro-Israeli editors revert, deny, and diminish the actual allegations themselves, and support only huge blockquotes of "criticism"? Kritt 05:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

andy

You keep reverting the article structure to a version that has no consensus. We have an overview section for the purpose of summarizing the subject. Going right into examples is the opposite of explanatory, and that's why we don't do it right away. We do it soon after though.

Also, to Kritt, please stop puttin things in the wrong section. Tutu and Carter don't allege that all of Israel is an apartheid state. We distinguish for a reason-- to be clear on this issue. We've already put the section that Tutu and Carter are in at the very top, per your request. The overview (a summary section) is the only thing which comes before it.--Urthogie 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of that is your original research. Carter and Tutu state clearly what they mean, that's why it's in blockquote, so editors cannot twist their or bury their words for POV purposes. This article is increasingly an attempt to deny and hide the statements of the actual sources. Collaboration means not burying the allegations of Desmond Tutu or interpreting them along Original Research and POV lines.Kritt 07:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so my opinion is original research and yours is fact? Puhleez. By the way, I move them to the top of the section per your request.--Urthogie 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu are not original research. Please do not continue to bury them and disrupt the article and the allegations. The allegations themselves are the topic. Work on Criticism if that is your POV. Thanks.Kritt 06:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Split article

There should be two articles - Allegations of Israeli Apartheid and Status of Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank, with a redirect from Israeli Apartheid itself to the latter of the two. This latter article could use almost all of the material here on actual status issues, but would need a ton of balance. The allegations should refer to this latter article for all but the most general and noncommital factual claims (though all the he-said-she-said which uses the word apartheid stays.) This article should be about what its title says, and not an excuse for a POV fork of factual data. (note: I'm not claiming that any data here is false - just that any article with this title will inevitably sideline any equally-true pro-Israel facts). --Homunq (talk • contribs)

I agree, but it's difficult to know exactly where exactly the perfect place to split it is.--Urthogie 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There was actually some support for this idea in the last discussion to rename.[11] I think the article is better organized now, but it's one thing to consider, which might also help stem the proliferation of "Allegations" pages. If so, I think this page would generally go back pre-Urthogie[12], and would then simply end before the sections on conditions, which would be moved, linked and potentially summarized per WP:SS. Mackan79 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There could be two articles, without diminishing or hiding the factual information contained herein.Kritt 06:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do Adam and Moodley's research really investigate the distribution of journalists' and commentators' opinions on the allegations? To me it seems (from the chapter used as a source here) that they only assume this. Is this a part of their scientific study? How did they do it? It would be unprecise to claim that this is something the study "found" unless this distribution is the object of their study. Any opinions?

An academic investigation in 2005 found that the majority of journalists and academic commentators reject, as propaganda, any analogy from South African apartheid and the political process of reconciliation that ended it to the Israel-Palestine impasse and the prospects for resolving it. [1][2] and that other countries also resemble South African apartheid are not accused of it.

pertn 10:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Our text makes it sound like this was a study of how many people accept and reject the analogy, which isn't accurate. It's also still the wrong place for that sentiment, as I think Urthogie actually agreed (at least as a compromise). If we're looking for something else, I think what needs to be made clear is that many people object to the legitimacy of the analogy, in addition to challenging it on substantive grounds, if we're hoping to find agreement. Mackan79 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Pertn. The comment about commentators being incensed by the analogy is not their 'finding'; it's them giving the contours of the discussion which their book hopes to reshape. Their book isn't a statistical analysis or survey of attitudes toward the Israel-South Africa analogy. It's an attempt to build moral, political, and historical lessons from South Africa into an approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--G-Dett 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. This should be changed immediately as the protect is removed. The current wording, with it's prominence in the article is flat out misinformation. pertn 07:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam & Moodley represent a disproportionate part of the article, and nobody has heard of them. Pro-Israeli POV editors have cherry-picked from (A&M), and continually try to diminish the allegations of Apartheid from experts like Desmond Tutu. That conduct is really dishonest, in my opinion. Adam & Moodley do NOT deny allegations of Israeli Apartheid, however this article leads one to believe they do. Neither Adam or Moodley is an expert on Apartheid as is Desmond Tutu or the many other anti-apartheid activists that are referenced in this article, but are mostly obscured by pro-Israel editors. Thanks. Kritt 06:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Structure

I like that Urthogie has emphasized the distinction between the charge of apartheid in the territories vs. within Israel. I don't, however, understand the point of this third section with its cryptic title "Allegations that Israel is an apartheid state." What view is supposedly shared by the figures herded together into this section? "Apartheid state" is a phrase. Some people use it to mean that there are "apartheid policies inside of Israel proper"; others use it to mean that Israel practices something like "apartheid in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip." Probably more use the phrase to mean the former than the latter. But who cares? There are separate sections for both of these views, and we don't need a third. Let's dissolve the section "Allegations that Israel is an apartheid state," and slot the figures within it (who seem to have grouped together for no other reason than a similar choice of words) into their proper categories.

I also think we should structure our presentation to reflect the fact that the preponderance of "allegations of Israeli apartheid" refer to the territories, not Israel proper.--G-Dett 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources indicate which of the three uses they are employing. "Apartheid state" is the claim made by those who think all of Israel is an illegitimate country since its inception, and therefore apartheid because they consider it no different from Palestine. Sources flesh out which their writers' take.--Urthogie 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, shouldn't we just add them to the "apartheid policies inside of Israel proper" section? Or are you saying that these writers are those who find the very idea of Israel to constitute by definition apartheid, whereas those in the section where I'd like to move them merely have a beef with this or that policy?

In any case, isn't this three-part division a little misleading? The overwhelming majority of RS's who talk about "Israeli apartheid" are talking about the territories. I think it would make sense to devote the bulk of the article to that, and then put the other senses of the term further down?--G-Dett 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Although this suggestion makes sense, I think it might be original research... not sure though... by the way, once this is unprotected, can you please help me revert andy who continues to mangle the article structure repeatedly? Thanks--Urthogie 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I got your back, Urthogie. The second the article opens up I'll walk up to Andy all friendly-like but then I'll crack him one with my elbow and you can pile-drive him while he's still stunned and we'll pin his ass to the mat.

While we wait for our moment, though, remind me who Andy is. Andyvphil? His edits seem modest and adequately explained on the whole. There's a couple I disagree with, and I'd love to get him back for disagreeing with me about the 'diplomatic future tense'...but what's he mangled?--G-Dett 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The structure. Adding examples before overview, as if we don't already have examples.--Urthogie 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't place examples before the "overview", I relied on the lead to be the overview, renamed the faux-overview and started moving it down to the commentary section where it belongs. A-M are so deeply embedded in this article that I couldn't do that in one go without devoting more time to the effort than I have available, but I am indeed proposing and intending a radical change in the article, and it will be a building site for a while if that goes ahead.

The quoted A-M typology of critical reaction isn't really a serious typology at all, but an attempt to claim for themselves credit for being the moderate middle. There is no reason you can't both deplore the analogy (group-1) and look to the South African experience for insight into possible ameliorations ("group"-3, i.e. A-M). Of course there are some similarities between situations where two ethnic groups contest control of the same real estate. And differences. South Africa, Kosovo, Iraq, Israel, etc., etc., etc. The analogy is controversial not because it is completely loony but because of its semantic load: it is in one dimension of a piece with the Durban declaration that Zionism is racism. To the extent that this article concentrates on the other dimension of examining in detail arguments over the degree to which the Israeli and South African examples are the same or differ it underweights the basic conflict over semantic high ground. Witness G-Dett's satisfaction with the fact that A-M assume the legitimacy of the analogy. We come at this from different sides but at least we both understand what the argument is about. Andyvphil 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Noone's stopping you from improving the overview section by adding people other than A and M who analyze this analogy. Just please stop reworking the article structure.--Urthogie 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sophistry to say that "Israeli apartheid" is analogous to "Zionism=racism." The first targets a specific set of state policies; the second targets a much larger and historically evolving political and cultural force, one which has been protean in its manifestations. The other remarks in Andyvphil's post, however, especially about A & M's typology and the "conflict over semantic high ground," strike me as accurate and important. Which is why it doesn't really make sense for us to lean on A & M as our core canonical text; the issue over "semantic high ground" is exactly what they want to deflect in their plea for "moral literacy." Given that Andyvphil has my consent to "topple A & M from their burnished thrones," as I enthusiastically put it, I'm not sure why he thinks I take such satisfaction in their assumptions. I took considerable satisfaction, I'll confess, in watching those who'd borne them aloft in those burnished thrones, parading them in state on this talk page, suddenly and unceremoniously drop the celebrated authors on their asses when it became clearer what they were saying. But that, after all, is a different thing.--G-Dett 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What's sophistry is to deny that "Israeli policies=Apartheid" is mostly a form of name-calling closely akin to "Zionism=racism". "[T]he second targets a much larger and historically evolving political and cultural force, one which has been protean in its manifestations"??? In person, you can really keep a straight face while delivering such a gaseous emission? (Pro-)Israeli points, "Terrorist!" Third-worlder points, "Racist!" Neither even knows what protean means. Mostly it doesn't get any more sophisticated than that. (BTW, is it Zionism or Racism that's protean?) Andyvphil 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree Andy makes a good point about the problem with A&M. It is a bit self-serving, but at least it provides something, which I think we mostly agree is accurate in the end (if phrased as they do; our current representation in the lead that most simply "reject" the analogy is a bit off). I think their purpose is also somewhat self-evident, which makes it less of a problem when we attribute it directly to them in the text. Perhaps Andy is right that it fits better with the rest of the commentary; that simply leaves the question of what else we might say in the overview, which I think is important to have in some form. If you want to restructure the format, Andy, could you give an idea of what you're planning? Mackan79 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett has it right (as far as I can tell -- I've only read the excerpt, and found it very forgettable) that A-M are attempting to deflect the conflict over semantic high ground inherent in the "apartheid" analogy in favor of trying to draw policy lessons from the South African experience. That makes them legitimizers of the analogy, and implies a deflection of the article from the subject of its title to the substance of the comparison. Well... that's a legitimate part of the article, but it's not the history of the allegations, which I think should be central to an article of this title. I don't think I'm saying anything here that others haven't said elsewhere on this page in different words. Move A-M down, maybe put up a timeline, see what develops. I haven't thought it out in any more detail than that. Just do it. Andyvphil 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See below, there are several article which serve to give an overview/analysis of the analogy, such as parts of that NY book review. I wish people would stop posing this false dillema. The overview can be improved.--Urthogie 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie has reworked the "structure" of the article to push pro-Israeli POV. Andy is correct to worry about Adam & Moodley's positioning in the article. Plus, nobody currently editing the article has read, or has a copy of Adam & Moodley, and the quotes are cherry-picked". They are relatively meaningless in this issue worldwide. South African anti-apartheid activists are being hidden and obscured. Kritt 05:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Moodley is pro-POV?--Urthogie 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

check it

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19993

It's only when one speaks of the lesser "Palestine"—meaning, as Jimmy Carter says he does, the territories that would participate in the full-fledged two-state solution that's supposed to be the aim of Western diplomacy—that "apartheid" begins to shape up as a charge more troubling than an epithet, as a loose analogy that carries some weight.

also..

Carter defends the use of "apartheid" in his title like a politician defending a particularly tough attack ad. He says he doesn't regret it, that it was a deliberate provocation that has had its intended effect; in other words, that it works as an attention grabber. In his hands, it's basically a slogan, not reasoned argument, and the best that can be said for it, as we've seen, is that significant similarities can be found in the occupation of the territories. It's understandable if Israelis who feel sickened by a sense that they're personally implicated in the brutality of the occupation resort to the word in order to shame their countrymen. Some outsiders might contemplate the phenomenon of suicide bombing and ask how they would deal with the bombers before resorting to the label "apartheid." Others might insist on their right to be outraged about both the bombings and the oppressive measures imposed in the name of counterterrorism.

