Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

BBC Lucy Ash - not a realiable source

In an article quoted here she says: "In one neighbourhood the streets end abruptly with a wall of concrete and barbed wire - Baqa is sliced in half by Israel's new security fence. " - this is 100% wrong as the fence in baka runs exactly on the town boundry with the west bank. Nothing is "sliced". It seems that the Jurnalist just quoted what she was told by plaestinian sources. Zeq 17:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you are quite mistaken, as sources such as this also speak of the town being split in half, as well as the wall bordering the West Bank as you mention.
However, that really doesn't have a bearing on any of this, in my opinion; the BBC citation of this article was only for the purpose of providing a source for the "smelled of apartheid" quote of Tommy Lapid (footnotes #33 & #60). Whatever Ms. Ash reported in other parts of the article has no effect on the credibility of the citation itself. Unless you question whether Lapid expressed these sentiments? Tarc 20:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Useful references:
Having been there and saw and verifie dthe maps I can tell you that the town ends at the wall (which is on the border, exactly where the border fece was until 1967). On the other side there is a a pelstinian village called nazlat Isa and it may confuse people who don't know the difference between the reality and how it is told to them by propeganda sources. Zeq 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I question her ability to understand the whole "land issue" that is quoted from her in the article. she is simply wrong. Zeq 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Judging from the photos above, it seems that you are clearly wrong, but I now regret even addressing the wall issue, as it has brought nothing but a strawman argument from you in response. I will point out again; this BBC article was cited only for its quotation of Tommy Lipid; not the issue of the wall. I ask again; do you challenge the validity of the quotation? Tarc 23:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine

I am bemused as to why Moshe chose to act in such a rude manner by reverting without any explanation edits that I had spent some time on. "Israeli Apartheid" is not an allegation, it is a phrase and should be described as such. The current version is extremely poor english. My proposed version of the header is as follows:

"Israeli apartheid" is a controversial phrase that seeks to draw a comparison between the policies of Israel towards West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens, to the actions of the white minority to the non-white majority in apartheid-era South Africa. Opponents of the phrase's usage state that the comparison has no merit, and is being misused in an attempt to isolate and condemn Israel.

Arniep 19:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your wording is probably clearer, but there's been so much controversy that some of us have been trying to avoid changing the first line without extensive discussion first. I'd pick "phrase" over "allegation" myself, from a grammar perspective. Maybe "loaded phrase" instead of "allegation" would work. See Loaded language. How about [[Loaded language|loaded phrase]] instead of "controversial allegation"? Comments? --John Nagle 19:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It is clear that if we use the word "phrase" instead of "allegation" then the consequence will be adding an innappropriate amount of legitimacy to a phrase that has been taken out of its original context in order to underhandedly draw comparisons to the old white South African regime. I find it strange that Arniep suddenly acts so incredulous that I should dare revert him when previous talk page discussions have made it clear why I would revert such an edit.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, I do not see how ther term "phrase" confers any legitimacy whatsoever. I think you're assuming a meaning to the word that doesn't exist. "Phrase" simply means a series of words, no more, no less.

phrase Pronunciation (frz)
n.
1. A sequence of words intended to have meaning.
2.
a. A characteristic way or mode of expression.
b. A brief, apt, and cogent expression.
3. A word or group of words read or spoken as a unit and separated by pauses or other junctures.
4. Grammar Two or more words in sequence that form a syntactic unit that is less than a complete sentence.
5. Music A short passage or segment, often consisting of four measures or forming part of a larger unit.
6. A series of dance movements forming a unit in a choreographic pattern.

[1]

Moshe, can you please provide a citation for any definition of phrase that suggests describing a series of words as a "phrase" in any way conveys any legitimacy or authority or truth on those words.Homey 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, very nice. I do not think I ever implied that phrase means anything different than the definitions that you have provided, furthermore I do not believe that what I was actually stating was too difficult to comprehend. As a demonstration of good faith however, I will spell it out more carefully this time. Merely saying that it is a phrase is not a problem, however using the word "phrase" instead of the word "allegation" is a problem.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
So what do you think of "loaded phrase"? --John Nagle 04:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be okay with that, but I doubt other editors here would.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"loaded phrase" is, well, a loaded phrase. Let's stick with neutral terms. Homey 06:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"Neutral terms" like, for example, "apartheid"? What a joke. 6SJ7 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Moshe, you are reverting the contributions of others based on what you belive the underlying motives of the contributor to be? Isn't this a tacit admission of violating WP:FAITH ? Tarc 04:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read up on the policy yourself, the reversion had nothing to do with my beliefs about other editors underlying motivations.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
To quote you; "Merely saying that it is a phrase is not a problem, however using the word "phrase" instead of the word "allegation" is a problem". You have no problem with the word itself, only in how you perceive others use it. That is the epitome of bad faith. Tarc 17:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? I'm not sure you actually know what you are talking about, I am saying that we should not replace the word "allegation" with the word "phrase" in the article's introduction. So please, In the future before you decide to jump into a conflict and make more grandiose accusations maybe you should at least have a firm grasp of what people are arguing about, and yes part of this means you have to assume good faith.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"I do not think I ever implied that phrase means anything different than the definitions that you have provided,"

you did, you said earlier It is clear that if we use the word "phrase" instead of "allegation" then the consequence will be adding an innappropriate amount of legitimacy to a phrase "

Phrase is a neutral term. It does not confer any "legitimacy" to the words it describes as the definition of "phrase" makes clear.Homey 06:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to stop making strange interpretations of other editors arguments, I have made it clear what I meant and there is nothing in what I have written above which is at odds with what I have been trying to convey. I do not understand what you hope to accomplish by attempting to twist my words around to make it seem like I was saying something different, but you have done so in the past many times and I do not think it has ever helped anything.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So what, then, is your justification for removing what you admit is a neutral term like "phrase"? How does being neutral (which is what we're supposed to be doing) convey "an inappropriate amount of legitimacy? Would you prefer not being neutral?Homey 18:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You really know how to make me laugh, I guess you are trying to suggest that I am explicitly demanding that the article must not be neutral because I did not want to replace "allegation" with "phrase"? So where exactly did I state that the word "phrase" is automatically neutral regardless of the context? Just out of curiosity I really have to ask, are you high?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the existence of this article is a study in contradiction. The original justification was that it is a frequently found phrase, in which case the article should have been about the use of the phrase. Then certain editors wanted to make it about more than the phrase; they wanted to make it about an alleged phenomenon. As long as the article discusses the extent to which Israeli policies can reasonably be compared to apartheid, it is about an allegation and not a phrase. If it is only about a phrase, the article should be much shorter, focusing on usage and other linguistic matters. It would also probably be deleted, because WP is not a dictionary. In other words, you can not have it both ways: you can not breezily dismiss objections on the basis that we're only talking about a phrase; and at the same time insist that the subject be treated like it's anything more. --Leifern 18:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
From my POV the article documents notable allegations that some Israel policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians are analogous to apartheid, at least from the Palestinian perspective, and the debate and criticism of these types of allegations. I find it interesting, especially the response from the left -- which is not yet well documented in the article. To be honset, I can't follow the exact details of the debate above about the term "phrase" but it seems from my POV to just be a distraction and yet another reason to argue for people that like to argue. --Ben Houston 18:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't try to suggest that users are just arguing or suggesting new ideas to disrupt or whatever you think the motive is. Please read WP:FAITH. Arniep 06:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To Do: Uri Avnery Criticism