Meron Benvenisti, who has been intrigued by the comparison to South Africa over the years, now calls for a rhetorical cease-fire. The use of the term "apartheid," he wrote back in 2005, has become in Israel a "mark of leftist radicalism," while its denial stands as proof of "Zionist patriotism." Objective comparison or discussion of the validity of any comparison is "nearly impossible." Anyone who goes into the question, Benvenisti wrote, "will be judged by his conclusions." The choice, he said, is between being called an anti-Semite or a fascist. The occupation should be seen in its own harsh light, he concluded, rather than subjected to a comparison.

Article distinguishes between the various accusations, showing we're doing the right thing here. Plenty to add from it, not only to discussing Carter's example, but also for the overview section.--Urthogie 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Carter defends the use of "apartheid" in his title like a politician defending a particularly tough attack ad." Urthogie: Wikipedia is not a blog. That source is POV. Kritt 05:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

L o fucking L. The whole point of the encyclopedia is to present various points of view. If they're mainstream sources, like the New York Review of Books, they're admissable. Let's take a look at your understanding of POV, and compare it to the real NPOV policy:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

Source: Wikipedia:NPOV. So, we're actually supposed to represent views. The key, of course, is that we represent them fairly, but they should be represented. I don't see how that in any way equates to turning the article into a "blog."--Urthogie 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

this article

this article is unwarranted and non-factual, based on the fact that "apartheid" itself is a charged, loaded and scurrilous word. There is absolutely no factual basis for labeling Israel aparthied. it has tried repeatedly to make peace with Palestinians, and has been rebuffed repeatedly. Any existing restrictions are due to ongoing incitement by the Palestinian side, and stem only from lack of success of Israel's efforts to reach a lasting definitive political settlement. --Sm8900 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All well and good, but there's a fairly hefty RS-discussion and debate of the issue. Our job is to present this discussion, not censor it on the basis of moral and ideological objections to the subject matter at hand.--G-Dett 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the discussion and the use of the term surely are notable, considering that there's so much literature devoted to this rhetorical device. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urthogie (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Although referring to Israel as an apartheid is a deliberate distortion of the facts on the ground, because several sources repeat this distortion enough, it has unfortunately become a hurdle both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict that both sides have to overcome. The distortion must be understood by both sides and by the rest of the world. Thus, this Wikipedia article is necessary and should not be deleted. On the other hand, I would prefer this article to be condensed and presented as a part of the Allegations of apartheid article. --GHcool 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no deliberate distortion. Experts have spoken. The allegations of Apartheid are numerous, and reliable. Many South African anti-apartheid activists have said so. The attempts to deny or hide these allegations discredit Wikipedia.Kritt 05:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not hidden, we moved them to the very top of their sections because you whined about it.--Urthogie 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

suggestion

The article's examples should be converted from bullets to paragraphs. This way they can be discussed by other sources in the paragraphs as well.--Urthogie 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Other sources in paragraphs is a terrible idea. This is an attmempt to revise, hide, and deny the actual allegations themselves. Let the text not be hidden. Urthogie: if you want to work on the Criticism sections, please do so, but do not remove allegations due to POV. Kritt 05:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Therefore, lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed

Source: Wikipedia:Embedded lists (style guideline). Kritt, is it incredibly POV to follow style guidelines??? Noone is suggesting we remove the allegations, only that we make them conform with style guidelines. Damn.--Urthogie 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

page shouldn't be unlocked until the following is acknowledged and accepted:

The article's structure right now is basically pretty good, and should not undergo quick, radical structural changes.
It is a red herring to argue that the overview is biased in favor of A & M. If other people give an overview of the analogy/allegation in any sort of notable book, feel free to ad it. Indeed, the overview section should not only include Moodley and Adam, but many points of view as several here have suggested.
The bullets in the article should be converted to paragraphs, per Wikipedia:Embedded lists.
Editing this page is hard enough. Arguments should be leveraged on the basis of policies, not subjective dialectics.
Editors here need to read Wikipedia:NPOV in full. NPOV applies only to the article itself, not the talk page.
Editors here need to stop accusing one another of "hiding" the truth, as if there is a sinister conspiracy. We are all here because we want the page to be neutral (or at least I hope so). Accusing someone of "hiding" something when the article clearly provides many examples of is a red herring that ignores that other people can fairly disagree without being incorrigable demons.

Until all of us either agree to these points, or agree to revert anyone who edits in violation of these points, I don't support unlocking the article.--Urthogie 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we also accept that A&M' research is misrepresented in the article? (see my "question" section above here) pertn 08:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we should discuss changing the sentences dealing with them but not remove them. I think there is agreement in this regard.--Urthogie 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is a fork of "Human Rights in Israel" article - no beating around the bush. If anything, there could be a different article at "Human Rights of Palestinians in Israel and West Bank". So what is the primary argument that this article should stay seperately than those two? The title is inherently POV and OR - that is the primary reason why so many edit-wars and disputes happen: if the title has problems, than the disputes will never cease no matter how NPOVising is done. Let's just merge it with HR in Israel or rename it to HR of PL in IS and WB.. Baristarim 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You really can't perform 500 edits in a couple of weeks and then demand that all other editors accept that the structure is now basically good. The structure is now basically yours. That's not the same thing. Jd2718 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Noone owns an article, but I believe the structure I've developed has consensus here. Most editors here support this three way division. So focus on the consensus, not on me :)--Urthogie 13:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at this page in a few months. It's much worse. Big WP:OWN problem; far too many controversial edits by one person. Maybe if we just reverted back to early March and blocked Urthogie for a few weeks... --John Nagle 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use the Talk: page for constructive comments. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I had reached just such a conclusion about the recent changes and made a similar proposal above. A consensus seems to be forming which is the exact opposite of what Urthogie is proposing here. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of the opposition is to my editing style. The structure of the article is supported by the majority of users here. You yourself expressed support for it earlier.--Urthogie 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, the opposition is to the style and the content. You keep claiming "consensus" for what you've done here, but I see little to support that on this talk page. Personally, I think you've butchered the article beyond hope, and too would support a March-ish rollback. Tarc 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, Kendrick, and G-Dett, the three users who have been the most articulate critics of my edits on this page, have all supported, in varying degrees the tripartite division of these allegations. At the very least, there is no consensus against the division. The whole idea of reverting the article back to March was raised, but several users, such as me 61S7, and Mackan opposed that.--Urthogie 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Urthogie. I recommend that you take a break from this article and let others add their input, as you come to it with a very strong POV and you have made and insisted upon numerous controversial edits which have been meet by major resistance by almost a dozen editors. So far many editors on this page have been polite with you and your disruption of this article, but this graciousness is unlikely to be indefinitely extended if you continue this disruption (see WP:DE). Continuing on a path of confrontation and disruption in order to force the article to conform to your perspective at the expense of the perspectives of others is against Wikipedia policies (see WP:NPOV) can result formal penalties. I recommend that you read this section of WP:OWN. --64.230.127.125 03:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article right now reads as an example of Israeli apologetics for the situation in the Palestinian territories and the history shows that any attempts to address even the allegations section are being reverted. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. --64.230.127.125 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't been to this article for a while, on the plus side I'll say it seems to be better written than it was.

However, there is at least one major problem I see with this article, which is a problem I see with a number of other controversial pages on Wiki. And that is that the article essentially leads off with a long series of denials that the allegations have any validity.

In my opinion, such a format is totally inappropriate and violates NPOV by attempting to "poison the well" in advance of the allegations themselves. Now I don't know if there is a Wiki rule or guideline on this, but I think it's long past time, if it does not exist, that one was written prohibiting such practices. IMO, the criticism section of any article should always come after the section or sections describing the substance of the topic (in this case, the allegations).

Another criticism related to this one is the frequency with which contradictory statements are introduced into text as opposing editors seek to counteract each other's statements. The end result of this tendency is that the overall integrity of articles is destroyed as one contradictory claim succeeds another in line after line. Articles thereby become an incomprehensible mess, which drags down the quality of the project as a whole. Again, I think this practice needs to be strongly discouraged, preferably by a rule or guideline if one does not exist.

The third problem I have with this article in particular is that it's become rather too long and waffling. Surely the allegations, and the criticisms and denials of such, can be presented more succinctly? Gatoclass 03:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for making the many valid points. I do think the Criticism section comes after, though, if you'll double check. What's needed is both points of view for the sections preceding it. When the page is unlocked we should work to represent the views of those who support this analogy into those sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urthogie (talk • contribs) 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm afraid I must disagree with your interpretation. The "Criticism" section does come later in the article, but the problem is that the "Overview" section is also a de facto criticism section. It simply shouldn't be there. I also agree with the other editors who have said that too much emphasis is given to A&M in general - particularly since their actual position on the issue has been purportedly misrepresented in the article. Gatoclass 04:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this can be addressed by simply adding other overviews to the overview section, and correcting any of the misrepresentations of A&M. Why would you say it must be removed, instead of that?--Urthogie 04:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It goes back to my first post. The article is already too long and I don't see the need for an "overview" at all. At best it is only summarizing the opposing points of view which are already extant in the article, which is to say it's redundant.

In theory an overview might be useful but in practice I see it becoming just another battleground over content - and therefore ending up not as an "overview" at all but just as a further series of pointless digressions and obfuscations - and before the main topic has even been addressed. IMO, best to divide the article into two main sections, a section detailing the substance of the allegations and a section detailing the criticisms and/or refutations of those allegations. Try and keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. Gatoclass 04:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes clear some things which examples alone don't make clear. Namely, that most commentators reject the analogy, and that there is a certain political orientation which tends to be associated with the allegations.--Urthogie 04:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just my point. What is a statement that "most commentators reject the analogy" doing at the head of the article? It looks very much like an attempt to poison the well before the allegations themselves have been canvassed.

Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, Adam and Moodley themselves do not reject the notion of apartheid applying to Israel. So the statement itself is a misrepresentation of their position. The point they were apparently trying to make is that "most commentators" are either wrong or ill informed. But the way they are quoted, it looks as if they are endorsing the view of this supposed majority. Gatoclass 05:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley believe that there are more difference than simmilarities as far as the analogy. I agree that we can work with editing the overview to represent their views more accurately. This is why I encourage you to edit and add to it, rather than remove it.--Urthogie 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley believe that there are more differences than similarities

That may the case, but then that is a long way from being "incensed by the very analogy and deplor[ing] what it deems its propagandistic goals". But the way the information is presented in the article gives the impression that the latter is the informed view - when A&M apparently reject it.

As for "editing and adding to it", I've already stated my view about that. It's just going to become another battleground over content. Why not just divide the article up into pro- and anti- sections, and leave it at that? Gatoclass 05:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Because that's a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV-- undue weight. More weight needs to be given to the more common view, namely of being incensed by the analogy and deploring its propganistic goals.--Urthogie 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. "Undue weight" applies to reliable sources, not to just anyone with an opinion. A&M concluded that "a majority" of commentators reject the notion of Israeli apartheid, but many commentators would not qualify as reliable sources in Wiki terms. So the fact that "a majority" reject the notion means nothing.

Furthermore, how reliable in the first place is this assertion that "a majority" reject the analogy? I see no evidence of actual research A&M have done to come to this conclusion. Did they do any research at all? Or are they just expressing an opinion, based on their personal impressions? And if the latter, why on earth should such an impression be presented front and centre in the article as if it were established fact - let alone used as a justification for weighing the content toward one particular view? Gatoclass 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions don't need to be true, only verified. Unless this (actually true) claim by Adam and Moodley is disagreed upon by another mainstream source, I believe that this is the very basis of deciding due or undue weight.--Urthogie 18:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a "verified conclusion"? Wiki's rules on verifiability clearly state that common sense must be used in determining the reliability of a source or statement. Without evidence that A&M actually did some research to conclude that "a majority" reject the analogy, a mere assertion in that regard can hardly be relied upon.

But in any case, you have ignored my central point, which is that "commentators" are not necessarily experts. The fact that, for example, you might have some blowhards on Fox News who are "incensed" by the analogy means nothing, because such people would not qualify as reliable sources. Therefore the statement that "a majority of commentators reject the analogy" is worthless in Wiki terms. Gatoclass 07:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of common sense to assume someone did a study when everyone calls it a "study" or a "book-length study." We don't need proof that they studied their subject (rather than making it up), last time I checked.

If you can do a study which finds that most commentators work for Fox News, and somehow relate it to allegations of Israeli apartheid, by all means, go ahead. If you're wondering, supporters of Israel don't all work for Fox News. Most Americans support Israel by a significant margin, as does the Democratic party (whose leader opposed Carter's comments), and even many far-left progressives support Israel, too! But I'm not here to argue the (to me obvious) truth for the Adam and Moodley claim. The requirement here, of course, is only verifiability, and that requirement is completely met. --Urthogie 01:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is, this one statement not repeated by any realiable source anywhere made by a source in the course of a rhetorical argument doesn't belong in the lead as if it is somehow the gospel truth. It's undue weight. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a study though... an analysis, not quite an "argument." It's a very calm and reasoned endeavor in which they aim to summarize the debate and valid and invalid points on each side. This one source has so much due weight because there is nothing else like it. (A reflection, one might say, on the notability of this subject matter). Also, I want to note that it is not treated like absolute truth because we say "A 2005 study" rather than just stating its findings as a solid, indisputable fact.--Urthogie 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Howe are you calling it a "study"? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, we are quoting a preface to a study. That's not quite the same thing. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A preface can be sourced just as an introduction can be sourced. When I'm editing genetics pages noone has an issue with me doing this.--Urthogie 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Per study, our meaning would be the second listed, which isn't accurate. In any case, the problem remains undue weight, but also particularly the release of Jimmy Carter's book, whether we state the year or not. Since Urthogie likes to pin us with what we say in his favor, I'll note that he did also agree to remove this earlier as a compromise... Mackan79 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, from a Wikipedia policy standpoint you'd need a source saying that suddenly most commentators accept the allegations of Israeli apartheid now to contradict Adam and Moodley. Obviously, such a source can't be found because such a claim is patently untrue. The reaction to Carter's book-- or more specifically, its title-- is only further proof of how most commentators and society at large view this allegation. Look at the reaction from the Democrats... from Carter's own staff, who resigned. The polls supporting Israel in the United States, have not spiked as a result of Carter's book. It's a book that makes the allegation! It's not the Middle East version of Uncle Tom's Cabin, causing some sort of huge paradigm shift. Nothing fundamental has changed in regard to what "most commentators" say. Carter's book added to the discussion, but it did not change what "most" believe. Aside from the work of Benny Morris (and even that's a maybe), I don't know of any author who has singlehandedly changed conceptions of the Middle East conflict in the public at large, or among "most commentators".

Also, the word study is kind of vague when it comes to the social sciences. "Analysis" would be the equivalent here. But honestly, it's silly semantics. Adam and Moodley overview the allegations. If someone else mainstream does it, please add them to that section. See below for why I think the arguments against the inclusion of A&M have been red herrings.--Urthogie 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying A&M's statement shouldn't be in the article period. Heck — I was the one who typed it into the article in the first place. It just doesn't belong in the lead. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley are the only academics whose expertise is precisely the comparison between South Africa and Israel, and also the only academics who have written academically on the subject. Of course their views should be extremely heavily weighted. As for objections that the "criticism" comes first, whether or not that is reasonable depends on whether or not you view the concept as valid or as spurious. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The reaction to Carter's book-- or more specifically, its title-- is only further proof of how most commentators and society at large view this allegation. Look at the reaction from the Democrats... from Carter's own staff, who resigned. The polls supporting Israel in the United States...

Again, you are completely missing the point. It matters not a whit how "society at large" views the allegation. Nor does it matter what "Democrats" think. Wiki content is not determined by a popularity contest. It's determined by what reliable sources think - that is, predominantly, academics and other experts in the field.

So A&M's assertion that "most commentators" reject the analogy is worthless in Wiki terms, because "most commentators" are not academics or experts in the field. They are TV and newspaper opinionators, and the majority of such people would never qualify as reliable sources for the purposes of this project. Gatoclass 05:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What "most commentators" think is actually extremely valuable in "wiki terms." Note that it says both journalistic and academic commentators.--Urthogie 12:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing what most people think in the lead is not conventional, even for minority viewpoints. I think Jay's comment actually sets up the right framework, but also that in terms of Wikipedia, the choice between "valid" and "spurious" has to be a semi-objective one based not on our opinions, but on the sources available. When those include Carter, Tutu, Brzezinski, and professors all speaking within the area of their expertise, I don't believe an encyclopedia can dismiss them.

Of course, we probably won't agree on this either unless some proposal actually satisfies both sides. In my view, the thing to do is not to treat the idea as illegitimate, but to present the idea, and then note that opponents consider it illegitimate. This sends out the warning that the entire premise here is disputed. Alternatively, we could add the middle paragraph toning down the analogy so that calling it completely illegitimate doesn't seem necessary (I don't believe most people dismiss A/M as completely illegitimate). Probably people should try to focus more on concrete proposals, though I'm currently guilty of not doing this myself. Mackan79 13:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What "most commentators" think is actually extremely valuable in "wiki terms."

No, what "most commentators" think is of no interest to an encyclopedia, except perhaps as sociology. Encyclopedias base their content on facts, not popular notions.

Note that it says both journalistic and academic commentators

Yes, but it doesn't say a majority of both. It only says "a majority", which presumably means a majority of commentators of all types. And since journalistic commentators far outnumber academic experts in any given field, it's not unreasonable to assume that the bulk of this purported "majority of commentators" to which A&M are referring are in fact, merely media commentators and not experts at all. Gatoclass 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What most people think is a fact worth noting, especially in regards to political issues like this allegation. In other fields too, really. Most mainstream researchers reject intelligent design. Most people support the two state solution, not the one state solution. Most people don't vote for the libertarian party, so we note that it's a third party. I could go on and on. The majority of Christians are of this sect..etc.. I could keep going. This argument is fruitless.
It doesn't matter how you interpret it, or play word games with the word "both". We quote it exactly to avoid such issues.--Urthogie 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What most people think is a fact worth noting, especially in regards to political issues like this allegation

Show me where in Wiki rules or guidelines it says that articles should make reference to "what most people think".

It doesn't matter how you interpret it, or play word games with the word "both". We quote it exactly to avoid such issues

The question is not whether the comment is "quoted exactly" but whether it should be quoted at all - or at least in the prominent position it now occupies. There is also the question of whether A&M's own position on the controversy has been properly stated, or if in fact they are being misrepresented by an out-of-context quote. Gatoclass 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No specific Wikipedia policy is necessary to justify the inclusion of such important information such as what the public or the academy or the press thinks about something. If a mainstream source says something relevant in this regard, we can use it. The relevant policy, I suppose would be Wikipedia:Attribution.

There's no actual question here, from a policy standpoint, though. This entire discussion is a bunch of word and logic games (one of them has been addressed head on in the section below), and policy isn't being mentioned at all. Perhaps this is why even Kendrick, who has criticized a lot of aspects of my edits, supports the inclusion of A&M in the article ("No one is saying A&M's statement shouldn't be in the article period."...) I'm sorry if you disagree with the overview given by the source. If you really wanted to present a strong argument, do what most people do on Wikipedia: add another source-- add a source that gives an overview of the allegations, like A&M does. Add a different view, noone is stopping you.--Urthogie 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but if anyone here is playing word games, it's you. You have been trying to argue that the phrase "a majority of commentators" should be interpreted as "a majority of reliable sources". And on that basis, you tried to argue that you have a right to weight the article toward one particular POV.

Unfortunately, the falseness of your premise has been exposed and now you are reduced to arguing that Wikipedia has a responsibility to record "what most people think". Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think you are going to persuade too many people that you have a right to tilt the content of this article in a particular direction on such a flimsy basis. Gatoclass 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're taking this whole discussion out of proportion. It's not about the whole article, which should (almost already seems to) include every single reliable source imaginable, but about a small section called "Overview." Like I said, find someone else who gives an overview and add them to that section. Good luck, --16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is, you began by arguing you had a right to an extra section of de facto criticism in the overview because "a majority of commentators" agreed with your position. But now it's been pointed out to you that "commentators" does not equate to "reliable sources", you just go back to the "well add your own stuff to the overview!" argument. But I've already explained to you why I don't want to do that - (a) because it's likely to become just another battleground over content, and (b) because in so doing it will inevitably end up duplicating content in the other sections.

That's why I've argued for just two main sections - a pro and an anti. We don't need two pro and anti sections - one in the overview and another in the main body of the article. But that is almost certainly what will happen if the overview stays. That's why I say it's redundant and that whatever information is in it now can easily be moved into the criticism section. Gatoclass 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What most academic commentators and journalists think is what deserves the most weight. The definition of due weight is not based on numbers of reliable sources, but rather on what is the established mainstream opinion.--Urthogie 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be your definition, but it isn't Wiki's! Gatoclass 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority.

Minority views, huh? Helps to read shit doesn't it.--Urthogie 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, and you should try it sometime, because it appears you've either ignored or misunderstood everything that's been said on this thread over the past few days.

The above quote pertains to reliable sources, not to just any Joe with an opinion. And you have yet to present any credible evidence that only a minority of reliable sources give credence to the apartheid analogy. As I have tried to explain to you multiple times, "commentators" is not a synonym for "reliable sources", no matter how fervently you might wish otherwise. Gatoclass 09:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it deals with majority vs minority views. Please don't make up claims about the policy to fit your argument.--Urthogie 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the policy. The comments about proportionality pertain to (I quote) "their representation among experts on the subject", not among the populace at large. Gatoclass 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Illogical reasons for editing or moving or removing A&M

G-Dett and Pertn have argued against the current placement/position of A&M in the article. Let me outline why I think their logic is severely flawed. Here's their logic (See relevant posts at: [13] [14])

Adam and Moodley wrote a book about learning from South Africa to make peace in Palestine/Israel (given)
A book about Learning from South Africa to make peace in Palestine/Israel is not a book about allegations of Israeli apartheid (true)
Therefore, Adam and Moodley can't be a good source for an overview on an article about allegations of Israeli apartheid (false)

Translated another way, it could sound a bit more ridiculous

Smith and Williams wrote a book about dogs (given)
A book about dogs is not a book about dalmations (true)
Therefore, Smith and Williams can't be a good source for an overview on an article about dalmations. (false)

Adam and Moodley devote a chapter of their book (which covers a much larger topic) to the more specific topic of comparing South African apartheid to the situation in Israel/palestine. In that chapter of their book, they discuss the allegations of apartheid and who makes them. They analyze these allegations, and come to the conclusion that while there are some similarities, the situation is more different than similar, and the causes are much more different as well. Even if you disagree with their specific analysis, the answer here would be to add other mainstream overviews, not to remove this one on the basis of spurious logic. --Urthogie 01:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Number 3 is the howler here. We're not saying they can't be a good source for the overview; we're saying they shouldn't own the overview. --G-Dett 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, so we agree. Add some sources to the overview, buddy. (Make sure it's not an original synthesis though.)--Urthogie 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cream in your coffee, boss?--G-Dett 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:)--Urthogie 16:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you do end up adding sources, we can adjust the lead to reflect that of course. I think the main issue is just that people tend not to write cool-headed analyses of such emotionally weighted charges.--Urthogie 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, "illogical arguments"? I am merely claiming that the wording made it seem like A&M had conducted a research on the distribution of different opinions on the term IA amongst journalists and commentators. In fact (it seems, I haven't read the entire book) it seems that this is something they assumed as a background for the study and not the findings of their research. Hence, my beef was mainly with the long gone use of the word "found", that the book length study "found" this distribution. Your attempts at logic are pretty good. I agree with you. I also agree that A&M, presented properly, is a pretty good source (at least compared to what's the norm around here) for this article. But before you start with logic, try reading carefully. Then you will avoid a) presenting A&M's research in a distorted manner and b) misunderstanding my critizism of this distortion as a dismissal of the source itself. It should be noted though that I am not a native english speaker, so the misunderstanding may of course be on my side here. pertn 15:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How about we replace "found" with "wrote", then?--Urthogie 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is ok. I also propose you try to learn something from this.. think twice before you plunge into logical reasoning :) pertn 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam & Moodley have a disproportionate amount in this article. Their work is cherry-picked to support a Zionist POV. Has anyone who edits this article read their book, or even have access to a copy of it?Kritt 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

separate section for Carter?