This essay should be integrated into the criticism section. Uri Avnery is highly respected on the left: [[2]]. Even though the website on which this essay is found isn't amazing, the author, Uri, is notable. --Ben Houston 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Criticism from the Peace Activists

There is criticism from the peace activists - Uri Avnery and Moshe Machover -- it would be useful to pull this out into its own subsection of the criticism section. --Ben Houston 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Making this article the primary article for "Apartheid wall" or not?

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=63109278&oldid=63107482

-- Avi 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The redirect into the middle of the article won't work. It's a known bug. You can have wikilinks to tags within an article, but not redirects. Besides, the result of the last vote on that issue was that Apartheid wall should just be a redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. The barrier article starts out with a description of all the names used, so we're covered there. --John Nagle 03:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you may be misunderstanding my proposal, or I am misunderstanding your position. Did you check the two diffs I posted and see what I proposed? -- Avi 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments/Debate

the only reason for this seems to be to remove any reference to "apartheid wall" from apartheid (disambiguation). Homey 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As I have mentioned throught our discussion, I think that if we have an article sepcifically relating to allegations of Israeli apartheid, then that should more likely be the source article FOR all allegations of Israeli aparthied. The fact that the wall is called the Apartheid wall should be mentioned in the wall article and discussed in the apartheid article, b/c the primary focus of that discussion is APARTHEID and not the wall. In my opinion, of course. But those that are keen on having the wall represented in the apartheid disamb page seem to also share the belief that the apartheid-ness of the wall is primary, and thus, I would think, would agree that the focus should be in this article. At least that is how I would reason. -- Avi 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the parallels made by credible sources. Do these credible sources make use of the term "apartheid wall"? Or do they talk about the barrier? I am concerned that the credibility and focus of the article will be lost. --Ben Houston 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That is a problem with the section in general, not its placement. -- Avi 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall for the original discussion. The focus of the section is on the barrier itself rather than apartheid.Homey 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Then it does not belong on an apartheid disambiguation page, does it? -- Avi 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because, as Natalya said at Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation):

::On disambiguation pages, there does not necessarily have to be an article solely on the subject for the subject to be listed. In the suggestion above, the term is mentioned, and then the article which contains it is linked to. That way, the term is still mentioned, but the correct article is linked to. This is a frequent occurance on disambiguation pages. For mention in the Manual of Style, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#URL_anchor_notation -- Natalya 13:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Homey 21:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, anyone looking up Apartheid wall is redirected to the Israeli West Bank barrier article which makes eminently more sense than redirecting them to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Homey 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if the issue is apartheid. -- Avi 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that most people looking up "apartheid wall" are actually looking for info on the barrier and are using "apartheid wall" because that's a widely used term for it - it's certainly more widely used than "Israeli West Bank barrier". Homey 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the redirect points there, but not the disambiguation page. I posit that anyone needing disambiguation about apartheid is interested in apartheid. -- Avi 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why there's also a link on the disambiguation page to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. But the disambiguation page is not a good enough reason to rewrite the articles the page points to. You are affirming my claim earlier however that "the only reason for this seems to be to remove any reference to "apartheid wall" from apartheid (disambiguation)." Homey 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)\\

I disagree. I think that when discussing allegations of apartheid as they relate to the wall, that should be done in the article that discusses all the allegations of apartheid. The fact that there is a euphamistic term for the wall to identify it does not make the wall itself the proper place for the discussion. For example, if the term "Uncle Sam" redirects to the USA, would you say that we need a disambiguation term on the "Uncle" page for the US? If you would, then we must agree to disagree and hope other editors help us reach a consensus. -- Avi 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
False analogy. Obviously implicit in the phrase "apartheid wall" is an argument about the barriers function. However, the fact is it's a far better known term for the barrier than any other and that many people looking it up will be wanting to know more about the wall than about the concept of apartheid. Thus the redirect to Israel West Bank barrier makes sense which is why it was the overwhelmingly most popular option at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall. However, it is also a prominent example, perhaps the most prominent example of the term "apartheid" being used outside of the South African context which is why it also belongs in apartheid (disambiguation). Homey 21:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You are stating your personal opinon that the phrase "apartheid wall" is a far better known term for the barrier than any other, as if it was fact. It is nothing of the kind. Kindly keep your POV out of the encyclopedia. Isarig 22:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Apartheid wall renders 452,000 hits on google[3], "West Bank barrier produces 132,000 hits[4]. Homey 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
""West Bank barrier" is WP's attempt to be as NPOV as possible, so naturally it is not a common term. Nice try, though. Keep your POV out of the encyclopedia. Isarig 22:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me which phrase for the structure is more common than "apartheid wall"?Homey 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That does not address the point. As WP:POV as I believe the term is, I am not against the redirect. The fact that the term may be "better known" only addresses that it should redirect to the wall article. However, the purpose of a disambiguation page is, and I quote:

Deciding to disambiguate

Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that closely relate to various meanings of a particular term (some of which might logically utilize said term in a titular fashion). The considerations of what Wikipedia is not are not magically invalidated for disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are not intended for games of "free association." Please use them carefully and only when needed.

Confusion

Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up 'Joker', would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

— Wikipedia:Disambiguation
Anyone typing in both terms, "Apartheid" and "Wall" will get the redirect. If someone is searching for "apartheid" they should get the article on apartheid. That the wall is an example of an allegation of Israeli apartheid should be handled in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. As Wikipedia:Disambiguation said, this is not a way to have "free association" games.
In my opinion, your arguments keep relating to the commonality of the term, not to the logical structure of the articles which should be, IMO, that allegations of apartheid are discussed in the apartheid article with a brief mention in the wall article and the use of a {{main}} template. -- Avi 23:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


In my opinion: (1) having "Apartheid Wall" in the dab will likely not be that useful, but I am generally an inclusionist, (2) if it is part of the arguments made by reputable and notable individuals then it deserves coverage in this article -- the reputable arguments and proportionally as it appears in those arguments (not as a strawman or just the ISM rhetorical usages), (3) the term should probably still redirect to the main barrier article -- is a propaganda term, like security fence, as as such it should be treated similarly and given equal play and explanation of the perspective it is promoting. --Ben Houston 00:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Avi wrote:"The fact that the term may be "better known" only addresses that it should redirect to the wall article. "

Avi, what is actually being discussed here is whether the apartheid wall segment belongs in Allegations of Israeli apartheid or in Israeli West Bank barrier. The disambiguation page is a separate issue and should not be a factor in this discussion. Your statement quoted above seems to concede the point that the segment should remain where it is, in Israeli West Bank barrier rather than being moved. Homey 01:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was not clear; you seem to be completely missing my points, which I stated on my talk page, on your talk page, on the disamb talk page, and here. Perhaps I lack a certain clarity of explanation, but I hope if you would go back and read all of our conversations, you will see that I have been consistent. I will make the statement here without the depth of argument, opinion, and supports that I feel I have brought on the various pages, to prevent any ambiguity.
  • The main article about apartheid as it relates to Israel is Allegations of Israeli apartheid.
    • Ergo, issues that relate to allegations of Israeli apartheid belong primarily in the aforementioned article.
    • The Israeli barrier is referred to by some as the "Apartheid wall"
    • Ergo, the primary place for discussing the APARTHEID elements of the wall is Allegations of Israeli apartheid.
    • Thus, there should be a small blurb in Israeli West Bank barrier saying that some call it that, and others disagree, with a {{Main}} tag pointing to this article.
  • The above is what I feel is the logical structure of the ideas contained in the encyclopedia.
    • A result of this is, that there should be no mention of the wall in particular on the disambiguation page of apartheid, as the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid is already there, is the logical address for any discussion of allegations of Israeli apartheid, and will discuss the apartheid elements and connection of the wall in detail.
    • Any concerns that someone specifically looking for the wall, and using the epithet "Apartheid wall" will be confused is handled by the redirect which will point to the wall article (which I may have my issues with as well, but that is not under this discussion).
So, in a nutshell Allegations of Israeli apartheid is the article to discuss apartheid, including that element about the wall. The wall article should have just a blurb, and no mention in the disambiguation link since Allegations of Israeli apartheid is the prper place to discuss the apartheid element of the wall.
I hope that clears up any misunderstanding you have about the gist of my argument and opinion as to the best and logical grouping, in my opinion, about the articles in question. Thank you. -- Avi 01:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So basically, the whole purpose of your proposal is to remove the "apartheid wall" reference from Apartheid (disambiguation).

"Any concerns that someone specifically looking for the wall, and using the epithet "Apartheid wall" will be confused is handled by the redirect which will point to the wall article (which I may have my issues with as well, but that is not under this discussion).

So this means if someone types "apartheid wall" into the search engine they will be taken to an article that has had almost everything on the term "apartheid wall" removed from it. That clearly makes no sense, unless, as I say above, the purpose of your move is not logical flow but to remove the apartheid wall reference from the disambiguation page. Homey 01:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you would make an excellent rhetoric partner in certain circumstances, and I admire your zeal. However, I think that you are pointedly avoiding my points and trying to hide behind confusing the disambiguation issues and this article. Maybe I'm just too tired. Regardless, I will respond by saying, as you have mentioned numerous times, that that term is most often used as a euphamism, a code word. YES, if you believe that the term is used as a "codeword" or a euphamsim for the wall, it should redirect to an article that has little mention of the apartheid, because that article is not the proper place to DISCUSS the apartheid. If you believe that they are referring to apartheid, then it should redirect here. Please make up your mind, Homey. -- Avi 01:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The status quo should remain. Homey 02:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a non-answer, and does not address the points that I have raised numerous times above, and on other pages. However, it is late where I live, so I am logging off for now. I hope that by tomorrow we will have some other people besides ourselves chiming in. Good night, Homey. -- Avi 02:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... this is making me think a lot. I think that the section about the apartheid wall should be left in Israeli West Bank barrier, because it does relate to that article. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be the main article, but I'm not 100% sure which article should. The fact that this article links at Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Occupied_territories to the section of Israeli West Bank barrier referring to the apartheid wall makes me lean towards leaving Israeli West Bank barrier as the main article. That doesn't lower the fact that this article is very much related to the apartheid wall, and should mention it. It just seems like Israeli West Bank barrier is more directly related to it, while this article is a bit broader. However, I do not claim to be an expert on the Israeli conflicts, so if I am missing something that will affect my judgement, please do inform me. -- Natalya 02:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that both of you are overestimating the persuasive power of a dab entry -- this will be my last comment on this topic, its not worth arguing over. Homey, if you have spare time, would you be interested in helping me bring User_talk:Bhouston/Academic boycott of South Africa up to the level of a proper article? --Ben Houston 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This has gone one quite long enough. Homey, please stop being such a troll. You've been here long enough to know better. Tomertalk 05:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Please don't throw words like troll around. We'll see which way this proposal goes I'm simply stating I think it's unnecessary and I think the proposal has gotten the cart before the horse ie it's driven by a preference regarding the disambig page rather than making things easiest for users. Homey 06:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you have yet to respond on the merits of my argument that primary apartheid discussions belong in the apartheid article. -- Avi 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the information about "apartheid wall" is primarily about the separation barrier and views about it. Homey 15:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It also makes absolutely no sense to, as you suggest, have Apartheid wall redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier whilst having most of the information on "apartheid wall" in another article. Homey 15:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Homey. the information about the apartheid portion of the term "apartheid wall" is not about the wall, but Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Once again, you are mixing kasha with borscht, as my dear and late departed grandmother-in-law would say. When discussing Allegations of Israeli apartheid, it should be done in the eponymous article. The fact that some people call the Israeli West Bank barrier, the "apartheid wall", only means that they mean to find the wall that way. There should be a small listing about the apartheid nature of the wall in Israeli West Bank barrier as I have here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=63109278&oldid=63107482 and the {{main}} tag should point to a section here, like I show here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=63106903&oldid=63064705
Your argument in a nutshell is that people call the wall by apartheid, so the redirect should exist, and then it makes no sense to talk about apartheid in the apartheid article, if the redirect exists. Again, that is analogous to having a redirect from "Uncle Sam" to the United States, and then saying we should discuss avuncularism in the US article. -- Avi 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not my argument. The redirect should go to Israeli West Bank barrier as Apartheid wall is a common description of it, possibly the most common description of it outside of Israel. Ergo a section on the phrase "apartheid wall" belongs in the barrier article. I don't see the point of repeating myself ad nauseum so let's leave it to other people to comment. Your analogy, btw, is reductio ad absurdum. Homey 15:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I used that myself, Homey, :D but my point was that your thesis is tenuous. But I appreciate its use :D -- Avi 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Avi, why don't you just add the main tag for now -- the section on "apartheid wall" in the security barrier article is already quite short, and if you think it needs additional summarizing, you can take that up there. I don't think the "main" tag, by itself, is likely to be controversial. TheronJ