I couldn't help but notice that so much of this relates to Carter's book. I was trying to improve the coverage and discussion of his book's use of the word but I was overwhelmed by how many sources discuss it. If we want to give an in-depth discussion of his use of the word in an NPOV fashion, wouldn't it make sense to give him his own section? Anyone who searches for stuff on this subject can't help but notice his use of the word is responsible for most of the term's discussion/coverage. Any support in this regard?--Urthogie 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's already articles(plural) on PPNA and commentary on PPNA. Stay out of that swamp... wait a sec. What am I saying? Go. look. Get involved. Andyvphil 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One can't help but notice that most of the criticism of this term is in relation to his usage.. I'm just sayin..--Urthogie 23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Idid Amin is a reliable source

This article is called allegations of Israeli apartheid. A major head of state making the allegations is by very definition notable. The definition of a reliable source for this article isn't a political scientist. If that were the case then we'd have to exclude other political figures as well, which we haven't done. All in all, it's ridiculous to remove this guy.--Urthogie 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that this misunderstanding of what makes a "reliable" source is based on the misconception that the source must be a "reliable" person.--Urthogie 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was reverted again. Gatoclass,

not just "good guys" get to be represented.
assume good faith. just because you assume bad faith and think including him is an "attempt" at something, doesn't mean you can revert him.
please use the talk page if you want to avoid revert wars.--Urthogie 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you negotiating with yourself? Idi Amin would be good source to reference if one had a Zionist POV and was interested in poisoning the well.Kritt 04:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

removing A&M

Here we go again. Andy's edit summary was "removing self-identified third pole." Why remove the only mainstream analysis available?

We should discuss their individual views in "other views", yes, but we should also include their overview here, as it's the only mainstream one available.--Urthogie 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"It seems to have escaped Urthogie that I did three things (1) fixed a bug in the "Overview" section (present since before the freeze -- nobody reads the paragraph or looks at the ref section?); (2) Moved Ostroff's crit to where it belongs, revising it to match style and improving the ref (tho it could be better wikified); and (3) moving A-M to where I think it goes. He undid all three to get at the third..." [15] Please be more careful in your reversions, Urthogie. BTW, you would hit 3RR first. Andyvphil 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC) ...oh, and since A-M self identify as non-majority, why do they get to define "mainstream"? Andyvphil 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick restored the bug you fixed, but we have already made a compromise to remove them from the lead. That they stay in the overview is part of this compromise, which you threaten with your removals.--Urthogie 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, A&M are the only academics who have actually studied this in detail. In a proper article we would briefly summarize their views, add a couple more good sources (Pogrund and perhaps one other), and delete the rest. Given that we are currently saddled with this monstrosity, rather than a proper article, their views should at least come front and center. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For a third time. A&M have actually studied both South Africa and Israel, and have written academics works comparing and contrasting the two. Who else has done this? The person whose experience comes closest is Benjamin Pogrund, who was an anti-apartheid activist in South Africa, and an anti-occupation activist in Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For the fourth or fifth time, Adam & Moodley are not represented correctly in this article and it would be helpful if editors had a copy of the book before editing with respect to A&M. Jayjg, have you read that book? I agree that they might be overrepresented. This article however is not a monstrosity. It provides much information to the reader. Kritt 04:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations, comparisons, and their extent in the introduction

Taking a step back from the A&M issue for just a moment, I think we ought to make a distinction between various types of allegations. Some draw a comparison between certain elements of Israeli policy to certain elements of SA apartheid policy; some feel that the effects of Israeli policy - regardless of their intent - are reminiscent of the effects of SA apartheid; others say that there's a trajectory that might take Israel to a state of de facto apartheid; and yet others go so far as to say that what Israel does is just like or even worse than SA apartheid. Once you've parsed Carter's view, for example, it's pretty clear that he means "apartheid" in a very narrow sense, whereas Idi Amin probably meant it in the broadest possible sense. --Leifern 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Amin used the word with its actual semantic load. Carter mostly pretends to be using it without that. Zbigs "trajectory" usage is just weaseling - we should add his other quotes (see G-Dett, above.) It's my POV that that the reality is that apartheid is a slur, not a policy. I'm not one of the mainspace RS for that observation, but it's true just the same. Andyvphil 23:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove people who use it with a "semantic load."--Urthogie 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section vs in text criticisms

Hmm...It seems like the Criticism section should be for people who issue general criticisms of the allegation, while the intext criticisms should be those that deal with criticisms of specific claims. Does anyone oppose this? I plan on applying this principle.--Urthogie 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Immediate rebuttal is not a good idea. Give the allegationists a chance to state their thesis (but not at unlimited length) before you interrupt. Andyvphil 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no coherent "allegationist" ideology; each individual has their own set of reasons. Therefore, it only makes sense that each individual be criticized by other sources following their claims. How is this interrupting, unless of course, you believe in an "allegationist" narrative? (aka original research)--Urthogie 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Allegationist narrative"? Wazzat? "Apartheid" s a slur derived from "Zionism=Racism". I'm not suggesting that those who use the slur be "removed". On the contrary, I want them front, center and uninterrupted to show what the article is about before tangenting off into the details. Carter-Tutu-Darfur(Idi Amin)- etc- masses of usage... THEN rebuttal to Carter - rebuttal to Tutu - ...-general rebuttal. The reasons are not only separate, they also overlap, and this has structural implications. Andyvphil 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, viewing allegations of apartheid as a slur is your POV, andy. We have to edit according to NPOV, which means no such assumptions are allowed in how we decide to structure the article. As a sidenote, if you wanted to include Idi Amin, why the hell did you remove him? I'm trying to assume good faith but your edits just don't match up with your rhetoric here.--Urthogie 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

When did I remove Amin? Please provide diff. Andyvphil 12:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, that was Gatoclass. But please discuss my other point about how your justification for your edits ("Allegations of apartheid are a slur") is based on a POV, rather than solid policy. And please avoid making major changes until we've actually discussed it somewhat.--Urthogie 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd address (a) the gross factual error before addressing (b)your fogginess on NPOV, and (c) the fact that you misread my comment on structural implications. (C), first. I didn't say that the fact that "Apartheid" is a slur has structual implications. I said the fact that Tutu and Carter share reasons for using the word is one of the reasons it is inappropriate to begin the rebuttal to Tutu in the middle of the examples of the word's use. The whole premise of this article is that there is a common thread... As to (b), there is no way to structure the article with no point of view as to the underlying subject. NPOV isn't the absence of a POV, it's fairness. Andyvphil 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Critics of the allegation should be identifed correctly, especially if they are Zionists. It is relevant that Desmond Tutu is South African, it must also be relevant and noted if critics are Zionists.Kritt 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein

Please don't create false contrasts. Adam and Moodley are experts writing scholarly works in their are of expertise, and backing it up with sources. Finkelstein is a polemical author giving his unsourced personal opinion in a left-wing newsletter. Also, A&M are talking about the acceptance of the term itself, Finkelstein is making claims about the "reality". In addition, Finkelstein doesn't actually address A&M's point, and he is giving his personal opinion about an entirely different audience. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of Finkelstein is irrelevant. He amply fits the definition of a reliable source. And A&M don't back up their assertion with any evidence, any more than Finkelstein does. Gatoclass 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Noone is saying that Finkelstein isn't a reliable source, it's just that he offers no overview of the allegation. Rather, he makes it. Adam and Moodley are the only source thus far to offer a true overview of who uses the allegation. In addition, even if Finkelstein did for some reason give an overview of who uses the allegation (he hasn't as far as I know), including him in the overview would still be deemed undue weight because of his far-left political views. The same logic would apply to an overview by Meir Kahana-- we'd remove that from the "Overview" section as well.--Urthogie 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

When I pointed out to you that A&M's assertion about proportions was invalid because it wasn't an estimate of proportions amongst reliable sources, you responded by claiming that Wiki articles are supposed to be weighted according to "what most people think", and when that argument fell apart, you invited me to just rectify the imbalance by adding some verifiable sources of my own to the overview "if you can find some". And now that I've done just that what is your response? You've immediately reverted, just as you have been reverting everyone's contributions here for days on end. So you'll pardon me if I now sound a little sceptical about the sincerity of your invitation.

When I removed the opinion of mass murderers like Idi Amin and assorted holocaust deniers, you promptly reinstated them on the ground that they were "notable" people. But now you remove a prominent professor's opinion from the article on the basis that he is "far-left".

Well, sorry, but those arguments just don't wash. Finkelstein is a high profile academic who has long specialized in the Israel-Palestine conflict - and with a particular interest in popular coverage of it in the media and amongst other academics. He's far better known than A&M who AFAIK have never been sighted in public beyond the confines of this article. It's utter nonsense to suggest Finkelstein's opinion is not as good as theirs. In terms of Wiki critieria, it certainly is. Gatoclass 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you haven't responded to my points. I'll list them again:

A&M are serious researchers, whose expertise is this specific topic. Finkelstein's works are polemical, and he has no expertise at all in apartheid.
A&M's conclusions were published in a serious academic work. Finkelstein's opinion was posted on an on-line left-wing newsletter.
A&M's work lists the responses of multiple audiences to the term (and you've removed much of those responses); Finkelstein's doesn't address reaction to the term at all, but rather makes claims about what he thinks the "reality" of the situation is. In other words, as Urthogie points out, A&M are talking about the allegation, whereas Finkelstein is making the allegation.
Finkelstein is not responding to A&M's work at all, nor talking about the same audience; you've created a false synthesis as an attempt to craft a counter-argument, which is forbidden by policy.

Please respond to the points listed. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1. As I said, A&M are virtual unknowns whereas Finkelstein is a very weil known high profile academic. That Finkelstein's style is "polemical" has no bearing on the issue whatever. He's a qualified academic and a specialist in the field.

2. No, A&M's comment was published in their own book. And Counterpunch is a long-standing US periodical, not merely an "online newsletter".

3. No, A&M just divided respondents into three groups - those who vehemently deny the analogy, those who affirm it and those who are somewhere in between. Big deal. Finkelstein also divides opinion into three groups - American Jews, the US media and everybody else. Neither party gives any further explanation of how they came to their separate conclusions. A&M's comment therefore has no more substance than Finkelstein's.

4. Oh nonsense. It's not a "false synthesis" at all. It's two disparate opinions attached with some linking prose. There is no conclusion drawn from the two. You might as well argue the entire article is a false synthesis in that case.

These objections have no substance. I'm reverting. Gatoclass 19:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1. It's true Finkelstein is much more famous (precisely because he writes popular polemics, not scholarly pieces), but A&M are academics specializing in just this area. As pointed out before (and still not responded to), Finkelstein is not a scholar of apartheid or South Africa.

2. A&M's book is published by University College London press, an academic imprint that specializes in works by academics in the fields of political science, international relations, law and criminology, sociology, planning and geography, and history. Finkelstein's editorial was published by Counterpunch, which Wikipedia points out, is "a biweekly newsletter published in the United States that covers politics from a left-wing perspective". The website has many items on it that are never printed, and there is no indication that Finkelstein's opinion piece actually made it into the print edition.

3. A&M divided respondents into three fairly logical groups, and gave examples of each; the second group pretty much covers Finkelstein's. Finkelstein's division was the usual conspiracist one, Jews+U.S. media vs. the world. You still haven't explained why you removed A&M's 2nd and 3rd group.

4. Your synthesis pretended that Finkelstein was addressing (and refuting) A&M's statement; in fact, Finkelstein's editorial was a justification for the use of the term, not an argument regarding reactions to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Finkelstein is an academic whose works have been published by credible American firms. Whatever his flaws, he deserves better than to have his arguments caricatured in this manner. CJCurrie 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about this specific article, which was published on a left-wing website. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an important distinction. Would you consider affirming this principle consistently, and backing me regarding the lengthy Morris quote (the longest quote in the article by far at 318 words), which appears to have been transcribed from an email or phone conversation between Morris and a CAMERA staffer?

Finkelstein's position regarding the U.S. media, which has been wildly misrepresented as "conspiracist" on this page, is in fact supported by the great Adam and Moodley, though their analysis of the underlying reasons for what they call "the American blindspot" is slightly different.--G-Dett 18:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You've violated 3RR. You've reverted 4 times. I'm reporting ya.--Urthogie 20:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is a highly respected and influential political scientist with recognized expertise in the subject of Israel-Palestine, especially regarding the occupation and human-rights abuses. He is, pace Jayjg, one of the most qualified reliable sources we use in this article. That he has an opinion ("is a polemical writer," in Jay's words) does not distinguish him in any way from any of the other sources we use, including Adam and Moodley. Jay and Urthogie are right, however, that Gatoclass's use of Finkelstein in the "overview" created a false opposition: Adam and Moodley are discussing the debate surrounding analogies between Israel and South Africa, whereas Finkelstein is merely arguing that the apartheid analogy is appropriate.--G-Dett 20:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Whether Finkelstein sucks or not is a matter of opinion, but whether he gives an overview as opposed to simply a view, is not.--Urthogie 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley are discussing the debate surrounding analogies between Israel and South Africa, whereas Finkelstein is merely arguing that the apartheid analogy is appropriate

Huh? No he's not. He says that "Outside the never-never land of mainstream American Jewry and U.S. media, this reality is barely disputed". He's talking about how the "reality of apartheid" is perceived by people outside the US. Gatoclass 20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Gatoclass, please excuse my hasty oversight.--G-Dett 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - Finkelstein is arguing "Israel practices apartheid, and everyone except the American Jews+American media cabal knows it. A&M discuss reactions to the term itself, rather than whether or not all right-thinking people in the world (besides the cabal) agree with Finkelstien that Israel is doing the things he blames it for. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Gatoclass 20:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein doesn't give an overview of the allegations, though, so it's an original research issue (not to mention undue weight).--Urthogie 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes G-Dett seems to have gotten it right; Finkelstein doesn't seem to be discussing the reaction to the term itself. Tewfik^Talk 03:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither are Adam and Moodley.--G-Dett 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you get around to reporting me for violating 3RR yet Urthogie? Perhaps you'd better remember to report yourself too, since you've reverted other editors on this page at least five times in the last 24 hours, and possibly double that. Gatoclass 20:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR refers to reverting a single part of the article 3 times, not any type of revert.--Urthogie 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A distinction you've apparently newly learned, "buddy". Andyvphil 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems a bit too rude, personal and uncalled for. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I thought so too. [16] Andyvphil 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam & Moodely are not pro-Israel on this subject. They are not well-known, but if we are going to rely on them as Jayjg is suggesting, they at least ought to be referenced more accurately. Who has read their book? Who has a copy? I do know that the footnote to this article, the 20-some-odd pages referenced, are without question not represented here in NPOV fashion. Their work is skewed towards Zionist POV. How may A&M quotes are there currently? Ten? They cannot be all pro-Zionist. Jayjg, do you believe that all A&M quotes in this article should be pro-Zionist? Can you write-for-the-enemy and help improve things here? Thanks.Kritt 04:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources disappearing from article

Does anyone know why so many sources have disappeared from the article in the past month? We had 111 sources in mid-March and now the article is down to only 88. That's slightly over 20% less. Was there some discussion above to delete all these I might have missed? It's going to be a real pain to restore all this.... -- Kendrick7^talk 04:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't helped keep things straight forward for awhile. Have they deleted and/or diminished Desmond Tutu again?Kritt 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem was, a whole section was gutted and then, just now, "deleted according to talk." Though, again, I don't see any "talk" about this. I've restored it in full. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley, again

The more I think about it, the more I think we need to radically reconceive the "overview" section. The overview section should be historical, beginning with the first comparisons between the two situations, and tracing the development of the "Israeli apartheid" concept in debate and discussion of Israel-Palestine. Adam and Moodley are really rather minor figures in this, in that their book deals only glancingly with the topic of this article. Proponents of the concept of "Israeli Apartheid" turn to the example of South Africa because they want to stress Israel's human rights violations and the moral untenability of the status quo, especially within the occupied territories. Though Adam and Moodley touch on this, and frequently invoke such comparisons themselves, they discuss the South African model for a completely different reason – because the South African impasse ended well, and they want to explore the viability of that model for resolving Israel-Palestine. Instead of pretending to track A & M for our article's overview (I say "pretending" advisedly), we should organize our discussion so that it incorporates A & M in context – the context of those invoking South Africa as a model for conflict resolution. Dennis Ross and others have suggested that if the Palestinians could put forth "a Mandela," the conflict could be resolved. A & M by and large reject this argument, stressing that the South African model of a morally unifying leader is a mirage – that there are more intractable structural causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That debate has its place here, I suppose, but it makes no sense to turn the overview over to Adam and Moodley, because they themselves only passingly provide an overview of our topic (and as Andyvphil eloquently pointed out, "their typology of critical reaction isn't really a serious typology at all, but an attempt to claim for themselves credit for being the moderate middle").--G-Dett 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Leading off with quote-farm isn't any better. You click save page with the sources you have, not the sources you wish you had. I don't think we have another RS that gives any sort of meta-view of the comparisons of Israel and Apartheid South Africa, as correct as Andyvphil's assessment is of A&M, beyond them, which leaves this proposal for being quickly shot down as OR. Maybe the Le Monde article, IIRC, though this was among the disappeared sources. It looks like I'll be fine-tooth-combing though that source and others in the coming days. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, unless G-Dett tracked your talk page it seems we came to the same conclusion independently. Namely that the Overview should be a historical narrative ("...starting with Malik?..."). I don't see the OR problem: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged."[17] We're allowed to organize material in appropriate ways. And the quote farm effect can be minimized by keeping the ankle biters downpage and out of the overview section where they are, like A-M, not notable or significant enough to take space. Andyvphil 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a good idea; let's get rid of all the academics, especially ones who have actually examined the situation in both Israel and South Africa. Instead, we should just quote as fact what the crowds of teenagers scream during "Israeli apartheid week" on U.S. campuses. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the views of Holocaust deniers, white supremacists, genocidal dictators and anonymous antisemitic websites are apparently worthy of mention, then why not "what crowds of teenagers scream"? I mean, we wouldn't want to be too picky, would we? Gatoclass 06:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a better idea: WP:CIVIL.--Kirby♥time 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have an even better idea; let's quote what the best sources say, not just turn this into a series of sound-bites from polemicists and propagandists. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The best sources - you mean, like Idi Amin and jewwatch.com? Yeah, let's have some more really good ones like them, instead of those awful "polemicists and propangandists". Gatoclass 06:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I agree with your analysis re A&M, their interest in the apartheid analogy is focussed on its utility as a conflict resolution model. They are not interested in determining whether or not Israel's occupation is the moral equivalent of apartheid, indeed they are mostly at pains to withhold judgement in that regard, hinting that such judgements are "subjective". But the moral dimension is obviously central to the concerns of most of those employing the analogy. So A&M in my opinion are not only being overused in this article, but misused.

I'm not sure I agree with you though, in your suggested fix. I don't see what point there is in listing allegations chronologically. It certainly doesn't sound like something you'd want in an overview.

I'm still of the opinion that the article doesn't really need an "overview" - just a section listing the various allegations, followed by a section criticising them. I simply cannot see why this structure should not be acceptable to everyone, since it is fair to both sides. But if the article must have an overview, then it certainly needs to include more than just one academic opinion. That can in no way be construed as balanced. Which is why I think the inclusion of Finkelstein is a much needed counter. Gatoclass 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a quote farm, not in the least. I'm suggesting an overview, a tracking of how the discussion has evolved. The "allegations" are not static but evolving; A & M represent a point in that evolution – but how anyone ever got the idea that they give an overview of the "allegations" is a puzzle to me.

I think this can be done without raising any insurmountable POV problems, and I think Andyvphil is right that the spectre of OR is a red herring. There are times when it's difficult to navigate between the poles of quote-farm on the one hand and original synthesis on the other, but I don't think this is one of them.--G-Dett 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jay, Gatoclass raises an important question. Who for you are the screaming teenagers best kept out of the overview? In the past you've questioned the credibility of Desmond Tutu and Haaretz journalist Amira Hass; are there others? I'm hoping to sort of sound you out before drafting something; if potential conflicts could be identified in advance that would be ideal.--G-Dett 15:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained exactly who I mean by the best sources; there aren't many, but then again, this article is, at a minimum, four times as long as it would be in any reasonable or serious work. And, frankly, the best sources don't include off-handed soundbites from anyone. That includes Tutu, by the way, who labels all sorts of things as apartheid, in the most superficial of ways. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That allegations agains Israel are made "in the most superficial of ways" is one of the assertions already made by RS in this article. If Tutu has alleged apartheid in Tibet and Guantanamo we should certainly have that information in this article. Andyvphil 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Tutu hasn't; have a look at my long post below.--G-Dett 14:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't terribly helpful, Jay. I was hoping you'd say who you were indicating by the derisive rhetoric; instead you offer up more derisive rhetoric.

What else has Tutu labelled apartheid?--G-Dett 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The situation in Tibet, detention of suspects at Guantanamo. Please restrict your comments to article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Tutu certainly does not label China's occupation of Tibet as apartheid, nor the detention of suspects at Guantanamo. Read your own sources again; you've misunderstood them.--G-Dett 22:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Archbishop Tutu drew an explicit comparison between the anti-apartheid movement and the campaign for Tibetan autonomy from China."
"Under apartheid, as at Guantanamo, people were held for "unconscionably long periods" and then released, he said."

Those are pretty explicit comparisons. Kind of like saying "It reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about." Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to read the sources with greater care. Tutu does not accuse China of apartheid, or apartheid-like policies in Tibet. All he does is liken the Tibetan popular struggle to the South African popular struggle, both of which had morality but not force of arms on their side. This and only this is the basis of the "explicit comparison" referred to by the source you cite ("We used to say to the apartheid government: you may have the guns, you may have all this power, but you have already lost. Come: join the winning side. His Holiness and the Tibetan people are on the winning side"). In the case of Guantanamo, he's discussing a single policy implemented by the Brits, that of detention without charge: "Ninety days for a South African is an awful deja-vu because we had in South Africa in the bad old days a 90-day detention law."