Perhaps the most sensible thing is to just revive the independent Apartheid wall article?Homey 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That, Homey, is rather insensible as in my opinion, the only relevance that phrase has to Wikipedia is a shortcut search phrase to Israeli West Bank barrier. -- Avi 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are arguing, however, that Apartheid wall should redirect to one article while being discussed in another then it makes more sense to have a separate article than to engage in the bifurcation you are requesting. The alternative is the status quo. Homey 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

/sigh You and I are going around in circles, Homey. You disagree with my position; I disagree with yours, and the reasons have been explained above. I'd like to hear from other people now, and perhaps a poll to reach some consensus of those who have followed our debate. -- Avi 15:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"...the information about the apartheid portion of the term "apartheid wall" is not about the wall, but Allegations of Israeli apartheid"

I'm making this a new section, because I think it is a) very important, and b) may be able to solve all the problems. Avi, this is a great statement, and really clears the issue. Since it does seem that the term "apartheid wall" is more about the use of the word, that makes a lot of sense, and supports making Allegations of Israeli apartheid the primary article. However, Homey has a good point that it still does relate to Israeli West Bank barrier. I think that if we make Allegations of Israeli apartheid the main article, but are sure to mention Israeli West Bank barrier in the section of this article referring to the "apartheid wall", we may be able to solve all the problems. -- Natalya 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I did that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=prev&oldid=63107482 and the {{main}} tag should point to a section here, like I show here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=63106903&oldid=63064705 Although, I am sure that it could be edited to make it even better. -- Avi 23:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
That's really, really good. After some cleanup, I would support putting those two edits in, and then having Allegations of Israeli apartheid as the main article. Homey, would that be satisfactory? If not, what can be done to improve it? -- Natalya 11:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could reach a consensus on this, and it appears we have a number of editors who prefer this formulation, and Homey who does not. Is there anyone else who would like to contribute to this discussion before any changes are (perhaps) made? Thank you -- Avi 18:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, we have myself, Natalya, and 6SJ7 (on the disamb page) agree to the proposal that this should be the primary article, the Wall article should have a brief mention, and the disamb page should not make special mention of the wall. We have Homey, who disagrees. Without anyone else's comments, I think the consensus is to restore the above proposal, especially in light that Homey has brought Natalya as a resource in the discussion, and she concurs, so I believe we now actually have a consensus proposal. -- Avi 03:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You can add me as another supporter to the proposal. Dionyseus 03:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with the present situation, where Apartheid wall redirects to Israeli West Bank barrier? It's an alternate name; a redirect is appropriate. If any renames are being planned, they should be mentioned in the current arbitration proceeding. --John Nagle 06:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, John, but I beleive you missed the point. The redirect is not changing. The issue was which article should have the primary discussion of the apartheid elements of the wall. -- Avi 06:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Very little of the information in the section on criticisms" of the apartheid wall term are sourced ie we need sources that opponents of the term are saying this, otherwise it's original research. We also need a source for the proponents claim regarding Israeli State Prosecution. Homey 04:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

New lead section suggestion

"Israeli apartheid" is a controversial phrase used by some individuals and organizations to allege that the policies of Israel toward West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens are comparable to the actions of the white minority government to the non-white majority in apartheid-era South Africa. Opponents of this phrase's usage state that the allegation is without merit, and is misused to isolate and condemn Israel.

Arniep 07:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence seems too long. I'd keep what we've got for now, since it's been up for a few days and nobody has been screaming much, which is as close to consensus as we're likely to get here. --John Nagle 07:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I am not happy with it and I am sure others are not. It includes both the word "allege" which Moshe wants to include and the word "phrase" which others think should be included. The current paragraph is extremely bad english. Arniep 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be obvious that your "new" version is in fact very similar to the version that was recently changed for good reasons.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it is not obvious to me please allow for my slowness of wit. What are your objections to my version. Thanks so much. Arniep 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody made yet another change to the header line, and I changed it back, since they hadn't discussed it here. I'm not entirely happy with it either, but at least what we have isn't totally unacceptable to either side. --John Nagle 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I like Avi's version (the one you reverted) better than what you reverted it to (which essentially is what I had written about a week ago and what you added to the article.) It has the advantage of having the article title together at the beginning of the first sentence. Neither solution is perfect but no first-sentence for this article will ever be perfect since, as I may have mentioned a few times in the past, the article should not have a first sentence in the first place because it should be part of another article. I have left it alone for now to see if anyone else wants to express an opinion. Also, in your edit summary you called the current version a "consensus" version. It is not, and I wish people would stop claiming that there has been a "consensus" about things in this article when there has not. What it is, is a version that I wrote that drew little objection because it was better than the mess that was there before. However, it has no special status that prevents editing. 6SJ7 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote in the edit summary, if you really want to follow the heading style, then the entire phrase should tie together. Splitting it out but bolding the two sections is difficult to justify from a mark-up/stylistic basis. I didn't realize that I had to copy my edit summary to the talk page, however. -- Avi 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Avi's version is what makes the most sense due to the fact that the entire title is written together.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article looks fine to me -- it is neutrally descriptive. One sentence that says that some feel it is accurate or something to that extent should be added to balance out the what is currently the second sentence saying that those opposing it feel it is inaccurate. --Ben Houston 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Avi's version is fine. Arniep 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that is necessary, since the very fact that there are allegations means that the maker of the allegations believes that they are accurate. The second sentence shows that these allegations are disputed. Thus both sides are already represented, in my opinion. -- Avi 02:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Avi. The first sentence is not neutral, for the same reason that this article's very existence is inherently POV. The second sentence partially balances the first. No additional sentence are necessary in the first paragraph. It will never be good, but I think this is the most tolerable that it is going to get. 6SJ7 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is not inherently POV: it gives both sides of the debate. I see no reason why this information is not of encyclopedic value.--Cerejota 01:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris McGreal

Moved the Chris McGreal section to its own article, keeping all the critical references. Linked to it under a section headed "Usage in the press" --John Nagle 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I combined the three times it was references into one multi-linked citation. -- Avi 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone took out the Chris McGreal cite today, and someone else put it back in. It probably should stay in. We used to have a rather big Chris McGreal section, but it had become an individual bio embedded in this article, so I moved it out a week ago to a separate Chris McGreal article. That's been stable for a while. Nobody objected, and others fixed up some dangling cites, so that seems to be acceptable for now. --John Nagle 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

More explicit sourcing

I've been making some of the sources more explicit in the text. Rather than "Opponents claim", I've written "Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, claimed in 2004". This is consistent with WP:WEASEL, and is more journalistic in tone. --John Nagle 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's good I found those two sources then, isn't it ;) Seriously, good pickup. -- Avi 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Glaser, D. J. 2003. Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison: pdf available

Glaser, D. J. 2003. Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison. Ethnic and Racial Studies 26:403-421.

Abstract: This article subjects to normative-theoretical scrutiny the common claim that Israeli Zionism is 'like' South African apartheid. Drawing on a range of historical and sociological evidence, it shows that this claim (or accusation) is substantially justified in two senses. Firstly, Israeli Zionism is, in many areas, morally bad in the same way as apartheid; secondly, where it is different from apartheid in character, it is in some respects anyway as bad - that is, the difference is not invariably morally favourable to Israeli Zionism. 'Israel proper' (within its pre-1967 borders) is neither much like nor as bad as apartheid. The justification of the analogy only becomes clear when we view Israel and its occupied territories as a single political entity. The article argues that we are justified in so viewing them.

I have the pdf available, if you are interested, send me an e-mail, I cannot post it here as it is copyrighted. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Do POV reflective categories belong on an article? Is policy a solution?

On Allegations of Israeli apartheid the POV category currently applied is Category:Pejorative political terms. One could also apply the converse POV category Category:Discrimination. Recently, on the related Hasbara article there was a recent discussion as to whether or not the POV reflective Category:Propaganda should be used.

Of course, proponents of each POV can say that the category reflective of their POV clearly applies while the proponents of the contrasting POV can say that it doesn't meet NPOV requirements.

At the moment, it seems from my recent experience, that POV categories are applied in some cases and not in others, usually based on the relative rhetorical skill, or the distribution of vocal participants, of those involved in each article.

To me I would prefer if there was policy with regards to how to deal with this that one could reference so that it could be applied consistently.

This is an honest question that I am asking. Could we try to develop a consistent solution to this issue? I think it is more productive that fighting it out over and over again on various articles. --Ben Houston 13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts that a workable policy could be developed, but if you want to try, there is nothing to stop you.
As for this page in particular, in my opinion it would definitely not fit into "category:propaganda". That category is for articles dealing with the subject of propaganda, not with subjects that someone thinks are examples of propaganda.
I note this article has already been entered under "perjorative political terms", and that highlights an additional problem with the renaming of this article to "allegations of..." "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is not a perjorative political term, obviously. Israeli apartheid is the perjorative. This article looks very out of place amongst the list of political perjoratives, and I don't think it belongs there. Gatoclass 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen Category:Pejorative political terms before, but now that I have, it seems to me that almost every entry is "very out of place" with almost every other entry. It is kind of a silly category. 6SJ7 01:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't know about that. Most of them seem to be very obvious examples of political perjoratives to me. Gatoclass 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Title

This article should be renamed "Israeli Apartheid Debate". "Israeli Apartheid" is a fact contested, no doubt, but it is to shallow a description to call it "allegations". They are not mere allegations, but a complete body of political activity and POV, supported by notables of world reknown like Desmond Tutu. To call the political views that uphold the "Israeli Apartheid" as mere allegations, is a disingenious attempt at minimizing the real impact such ideas have on contemporary political views. Hence the title I propose is more fitting: it recognizes that there is indeed a debate, not just disjointed or minimal "allegations", while repsecting NPOV.

Now, the article as it stands does need a rewrite and must be expanded, but the debate on the existence or not of an Israeli Apartheid is an important debate, in view of the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, and is one that we as editors owe wikipedian readers a good shot at a quality, NPOV entry.--Cerejota 05:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a reasonable suggestion -- I would change the title casing to "Israeli apartheid debate" though. --Ben Houston 05:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they do not even rise to the level of "allegations", since "allegations" imply facts. This article is about opinions, not facts. It is really just about name-calling. Similarly, I think "debate" is not really accurate. What is the debate about? Name-calling and denials of the accuracy of the name-calling do not really add up to a debate. As for what the title should be changed to, if anything, some options are being discussed in the arbitration, maybe we should see how that plays out. 6SJ7 06:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I would add that I am not sure this is the right moment to go changing the title again. The atmosphere surrounding this article has become so poisoned by the filing of the arbitration request and even more so by many of the things that have been said in the course of the arbitration, this may not be the right time for a major change. Or perhaps stated more Wikipedia-like, if anybody does make major changes, they need to understand that these changes may be quickly (or slowly) undone by the "further proceedings" that are likely to take place in connection with this article. These may include a mediation, yet another "vote" on a title, a formal merge request (if there is such a thing), maybe even another AfD -- or some, or all, or none of the above. There also is a proposal in the arbitration that may result in the ArbComm "suggesting" a title. Finally, the current title (as ambivalent about it as I am) is the result of a formal RFM that resulted in a consensus, so I am not sure whether the title can just be changed without another RFM. 6SJ7 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The only thing we can safly say is that there are people who use this term. Hence the name use of the the term israeli apartheid Zeq 10:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
There is on Wikipedia a bias towards first movers with regards to contentious articles. It is, on wikipedia, a lot easier to prevent change of an existing article that it is to make change -- for a variety of reasons. I do like the idea of having articles that cover "debates" around issues -- this is very NPOV way to treat things, almost pulled out of how news media treats things, and maybe I can make use of it in the future. --Ben Houston 15:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this whole article a violation of the NPOV rule. This article is just a way to have a POV as an entire article. Afterall there is an Saudia Arabia Apartheid article even though that country doesn't even allow non Muslims as citizens. I don't see any reason to allow this article to exist. It should be deleted as a violation of the NPOV rule.