Tutu is an icon of the anti-apartheid struggle, and he invokes that experience in his various public statements about this or that human-rights issue. To insist that every time he does this he is making an "allegation of apartheid" is a grotesque distortion.

The contrast between Tutu's invocations of personal experience in order to express general moral solidarity and/or targeted opposition to a specific policy, on the one hand, and his explicit charge that the overall facts on the ground in the Occupied Territories resemble apartheid, on the other, is night and day, and makes nonsense of your attempts to conflate them: "Yesterday's South African township dwellers can tell you about today's life in the occupied territories. To travel only blocks in his own homeland, a grandfather waits on the whim of a teenage soldier. More than an emergency is needed to get to a hospital; less than a crime earns a trip to jail. The lucky ones have a permit to leave their squalor to work in Israel's cities, but their luck runs out when security closes all checkpoints, paralyzing an entire people. The indignities, dependence and anger are all too familiar. Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. Ronnie Kasrils and Max Ozinsky, two Jewish heroes of the antiapartheid struggle, recently published a letter titled "Not in My Name." Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. Mark Mathabane and Nelson Mandela have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience."[18]

The bottom line is, though clearly Tutu sees the Occupied Territories as similar to apartheid South Africa, it is pure sophistry to claim that every time Tutu draws upon his own South African experience he is making an "allegation of apartheid."--G-Dett 17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

this article is, at a minimum, four times as long as it would be in any reasonable or serious work.

Yes, but whose doing is that? Whenever I try to delete something of marginal value, like the opinion of Idi Amin or jewwatch, someone comes along and restores it. When I try to delete ponderous waffle from A&M, that is instantly restored as well. When I argue for dropping the overview altogether and just sticking with a pro- and anti- section, I get no support.

This article could easily be half the length it is, but it appears that some editors aren't actually interested in a clear and concise summary of the debate.

So here's a question for you. If it's "four times as long" as it needs to be, how about identifying the 75% that you think is superfluous? Gatoclass 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, you're only interested in deleting stuff that either weakens the comparison, or comes from people you don't like the comparison to be associated with. Try deleting the non-specific emotional soundbites from Tutu for a change. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu knows more than just "sound-bites" about Apartheid. Are you questioning his expertise? Kritt 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

An analysis of article bias

I thought it might be instructive to take a closer look at the article - specifically, to count the number of statements in it that affirm the analogy, versus those that reject it and those that are neutral. Here are the results:

1. Intro:

A description of the analogy, followed by three arguments about why the analogy is wrong. That is, one neutral comment and three anti. Bias level: 100% to the anti-. Pro 0, Anti 3.

2. Overview:

Leads with a comment asserting that the anti- side is in the majority. Follows it with a comment that the pro's are mostly "Palestinians and third world academics". Pro 0, Anti 2.

Then followed with some irrelevant waffle about how Israeli politicians "use the analogy self servingly". Neutral.

Then a paragraph listing a handful of credible sources which have employed the analogy, followed by one listing a bunch of crackpots and antisemites who have used it. Pro 1 Anti 1.

Overview summary: Pro 1 Anti 3. Cumulative weight so far, Pro 1 Anti 6, neutral 1.

NOTE That we have had two sections up until this point, and not a word has even been said concerning the actual substance of the allegations!

3. Allegations of apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

1st two paras: Tutu calls for peace - an irrelevancy. Weight neutral.

3rd and 4th paras : Tutu says the territories "remind him" of apartheid. Pro 1.

Next paragraph: On Jimmy Carter's book. Mentions that Carter's use of the analogy "caused great controversy", resignations, condemnation from the Dems, "including Clinton and Pelosi". Let's be generous and call it Pro 1 just because the name "Carter" got a mention in a paragraph that does nothing but attack him. That's Pro 1, Anti 5.

Next para: Weak statement from Brezinski that de facto apartheid is "likely" if conflict is not resolved. Pro 1 (just barely).

Next, Soviet ambassador from '60's called it apartheid. His statement instantly negated by reminder that Soviets were cold war enemies of US and Israel. At best, neutral, at worst Anti 1. Again, let's be generous and call it neutral.

Next, members of Israeli Knesset called it apartheid. But since they happen to be Arabs, their opinion is immediately suspect, if not downright worthless. Bias: neutral to negative. Say neutral.

Next, former AG of Israel says it's apartheid. Finally an unqualified Pro from someone likely to be objective. Pro 1.

Next, John Dugard calls it apartheid. Pro 1.

Next, two sources casting doubt on Dugard's objectivitiy. Anti 2.

Final paragraph, four names who agree with the analogy are quickly tossed at the reader, and only one quoted. Since the dubious or partisan nature of virtually all those making the allegations up to this point has effectively been established by now, this one belated paragraph from credible sources doesn't have much impact, but let's be really generous and say Pro 4.

Summary of weight in this section: Pro 9, Anti 7, neutral 2. Cumulative totals: Pro 10 Anti 13, neutral 3.

NOTE that up to this point almost nothing has been said about why the occupation resembles apartheid.

4. West bank barrier.

1st para: Prefaces statement that barrier is "apartheid wall" with statement about "spate of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians" which necessitated it - thus effectively canceling out the Pro opinion. Pro 1 Anti 1.

2nd: At least five statements explaning why the wall is necessary, how effective it's been, how it's only "defensive". Anti 5.

Summary of this section: Pro 1 Anti 6. Cumulative: Pro 11 Anti 19, neutral 3.

Note: Still only a couple of vague statement in the article about why the analogy is valid up to this point.

5. Pass laws.

Not a very important issue, but this section contains two pro statements and one anti. Cumulative: Pro 13 Anti 20 neutral 3.

6. Marriage. Two pro statements immediately cancelled out by two anti. Bias neutral. Cumulative: Pro 15 Anti 22 neutral 3.

7. Allegations that Israel is an apartheid state.

Opens with a quote from discredited apartheid architect that Israel is an apartheid state. Worthless if not negative endorsement. Followed by two anti statements. Let's be generous and say neutral 1 anti 2.

Idi Amin endorses the analogy. Another negative. Anti 1.

"A Palestinian Jew" endorses it. Another highly dubious source. Neutral.

Finally, another Palestinian says the analogy should be used "in Palestine's interest". Another effectively worthless if not negative endorsement. Let's say neutral.

Anti 3 neutral 3. Cumulative Pro 15 Anti 25 neutral 6.

8. Allegations of Racism.

The allegation of racism is made. Pro 1. Followed by six refutations. Anti 6.

Cumulative: Pro 16, Anti 31, neutral 6.

9. Allegations of apartheid in Israel proper

Weak statement that an Israeli law might be getting "close to apartheid". Negated by statement that law was never passed. Neutral to negative. Say neutral.

10. Land policy. 1 pro statement about how the policy indicates racism, followed by two statements refuting the claim and two more statements on how "beneficial" the policies actually are to Arabs. Let's be generous again and say Pro 1 Anti 2.

Cumulative: Pro 17, Anti 33, neutral 6.

11. Status of Israeli Arabs. A totally anti section, not even a semblance of balance. I count at least 16 anti statements in this section, NO pro.

Cumulative: Pro 17, Anti 49, neutral 6.

12. Demographics. Nothing of value here. Neutral.

13. Identity cards. Prefacing the remarks as "controversial", someone is quoted as saying Israel's identity cards are effectively racist. Same source says they are like apartheid SA's. Be generous and say Pro 2. Followed by several statements about how other ME countries have similar cards. Anti 2.

Cumulative: Pro 19, Anti 51, neutral 6.

14. Criticism. Yes, folks, we've finally arrived at the criticism section!

Far too many anti statements to count, so I'll just count paragraphs. (Note that these are all arguments against use of the analogy, not merely statements for or against). 14 anti. Cumulative Pro 19, Anti 65, neutral 6.

15. Other views (actually, exclusively the views of A&M).

At least 17 anti arguments in this section. Zero Pro statements.

Cumulative Pro 19, Anti 82, neutral 6.

16. The One State Solution.

A&M again. For once, I think I can say this section is essentially pro. I'll call it Pro 2, because of Olmert's statement that the one state argument would be "powerful" and "mean the end of the Jewish State".

Final tally: statements in favour of the analogy: 21.

Statements (and frequently arguments) against: 83+

Article weight: 80% anti, 20% pro.

Can anyone still be in any doubt about what a farce this article is? Gatoclass 02:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, of all the various op-eds in the article, only Gerald Steinberg's is prefaced with with the phrase "In an op-ed for the Jerusalem Post,". Do you think that indicates any sort of bias? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That is one very minor issue. What I've done here is count the number of pro- and anti- statements in the article as a whole. If there's some particular statement in the article you object to, I suggest you edit it. Gatoclass 01:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How about the idea that Finkelstein is a critic of the analogy, as the article implies? I'm not commenting you your analysis, because it's far too subjective, so I'm sticking to specific examples. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's obvious, as are the pro-Zionist efforts to get it deleted. The article should instruct the reader as to what the allegations are and who makes them. Critics should be covered, however this article reveals bias gone nuts, and a flaw in Wikipedia, as your analysis shows.Kritt 05:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The user who nominated it for deletion doesn't edit Zionism or Israel articles. I think you're being paranoid.--Urthogie 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, putting aside methodological concerns with your attempts at statistical analysis of purported bias, your analysis does not demonstrate your conclusion. The question of whether this article is a "farce" goes well beyond what you are likely to capture in a statistical analysis. On another note, it might be interesting and amusing if the same analysis was done on a sample of WP articles that are about allegations that are widely disputed to establish benchmark normative ratios. Doright 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article structure

    * 1 Overview
    * 2 Allegations of apartheid in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
    * 3 Allegations that Israel is an apartheid state
    * 4 Allegations of apartheid policies inside of Israel proper
    * 5 Criticism
    * 6 Other views
    * 7 See also
    * 8 Notes
    * 9 Further reading

I think the subsections should be merged into these top sections, because this allows for a better, less confusing summary style. Also, it's arguably original research for us to "highlight" what we see as the key issues and points of the discussion.

This structure would allow us to focus on the actual subject of this article: Allegations of Israeli apartheid. What do you all think of this proposed structure?--Urthogie 17:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already expressed my opinion. The entire article is hopelessly unbalanced and needs to be completely redone from top to bottom if it is going to reflect any sort balance at all. Just fiddling around the edges is not going to achieve anything. Gatoclass 20:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion was that the anti- sources outweighed the pro. Add more pro sources, then, don't just complain. In the mean time, do you oppose or support this specific "fiddling"?--Urthogie 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jd that we should remove the section on one state solution. I've updated the suggested structure in this regard.--Urthogie 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of sourced material from the article under the guise of "reorganizing" it is getting tiresome, and is a form of vandalism. If such behavior continues, it will be reported as such. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, I've been making talk page comments asking for opinions on restructuring and the only reply I got was:

The entire article is hopelessly unbalanced and needs to be completely redone from top to bottom if it is going to reflect any sort balance at all. Just fiddling around the edges is not going to achieve anything.

I lose either way! Either it's just unnotable "fiddling" or it's rampant "vandalism." Also, please note that the removal of the one state solution section wasn't my idea, but Jd's (see below).--Urthogie 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just don't say you weren't warned going forward. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

At the end of January the article was relatively balanced and readable; since then it has deteriorated into a unreadable POV mess. Given the editors most actively editing it during that period, and their POVs, this was the inevitable outcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to Urthogie's structural changes during that period? They did change the article very much. Kritt 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Specific vs nonspecific criticism

This is a point I raised earlier. I think it's important we put specific criticisms next to the allegations they criticize, but put general criticisms of the allegation under "Criticism" and "Other views." The distinction is an important one.--Urthogie 20:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that way the amount of the article dedicated to criticism ends up outweighing that dedicated to the proponents by a factor of three or four to one (as is currently the case). No, I find your proposal to be totally unacceptable. Gatoclass 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't you address the 4 to 1 problem by simply adding more pro-sources? I don't see why you want us to censor valuable criticisms.--Urthogie 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't, for the same reason that Jayjig already gave, which is that the article is already "four times as long" as it needs to be. Gatoclass 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of redundancies, see my new edits.--Urthogie 22:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That suggestion would make the structural problems with this article even greater. As it stands we have an overview we don't need, 3 sections about allegations where two would be fine, a section on a one-state solution that doesn't belong. I agree with Gatoclass. Jd2718 21:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

See my above suggestion on making the article shorter, that would compensate for this. The main reason the article is so long is the redundancy of the subsections. I would also support remoing the one state solution section.