A majority of the people who have expressed an opinion on the subject have agreed that this article should be deleted, either on grounds of NPOV or other Wikipedia policies or guidelines. However, to date there has not been a "consensus" which is required under the applicable policies in ordder to delete the article. 6SJ7 21:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Don't like it I just linked to the policy page and raise the issue there.
Now, to the title, I think the tile is wrong and weasel words. There is a comparative scholary debate, and a political point of view that either approches or affirms that there are deep similarities at the sociological, political, and psychological level between the Israeli policies towards non-Jews and South Africa's policies towards non-Whites. There is also a body of academic and political counter-arguments. There is no question this debate exists, and that these politics exist: There is even a reliable source book that has "Israeli Apartheid" in its title. To continue to attempt to delete this article, rather than bring it to an NPOV standard is unproductive and counter-intuitive: and encyclopedia should always want to add information, not substract it.
That said, it must be retitled: I prefer "Debate on Israeli Apartheid", but i could live with "Debate on Israeli policies towards non-Jews", or we could refocus, and have a page where the "apartheid" issue is a sub-section called "Israeli policies towards non-Jews" as a subpage of Israel.
I think retitling around those lines shifts the focus from the "allegations" as we should not have an article on the allegations of one side of the POV, but on the debate itself: this follows the oft cited example of Abortion Debate.
Lastly, some have mentioned as an argument that there are no other similar pages for other countries. I do not oppose the creation of such pages on ongoing debates (if they verifiably exist), and in fact would love the opportunity to further the knowledge of the allegations or facts of mistreatment of social and ethnic minorities in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and other countries in the region. And if any relevant reliable source can be verified as describing it as a Saudi Apartheid, or Iranian Apartheid, we must include that. But lack of information on one country, when there exist information on another, as an argument not to publish the available information strikes me as illogical. If we extend this logic, then we must not mention that countries have armies, because some countries don't have armies. Using the lowest common denominator is not NPOV, but rather its opposite: it is a POV-driven ommision.--Cerejota 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Cerejota, if I had more time I would write a longer reply, but let me just make a couple of quick points. First, I was not trying to imply that Wikipedia is a democracy, although the fact is that in practical terms, Wikipedia does use some of the methods of democracy, at times, and not very consistently, but that is a whole other discussion. I merely mentioned to the writer of the unsigned comment (Michaelh613) that a majority of those who have expressed an opinion share his belief that the article should be deleted, and believe that deletion would consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I wanted him to understand that he was not the only one who had this opinion. However, I also wanted him to understand that while there is a majority, Wikipedia policies require a consensus for deletion, and such a consensus has not been established. This is functionally the same as saying "Wikipedia is not a democracy," but my way was somewhat friendlier, in my opinion. I understand that you do not agree with deletion, and I also understand that it is unlikely that there will be a consensus for deletion in the future. Nevertheless, when the subject has come up based on someone else nominating the article for deletion, I have expressed my opinion in favor of either a delete or a merger of this article into another article. Second, as for the current title, there are probably very few people who prefer it as their first choice. I do not know whether you have read through the talk pages (all 14 pages), the edit history, the arbitration pages, the centralized discussion pages, etc. to see how the title got that way, and why. I think most people who have been involved with this article expect that at some point, there will be further "proceedings" of some kind regarding both whether this article should be merged elsewhere, and if not, what the title should be. The arbitration (which continues), and related discussions, seem to have slowed down the process. In fact, the issue of what the title should be has been raised as an issue in the arbitration, and while it seems doubtful that the ArbComm is actually going to specify a title, I think a number of people would like to see what they do say. Which does not, of course, preclude people from making suggestions now, but because the current title was chosen by consensus in an RFM, I am doubtful that it should be changed without another RFM. 6SJ7 15:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I just want to add, for clarity, that during the early discussions of this article a variety of other potential titles were discussed, and there were a number of moves (some of which were the instigating cause of the arbitration request, which then branched out into a variety of other issues and discussions.) I seem to recall that "Israeli apartheid debate" or variations thereon may have been suggested by someone, although the article was never moved to that name. The difficulty was that the creator of the article, and others, were insisting that the name remain "Israeli apartheid," with no room for compromise. On every occasion, the article was moved back to that name. (Also notice that even in the AfD that occurred last week, several people were pushing for the name to go back to "Israeli apartheid.") The title "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", though admittedly weasely-worded, was ultimately seen as preferable to "Israeli apartheid" by most of those who expressed an opinion, including me. As for "Israeli apartheid debate" now, I don't know, I have some reservations as I expressed above. As I said before, I think another RFM would be necessary. 6SJ7 19:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The word Allegations is weaselly and POV. We don't have an Allegations of a homosexual agenda article or Allegations of homophobia, we have Homosexual agenda and homophobia. The term "Israeli apartheid" gets a 6 digit hit return from google, so I believe the term, by itself, is notable. There is nothing in NPOV that says we cannot discuss POVs and strong opinions and debate. We just need to do it in a neutral manner, without taking sides, without giving minority views undue weight, etc. I strongly feel that there should be an article on "Israeli apartheid" that discusses the term critically, that discusses who uses it and why, how prevelent the views are, and discusses criticism and oppositition to those views. Stating a term that an article is about isn't a violation of NPOV, even if the term itself is very POV (such as homosexual agenda and homophobia). We can discuss in the very first paragraph how the term is controversial and not fact and only pushed by a certain POV, but I feel strongly that the title should be changed.--Andrew c 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Relationship with South Africa

See Foreign Relations of Israel. This is relevant to this article, as claims of Israeli apartheid are related to the close relationship between apartheid SA and Israel. Some of the information in this article could go there. Deuterium 09:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

this was suggested but rightfully denied. These are two completely seperate things. Israel's foreign relations with south africa are foreign. It's simply a whole new debate and it will be misleading and deceptive to try to link both issues. Allegdly, South Africa couldn't care less about what Israel was doing and vice versa as long as both parties were willing to talk to each other. To any extent that it might have (and it's not), it's already mentioned in the article. Off topic : I agree this article violates NPOV. Amoruso 22:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree this article violates NPOV apriori. If this article violates NPOV, then New Anti-semitism violates NPOV. I think neither do (althought I would change the title of "New Anti-semitism" to something more NPOV like "Debate on new anti-semitism"). Again I think it should be retitled to "Debate on Israeli Apartheid".
I agree it is wrong to do original research and join Israeli foreign policy with their internal policy, but if a verifiable and reliable source has information on this, I see no reason why it shouldn't be included.--Cerejota 01:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability not truth

A pillar of wikipedia is verifiability not truth. I other words, things must be verifiable, even if the underlying facts are not true.

I the case fo this article, a large body of scholary, partisan, and news sources verify the existence of a debate around if Israel's policies towards the Palestianians and the Israeli Arab population are in fact analogous or not to the South African apartheid. This a disputede and debated fact, but it is a verifiabily disputed fact. Hence the article has a reason to exist and the editors who disagree should perhaps reconsider their position in trying to generate an encyclopedia that attempts to be deep in its reach. If we eleiminate a page about a debate, we are hiding information from our readers, who I trust are smart enought to decide for themselves what the truth is. That ios the wikipedia principle and it saddens me to see editors in manya rticles disregard this principle, caught up in "defending" their POV that they forget that hiding information actually harms them equally: in this case, rather than have an authoritative, verfied, reliably sourced article on this debate we end up with propaganda websites from both sides which only serves to obfuscate truth further.--Cerejota 01:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there may a debate about something, sufficient to warrant "coverage" of the debate, does not necessarily mean that the debate warrants a separate article. You yourself have stated above that one solution would be to deal with this subject as part of another article. I also don't see why you are surprised that this article would be filled with "progaganda." It is inevitable based on the use of the word "apartheid." Instead of covering the debate on what Israel does or doesn't do, and whether it is right or wrong (which other articles do cover), this article is about whether a particular name should be applied. Yes, there is a debate over whether that particular name-calling is appropriate, but it is not about anything very important. 6SJ7 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I thank you for a refreshingly civil contribution, lets try to keep it that way. ;)
I do disagree that the reason for not having a better article is the use of the word "apartheid", but rather the poisoned atsmosphere that having an active delition and Arbitration dispute going around. I mean three RfD in almost as many months? Now, perhaps the existence of the word "apartheid" in the title inflames people, but sometimes titles are like that, and what we do is debate changing the title, not deleting the whole page.
I do hear your point, but you misunderstand me: I think this debate deserves either its own page or inclusion as a headline section in a non-existing page that deals exclusively with the policies on non-jews in Israel. I don't think there is any existing page in wikipedia that could do justice to the need to profoundly examine this question. I do respect your position, but think it is a bit shortsighted in that it wants to limit, rather than expand, the reach of the infomation. We are not a paper encyclopedia, we don't need to conserve trees. :D
For example the Apartheid outside of South_Africa article has been suggested (by you? and others) as a place for this information. I think it can certainly be considered a "parent" article to this one, but as it is quite extensive as it is, and adding even a cleaned up version of this page (ie not removing vital verifiable information from reliable sources) would put it at quite an unmanageable size, and could possibly destroy the balance of that page by having a huge amount of information on Israel, but comparatively little on other places. It would make for a hell of an ugly article.
This is done as a matter of routine in wikipedia: parent page with many sub-articles on each of the subsections in the parent, and the parent mostly having brief intros in each corresponding sub-section, usually from the lead of the sub-page.
I think there are creative alternatives to reduce the inflamatory potential of the title (which nevertheless is NPOV, but also obviously upsets a significant number of editors which is not to be ignored either), and that this doesn't include putting it into an existing article, which will be a Salomonic desicion: it would neither help the quality and availability of the information in this page, nor would it make the reciepient page any better and possibly the contrary.
Lastly, the very fact that no consensus has been reached in deleting this page shows that its info is needed: the issue is sufficiently controversial and sufficiently sourced and notorious to deserve all this time and energy from editors. This is one page one can be sure will never be abandoned... and notoriety is one of the principles for inclusion, as we all know.--Cerejota 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand that WP is not a paper encyclopedia, but it also has a rule against POV forking, and I believe that is exactly what this article is. In fact the whole area of Israeli-Arab relations, including the Palestinian situation, is full of unnecessary articles. I am still coming across articles I wasn't aware of that overlap with others to a great degree. I think someone needs to get a handle on it, but I am not volunteering, except where I see situations that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As for this article, I think you have an incorrect impression (as did several people on AN/I where I posted about this) that the people involved in "the dispute" regarding this article have tried to delete it "over and over." There was an AfD shortly after this article was created, and since then, there has been an AfD started by someone who was not involved in this article, which resulted in a "speedy keep" after about 35 minutes (and neither I nor any other "involved party" were even aware of it until after it was over, to my knowledge) and then last week another person who was not involved in the article -- he had never even edited it except to place prodding and AfD tags -- started another AfD. I voted in it, because it was there. And by the way, even the first AfD was started by someone who was not thereafter involved in the "dispute." So the recurring deletion attempts have been sort of a fluke, and I do not think they have contributed to the "poisoned atmosphere," which I think is attributable mostly to the behavior of one person (but I won't rehash it here) and to the arbitration request and the discussions that took place in and around it. 6SJ7 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on my experience I would concour that serious NPOV and POV Forking happens throught the many many many Arab-Israeli pages (for example, the naming of military operations according to the name given to them by the IDF, and not by the name given to them by the press, and the listing of every Israeli atrocity, however small and howere linked to a wider conflcit into their own pages). However I have also witnessed a number of positive metamorphoses, where POV forks become actual quality encyclopedic entries.

Notwithstanding this agreement, I must say a couple of things. The first is that this page is in no way directly realated to the Arab-Israeli conflict per se. It deals much more with the internal policies of the State of Israel, and more specifically a debate around those policies. It obviously toouches the conflict, but the information on this page is unrelated. SO please lets not bring into the debate elements that are not central to it.

I will repeat myself because I think you are brushing this aside too easily: there is no page that discusses the facts and controversies of the treatment of non-Jews in what no one denies is a Jewish State. That is not a POV fork, but a neccesary inclusion and a glarring ommission. The debate around the aplicability of the moral, political, in in a sense criminal term "Apartheid" to Israel would certainly make a great section in one such page.

This calls for a refocusing: in the successful cases where I have participated in turning a POV fork (real or alleged), one very effective tool has been retitling and refocusing content. At first people havent seen it, but later as the pages develop people start to see the advantages of NPOV titles and of not being extremely specific in content.

After all this is about letting the readers decide, not spoonfeed them POV even if presented in balance.

Lets be honest and accept (for better or worse) reality: there is no way to generate a consensus to delete this page. It simply won't happen. To try to hold to a vague hope is a pointless exercise. But I think we can indeed build a consensus around generating a page with isn't a POV fork, and furthers the quality of the entire encyclopedia in general. I think you might be right in spirit, but are unfortunately circunscribing yourself to only seeing a deletion as the single possible outcome, where there is, I belive, away to both address the valid points you raise, and still keep this information in a page where it won't diminish its own quality or that of another page.--Cerejota 03:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I had to let this go for a few days, and now that I have gotten back to it I can only respond to a few of your points:
  • You say: The first is that this page is in no way directly realated to the Arab-Israeli conflict per se. It deals much more with the internal policies of the State of Israel, and more specifically a debate around those policies. That is not correct. The first paragraph makes clear that the allegations mostly concern what occurs in the "occupied territories" and involve internal Israeli policies only to a lesser extent. Reading through the article verifies this, it is mostly about what is going on outside the 1949 armistice line, not inside it.
  • You say: there is no page that discusses the facts and controversies of the treatment of non-Jews in what no one denies is a Jewish State. That is not correct. Human rights in Israel is that very article, dealing with that very subject. It separates the issues involving "Israel proper" from those involving the "occupied territories," or at least it did the last time I looked at it. It has its own issues (including attempts by anti-Israel editors to make it POV), but at least it does not have a title that contains a word that is inherently POV when used outside the context of South Africa in the "Apartheid era."
  • As I have said before, I am making no active effort to delete the article. I agree (and have said) that it is unlikely to be deleted, at least under present circumstances. Nevertheless, I personally do not think that this article can ever positively contribute to the Wikipedia project. It is based on an anti-Israel premise and nothing that is done cosmetically to the article can change that. As mentioned above, there is at least one other article that is a more suitable place for some of this material. The "Allegations of..." article is not about actual events or conditions, which are (or can be) better covered elsewhere; it is solely about a debate over the use of a single word. If you think that can make a good encyclopedia article, well, I guess that's what talk pages are for. 6SJ7 01:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will address your points.