First, I don't see your "above solution." Second, I notice that you have edited comments after others have commented on them. Perhaps using strikethroughs would reduce confusion. Third, I certainly wasn't asking you to cherry pick sections for removal. And fourth, I had trouble posting these comments because of edit-conflicts. Please edit your work before posting it. And please edit the talk page with strike throughs. Editing the middle of a conversation does not work.Jd2718 22:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do.--Urthogie 22:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

About this whole criticisms business though, I hope you've noticed that I've been adding mainstream sources. The New York Times, for eample is about as mainstream a news outlet as you can get. So I think if we're going to remove the New York Times criticism, we would have to remove everything less mainstream than the NYT--Urthogie 22:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of redundancies, see my new edits

Yes, you've removed some redundancies, which is good, but I notice you've also removed virtually the only section with a positive bias, "The one state solution" - as if this article weren't unbalanced enough already. And there was no consensus for removing this section.

The problem as I've already stated is that the proportion of the article devoted to criticism far outweighs that devoted to the allegations themselves. This cannot be fixed just by removing a few "redundancies". It certainly can't be fixed by removing even more of the pro- arguments, which you have just done.

As long as there is, in your words, "specific criticisms next to the allegations they criticize", as well as "general criticisms of the allegation under 'Criticism'" (not to mention the other sections exclusively devoted to criticism), then the article will remain unacceptably unbalanced. It needs to be one or the other - either specific criticims next to the allegations, or a dedicated criticisms section.

As I've already indicated, I would be in favour of the latter, for a number of reasons. It would not only make the article far more readable, but also, in your own words, allow the inclusion of "general criticisms" which may not directly relate to specific allegations. Gatoclass 07:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it based on JD's comments. My mistake. The placement of the criticisms and adam/moodley has not consensus as of yet, so let's discuss that. (see new talk page section I've started).--Urthogie 15:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My comments were for all editors to read. Consensus involves more than 2 editors agreeing. Please read WP:OWN; trying to control the agenda of discussion, and trying to decide what does or does not constitute consensus may be a problem here. You might consider working on this talk page without working on the article for a while. Jd2718 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, excuse me for trying to implement your change. Wikipedia:Be bold. Anyways, I like working on both the article and the talk page at the same time.--Urthogie 16:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the proper taxonomy is specific versus nonspecific. But, I'm pretty sure that allegations call for adjacent criticism of the allegation. However, the problem with limiting critism to this format is that "the agenda" is set by the accusing sources causing the contra POV to always be on the defensive. Rhetorically, this is hardly NPOV. Therefore "Criticism" and "Other views" sections are required where the contra POV sources in effect sets the agenda.Doright 07:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Blood Libel against Israel

The subject of this section is the following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=124705717&oldid=124693064

I've added a cit request tag instead of accepting the immediate reversion of the contributed content. If you're not familiar with the discourse of the published opposition to the allegation you may find many of the following links instructive. http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Blood+Libel%22+apartheid&btnG=Search You will also certainly find adequate material for citation. If you or others don't remove the citation tag or provide a specific reliable source citation in the near future, I will try to do it myself.Doright 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material is permitted by WP:V. Trying to connect these in a hidden redirect is absurd and offensive. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Absurd and offensive" is not the collegial tone I was hoping to elicit. Of course, unsourced material may be deleted. However, the immediate provocation of an edit war especially given my comment above, does raise the question of what you think the purpose of the {{Fact}} tag is? It appears I've stepped into a minefield of hostility at this page. If you wanted to discourage my participation, you have been successful. The apparent assumption of bad faith does not make WP a happy place nor lead to its improvement.Doright 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, Rejecting Carter's allegations of apartheid, David Horowitz writes in his article titled Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar: When hundreds of millions of Muslims are calling for the extermination of the Jews of Israel this is more than a lie; it is a blood libel. The fact that you think it is absurd is your POV. However, WP is not here to write about your POV. Using the google link previously provided, It took me all of 1 minute to find this reference. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25994 ~~Apparently you are not quite as familiar with the public and scholarly discourse regarding this subject as you purport to be.~~ strikeout selfDoright 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Please restore my contribution that you reverted. Doright 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. (I didn't even know "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Day" was this week. Crap, I hate it when it sneaks up on me like this!) -- Kendrick7^talk 02:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, David Horowitz is clearly among those who reject the analogy and calls it a blood libel. It is not only a reliable source for demonstrating the veracity of my original edit, it is a highly notable source from a very prominent opponent of the apartheid allegation. And, that's exactly what my edit said.Doright 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, exactly what part of WP:RS do you claim the source violates?Doright 18:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your citation is not about allegations of apartheid.

An encyclopedia article is not built starting with what the authors want to say, and then finding sources. If you continue with this kind of editing, it will be understandable if other editors have trouble taking your contributions seriously. Jd2718 02:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? You say it "is not about allegations of apartheid." What do you think it is about? You do know the name of Carter's Book is Peace Not Apartheid? Regarding your other comment, if you continue with these gratuitous personal attacks you will find yourself the subject of administrative sanctions.WP:ATTACK Doright 04:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the link you provided? It starts Stanford University to show Turkish blood libel film... Look, I'd revert you even if you found sources for what you are alleging - it just doesn't belong here. But why bother providing links to a search page? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs).

Jd2718, I'm told that the edit is reverted because it was not sourced, and, now I'm told it will be reverted even when it is sourced. You assert it does not belong there but offer no explanation. Please explain. No I did not look at all 20,000+ links that the google search produced. Obviously, not all of them are going to be relevant. Doright 08:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, now ~~in the edit summary of the above unsigned post,~~ you accuse me others of vandalizing the article. If this is disruptive behavior, Please stop it. Doright 23:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Check the history and the diffs. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

~~Indeed, Jd2718 gets credit for that personal attack. You get credit for the others.~~Doright 04:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Opps again, It was Kendrick7 that made the accusation but it was against another editor. I would have preferred to use strikeout to correct my misattribution, but I don't know how.Doright 08:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for showing me how to use strikeout.Doright 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that mentions of blood libel belong in the lead. Let's put them in the article though if they're appropriate and it's not OR.--Urthogie 00:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, Apparently you believe that the statement that has been reverted to (i.e.,"Those who reject the analogy argue that it is false political slander intended to malign Israel by singling it out.") belongs in the lead? Is that true?Doright 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If I might summarize this section, DNFTT. thankyou. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, without getting involved in the content of the debate going on in this article, I wish to note that your dismissal of an established editor as a "troll" is out of line. Please mind WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Thx, --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that WP:TROLL isn't a policy guideline. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Horowtiz's claim that allegations of Israeli apartheid are an equivalent calumny to "blood libel" is an extreme position that does not belong in the introduction. It is also clearly hyperbolic, given that even prominent members of Israel's own government, including the current PM, have lent some credence to the apartheid analogy. Gatoclass 08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, thank you for addressing the content. As you can see above, I've had some difficulty achieving a productive dialog. I should say that I do not agree that his words should be dismissed as mere hyperbole. I think it might be helpful to consider Horowitz's statement: When hundreds of millions of Muslims are calling for the extermination of the Jews of Israel this is more than a lie; it is a blood libel, in the context of what many opponents of the apartheid label sometimes call the New Antisemitism and its associated alleged calumnies. Also, you may not be aware that the term "blood libel" is sometimes used to denote what is viewed as a calumny against the Jewish people that may have particularly dire consequences. It's usage is not limited to the alleged literal drinking of blood, etc. I think we see Horowitz using it in exactly this way. I don't have any reason to believe that looking at the charge of Israeli apartheid as similar to a blood libel is considered extreme among those who oppose the apartheid allegation. And, finally, without accepting nor denying your claim regarding certain member of the Knesset and the PM, I must remind you that in the particular edit in question, we are representing the view of those who do not agree with the allegation. Please let me know if this was helpful. I look forward to your reply.Doright 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather amusing to hear a supporter of Finkelstein complain of "hyperbole" given the tenor of Finkelstein's articles and the very premise of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to consider Horowitz's statement: "When hundreds of millions of Muslims are calling for the extermination of the Jews of Israel this is more than a lie; it is a blood libel"...

I'm afraid it's Horowitz who is committing a libel here. When is the last time that "hundreds of millions of Muslims" called for "the extermination of the Jews of Israel"? I'd be interested to know.

I don't have any reason to believe that looking at the charge of Israeli apartheid as similar to a blood libel is considered extreme among those who oppose the apartheid allegation.

You may not have "any reasons to believe" it, but you don't have any proof of it either. Wiki isn't a soapbox for your personal beliefs, it's an encyclopedic project based on reliable, documented sources. It may be true that some critics of the apartheid analogy have likened it to blood libel, but there's no evidence that the majority have done so. Therefore this hyperbolic claim does not belong in the introduction.

Perhaps Horowitz's comments could be included elsewhere, but quite frankly I think this hysterical, partisan screed of his contributes nothing to the debate and that any space devoted to it would be better given over to more sober critics. Gatoclass 10:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, Isn't your statement that Horowitz himself is committing a kind of libel against Muslims an assertion of your own opinion and original research? Since the subject of this article is Allegations of Israeli apartheid, not allegations of Islamic genocide. It seems to be a strawman in any case. That you think his view is "hysterical," "partisan," and "contributes nothing to the debate" is helpful to know, but can not be determinative. The simple fact is that he among the most notable people that reject the allegation and this is how he frames the debate. Since you raised the issue, I respectfully suggest that you read what you wrote about Wiki not being a soapbox and examine the extent to which the innuendo applies to yourself. Let's continue focusing on content, not each other.Doright 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The source cited does not refer to apartheid, not even once. This is a debate about something that does not exist. Jd2718 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't your statement that Horowitz himself is committing a kind of libel against Muslims an assertion of your own opinion and original research?

Yes, it is my own opinion. Prove me wrong.

The simple fact is that he among the most notable people that reject the allegation and this is how he frames the debate.

Maybe so. I'm simply saying to you that his article is a partisan rant and that 99 out of 100 people will immediately recognize it as such. So it's worthless as argument. I was trying to appeal to your own self interest, because I very much doubt a rant like that is going to persuade anyone - apart of course, from people like you who are already of like mind.

But in any case, as JD has noted, Horowitz doesn't even mention the apartheid charge, in which case his rant is irrelevant. Gatoclass 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

andy's new edits

I think andy already knows that we don't yet have consensus in regard to where the criticisms should be or how adam and moodley should be placed in the overview. Thus, I'd like it if andy would participate more thoroughly on the talk page before removing every single change I make. I've consistently explained my logic here so I only think it's fair he does the same if he plans to make such major edits. And this doesn't mean stating ones case then closing discussion. It means an ongoing discussion before he makes such changes.

Let me state my case for the criticisms briefly, once again. The criticisms should be both specific and general for two reasons:

This is how things are done at other articles. Criticisms are traditionally listed next to what they criticize if possible, and if they are general they are put in a seperate criticisms section.
It is not a valid argument to say the article will be unbalanced if we place the criticisms this way. If the article is unbalanced, add more pro-allegation sources! It is ridiculous to remove such mainstream criticisms as New York Times and jerusalem post!

Thank you, --Urthogie 15:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found Andyvphil's edits careful and productive, and the reasons for them well articulated in his edit summaries. Urthogie, I see that you've reverted them wholesale. A revert war involving so many changes would be destructive; I wonder if other editors could weigh in here briefly – a kind of informal vote to establish what the default version of the article should be. --G-Dett 16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

An informal vote would be good. One thing I have to insist on is having Adam and Moodley in the overview. having them there is the result of a compromise of not having them in the lead. I would like them in the lead, but I have to stand by the view that they must be in the overview. This is the only thing I feel shouldn't be compromised. Kendrick created this section, and both Jayjg and me and others feel it's important that Adam and Moodley remain in it. The criticism issues haven't been resolved as of yet but that should be voted on and discussed.--Urthogie 17:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is how things are done at other articles

Not in the articles I'm more familiar with. I see no reason why the critics should get two bites at the cherry, one after every opponent and then another whole section all to themselves. That is not the way to create balance.

Not only that, but it's not the way to create clarity either. Jerking the reader back and forth constantly between affirmations and denials can only serve to confuse him or her. I say let the two sides of the debate be set out clearly on each side, one after the other, so that the reader can absorb each side of the argument in turn and come to his own conclusion. Gatoclass 17:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But that ignores the fact that often times they'll be talking about something specific. It seems to be more of "jerking the reader around" to randomly bring up Carter's book at several points in the article, rather than having an indepth discussion of it in one place.--Urthogie 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But that's what you want to do, not me. All that's required is to have one subsection in the "criticism" section that deals specifically with all the various criticisms of Carter's position. I don't see a problem with that, in fact it should actually enable you to develop your argument more fully. Gatoclass 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no "anti-allegations" position. It's not a concrete ideology, because people make the allegation for different reasons, and are thus criticized for different reasons.--Urthogie 17:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not but there is a series of different arguments that can be put together to provide an overall picture. Gatoclass 18:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an uncalled for synthesis, and thus falls under original research. How am I being biased by pointing this out?--Urthogie 19:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "synthesis" to simply organize a list of criticisms in a logical way. Indeed one could hardly write effective articles without such organization. One of the main differences between good articles and bad ones is their level of organization, I'm sure even you would have trouble disagreeing with that. Gatoclass 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well don't get me wrong I'm not against having a Criticism section, but my point is that sometimes people are just criticizing a certain person's usage rather than the term itself... and I think it's often original research for us to say they're talking about the whole term rather than a given usage.--Urthogie 01:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A complaint about my reverting every change you makes comes strangely from someone who repeatedly reverts even my fixing ref bugs and spelling errors. In any case, devoting the "Overview" to A-M's false typology of users of and reaction to the Apartheid analogy is obviously wrongheaded. I mean, they list "three groups" of "academic and journalistic commentators" and maybe (according to Kendrick7's interpretation[19]) a "fourth group" consisting of "political actors" who have "done everything to entrench...the occupation". Well, "academic and journalistic commentators" are not the most important source of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, the first and third groups are not even distinct, and the "fourth group" is odd and tiny subset of the "political actors". As G-Dett says, "how anyone ever got the idea that they give an overview of the 'allegations' is a puzzle to me."

This entire article is an "Overview" of the subject. How we organize the material is a matter of ordinary editorial discretion. If A-M gave some insight into doing that I would have no objection to crediting them for supplying the template for our organization of the article. But the article isn't organized according to any such template. The in-article "Overview" section does not actually provide an overview of the article, or even of the subject.

My observation is that the allegations have a history that must be covered anyway (and currently, inexcusably, isn't -- a lot isn't even dated), so that the historical order is the natural order in which to list the historically significant examples. Once A-M are out of the "overview" we can reorder, prune, add to the remaining list of eamples and rename it something like "Brief History of Apartheid Allegations". Or replace the paragraph with a timeline template (see, e.g., the timeline at 2007 North American pet food recall).

NB: The title of this article is Allegations of Israeli apartheid, not Israeli apartheid. (And rightly so, since it is POV that "apartheid" means anything outside of ZA history, except as a slur. It's also POV that it's a slur...but you shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia titled "CIA Complicity in 9/11" even though such an article could be written NPOV -- the apparent assertion of the title will be disruptive.) But the current content of the article has a natural tendency to wander in the direction of Human Rights of Palestinians under Israeli Occupation and Protectorate, which must be resisted. Andyvphil 11:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Andy, I've kept most of your edits, but this is one point I must insist on. Adam and Moodley give the best overview, so they're prominent in the overview section. Hell, we even made them the secondary paragraph. The article should be moved to something like human rights of palestinians under israeli occupation, see below talk page section.--Urthogie 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Write that article if you like. Move content there from here. Then maybe this article can become what its title says it is... "Adam and Moodley give the best overview..."? What part of my refutation of that myth is flawed? Andyvphil 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion is to rename this article, not to write a seperate one.--Urthogie 14:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the proposal, and I'm opposed to it. I have no objection to an article on the subject but I see no reason to delete this subject in order to give birth to it. Andyvphil 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you display such antipathy to Adam and Moodley, but in any event they are the only academics who have an expertise in exactly this area, they have written at length on the topic, and they provide a balanced view. The claims of Wikipedia editor "Andyvphil" don't mean much compared to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I have no antipathy toward Adam and Moodley. In terms of their opinions and recommendations (of which they have many, notwithstanding your odd suggestions that they are somehow not polemical) they speak for me, indeed more than any other RS in this article. I have no idea what Andyvphil thinks of them as polemicists or scholars, but I think we are both saying that A&M's expertise in one aspect of this issue (namely, the application of lessons learned from South African peacemaking to the Israel-Palestine quagmire) does not alchemize the most passing of their remarks into the substance of an authoritative encyclopedic overview of our subject, "allegations of Israeli apartheid." I'll put the matter a little more specifically and say that the "similarities and differences" they refer to in their tripartite division have nothing whatsover to do with the similarities cited by advocates of the concept of "Israeli apartheid," or the differences cited by its critics. Our quotation of Adam and Moodley here is in this respect fantastically misleading. Anyone who has read the book through (not just the first chapter, which is online) will know what I mean. Here's the sort of thing Adam and Moodley cite as "differences": 1) apartheid became very costly for South Africa, because of sanctions, whereas the Israeli occupation has been sustained and will be sustained for the foreseeable future by the United States; 2) the U.S. has a "blind spot" with regards to Israel (partly because of Christian Zionism and partly because of a felt affinity with a settler-colonial society), and without American pressure Israeli politics will continue to be in hock to the right-wing supremacist settler movement; 3) the Palestinians do not have charismatic leaders with universal moral appeal like Mandela, but even if they did it wouldn't make a difference because they "are still at the mercy of a superior adversary in every respect," Israel, which "has the capacity to reach a meaningful compromise, but has yet to prove its willingness"; 4) Israel feels that it is right, whereas white South Africa was increasingly demoralized toward the end of the apartheid era; 5) in South Africa the end-game was clear, whereas in Israel-Palestine it is complicated by the fact that most Israelis and Palestinians want two states, but the facts on the ground point with increasing inexorability to the prospect of one state. Because Adam and Moodley's interest is in the practical lessons of peacemaking provided to Israel by the South African model, these are the sorts of things that count for them as "differences." They intersect only glancingly with the "differences" between Israel and South Africa that arise in the context of our article – naturally enough, since, after all, the subject of our article is a debate that turns largely on whether the occupation is morally equivalent to apartheid, not whether the process that ended one can be pragmatically applied to end the other.--G-Dett 22:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, my observation that A-M don't provide an overview of the subject of this article is not answered by an appeal to their authority on a related subject. I've made an argument on this based on the quoted text. See above. Rebut it if you can. Andyvphil 23:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand Wikipedia policy; it's not our place to use original research to try to refute the views of experts. Instead, we just quote them or cite them. A&M are the experts on the subject; your "rebuttal" of A&M's view is, I'm sorry to say, irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem determined to misunderstand plain English. I didn't rebut A&M, I rebutted the assertion that the quote from them was an overview (much less "the best overview") of the subject of this article. Nothing you've said so far has been relevant to the discussion. Andyvphil 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Awkward sentence

I don't know who's bright idea it is to float an awkward sentence fragment;

Allegations of apartheid have been made against many countries.

on line one of the lead, but it looks atrocious. Along with the other content that Urothgie keeps unilaterally deleting, and with the latest (5th?) AfD, it looks like this article is seeing yet another POV assault. Tarc 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith. By the way it wasn't me who made that link, and my deletion wasn't "unilateral". In fact, it wasn't even my idea, it was JD's. I can't win with you, can I?--Urthogie 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Doright added that. Real-world critics of the analogy argue that Israel is being "singled out." Doright and other Wikipedians critical of the analogy argue the exact opposite, that "allegations of apartheid have been made against many countries." They've created an article as a showcase for that original synthesis, which is then repeated everywhere but sourced to nobody (hence the opener judiciously removed by Tarc). It is full of bottom-barrel google-scrapings, many of which simply misrepresent any rhetorical invocation as an allegation. So when Desmond Tutu tells the Tibetans that they too are on the "winning side," this is distorted into an "allegation of apartheid" against China. The whole ridiculous article (which is rife with this sort of garbage) is an OR-concocted rebuttal of this one masquerading as its "parent," in order to justify the POV-pushing infobox at the top of the page.--G-Dett 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

While this article arguably fulfills notability requirements at wikipedia, one can fairly ask if any other encyclopedia would even consider covering this subject which would more accurately go under various human rights in israel/west bank articles. The way I see it, this page and all the other ones will either stay together or fall together.

Also, G-Dett, don't deny that every single allegation on this page aside from Carter/Tutu isn't a result of "google scraping."--Urthogie 19:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, Where do I "argue" the "exact opposite" of "Israel is being singled out." Also, how have you determined what my personal view is and what's your point about my personal view? Your other conspiracy theories I know nothing about. Doright

How is it NPOV to put Norman Finkelstein in the "criticism" section

I'm interested in hearing the answer to this. It seems like editors are going to ridiculous lengths to avoid an indepth discussion of Carter's allegation, even to the point of putting a far-left anti-Zionist into the criticism section! This to me shows the inherent contradiction of trying to group all the criticisms together-- they don't form a concrete whole when the specific criticisms are grouped with the general ones. --Urthogie 17:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is listed as a critic of the analogy?? Now I've seen everything! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a commonality among the ways those who reject the allegation FRAME the debate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^ Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. op. cit. p. ix
^ Irshad Manji: Modern Israel is a far cry from old South Africa
^ Editorial: The 'Israel Apartheid Week' libel
^ ^a ^b Buruma, Ian. "Do not treat Israel like apartheid South Africa",The Guardian, July 23, 2002.
^ ^a ^b Matas, David. Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, pp. 53-55.
^ Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. op. cit. p. ix
^ Irshad Manji: Modern Israel is a far cry from old South Africa
^ Editorial: The 'Israel Apartheid Week' libel
^ Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris and Peace not Apartheid, February 7, 2007.

[1] Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. op. cit. p. ix

[2] Irshad Manji: Modern Israel is a far cry from old South Africa

[3] Editorial: The 'Israel Apartheid Week' libel

[Buruma-4] Buruma, Ian. "Do not treat Israel like apartheid South Africa",The Guardian, July 23, 2002.

[Matas-5] Matas, David. Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, pp. 53-55.

[6] Adam, Heribert & Moodley, Kogila. op. cit. p. ix

[7] Irshad Manji: Modern Israel is a far cry from old South Africa

[8] Editorial: The 'Israel Apartheid Week' libel

[9] Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris and Peace not Apartheid, February 7, 2007.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]