  1. If we circumscribe the definition of internal to de jure, I think you are right. I think however, that the de jure definition is in fact one of the controversies covered by this page. Maybe the use a de facto definition is more NPOV: where ever the Shin Bet operates is de facto Israel. This goes right into the debate: Israel and others consider the Palestinian Authority as a state that satisfies the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflcit. Whereas some others consider the Palestinian Authority areas as bantustans similar to Lesotho and Swaziland and the conditions inside of the de jure Israel for Palestinians as similar to those in the other bantustans. Without taking sides in the debate we can accept a non-controversial de facto definition of internal affairs instead of a controversial de jure one. SO this deals with the de facto internal policies of Israel, and with some de jure. For example, a large chunk of 1948 West bank is still in de jure Israel.
  2. The debate around Israeli Apartheid should be linked from the Human rights in Israel page, but it goes well beyond the general scope of the page. For example, there is a reliable and verifiable difference between how Israel treats jews and non-jews, whereas a general page on Human Rights in Israel should make no suh difference (ie should include, and it does, the human rights of jewish citizens). Also the debate on apartheid in Israel brings along much more than human rights. It is also a civil rights debate (ie law instead of just principles). It is also a political debate on the goals on the very concept of a religious state. In the end, the debate is a complex one that requires its own page, and might even require a set of subpages. So it cannot be sufficiently covered in that page. Remember, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.
  3. Merger is the same as deletion and why it is an option in AfD votes. Whereas I think the information in this pages deserves its own page but recognize why the title might inflame some editors.

--Cerejota 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Source Suspected by Netsnipe to be Fake

I've removed the link to http://www.pchrgaza.org/Library/Dugard.pdf purporting to be a statement by John Dugard, a United Nations Special Rapporteur because I believe it to be a fake.

I couldn't find the same statement at all on the United Nations website. A Google search for "There are both similarities and differences between apartheid South Africa" does not return any results within the un.org domain.

The document also lacks many of the layout features more commonly found in a United Nations report released to the public. Furthermore, if you look at the PDF's properties the title of the file is "Microsoft Word - Dugard [statement].doc" and the Author is sameer. Hardly what you would expect in an official United Nations publication.

I've just emailed pchrgaza.org raising the issue with them.

--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your evidence, from my perspective, is pretty flimsy. I strongly recommend that you ask John Dugard himself -- he is the authoratative source. --Ben Houston 17:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, you may be confusing something -- his testimony or report to the UN may not necessarily be available in an "official" UN publication on the web, but if the version available is accurate in both how we describe it and in its content, then it is fair to cite. --Ben Houston 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like his reports to the UN HRC are not published by the UN itself as official UN publications. It may be because these are his reports that he is, in his official capacity as Special Raccounter, giving to the UN in order to help the UN gain understanding. --Ben Houston 18:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the (lack of) Google results speak for themselves. There's simply no authoritative sites out there providing an original of this statement and citing this document without a proper check is breaching WP:V. Nevertheless, I'll try and see and I can contact Mr. Dugard within the week. In the meantime I'd rather you not revert the link back until we can verify its authenticity. It would be editorially irresponsible otherwise. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that John Dugard copyedited his own article here [5] and left in those links right? I will follow up on this now. --Ben Houston 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Just curious, but how did you reach that conclusion? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ask him if you don't believe me. ;-) Actually, you should still contact Dugard directly, you need to find out from him that you are wrong since that will settle the matter, it isn't effective for me to bully you since it will seem like I could be bullying you to an unfair conclusion. --Ben Houston 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you could provide me with his contact details if you have them. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there evidence that the source PCHR is not credible? The lack of results actually indicates to me that it is credible since if it was faked, wouldn't the faker want to see his propaganda spread? The statement is so mild and not an effective soundbite anyways that it seems pointless to fake. Your accusation has no facts behind it, just insinuations that ring false. I will revert your removals until you show proof, if that angers you I apologize but you would likely do the same if the positions were reversed. --Ben Houston 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not angry, but my journalistic streak is definitely appalled at how casually you're mistreating the supposedly non-negotiable WP:V policy! --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I was reading through the PDF trying to write up a NPOV paragraph describing his UN report (I had a dispute with Zeq over Dugard's biography awhile ago - User_talk:Netsnipe/Archive_01#John_Dugard) and reading through the PDF, the sentence "Gaza is a prison, and all its inhabitants are prisoners of Israel" stood out like a sore thumb. Not quite the language I would expect from any diplomat and I started digging a bit further trying to find an original, but failed in doing so. Hence, my suspicions about its authenticity. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... your reference to the John Dugard's statement not being diplomatic is indicative of your core misunderstanding of these reports and probably why you think they are fake. For example here is a report on one of his reports and quotes from him[6]:
"A State To Belong To
The Israeli ambassador characteristically tore into the Special Rapporteur for Palestine, John Dugard, after Mr. Dugard's presentation of his report, even as the Palestinian delegate waffled his way through a thoroughly inadequate counter-response. With the attention the Palestinian issue gets at the Commission, one would think the Palestinians would find a spokesperson who can hold his/her own against Israel with reasoned, eloquent arguments, instead of letting the rhetoric fly. Anyway, while Mr. Dugard was not allowed to give a counter-reply to the statements by the concerned countries (having arrived in Geneva ahead of schedule, and having item 8 opened specially for his benefit), he made a valiant attempt at tackling the accusations he was sure would follow after his statement. 'I am not a UN official,' he pointed out. 'I am an independent human rights expert… I owe allegiance to only one State, the State of Human Rights.' 'I have a bias, he added, "and that is towards ensuring that both Israelis and Palestinians live in peace.'"
It is strange that an document posted on a reputable website (see here for its background and connection to the UN: [7]) is being accused specifically of being a fake by you. It is a reputable organization. I rack this up to your misunstanding of the nature of the role of John Dugard and your mistrust of things that don't fit your world view. Continuing this discussion is beating a dead horse. I await word from Dugard himself. --Ben Houston 20:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Netsnipe's concerns sound like legitimate suspicions to me. I have always been somewhat wary of this Dugard guy, with titles like "special rapporteur" and "ad hoc" this-or-that, he could be totally legitimate as a notable source, or he could just be a hanger-on with no real credentials or authority to say what he says. Being a law professor does not necessarily make someone a "human rights expert" nor does it make someone an authority on what are essentially political questions (what terminology to use to describe something) rather than legal questions. And now the issue is raised about what it is that he actually said. And part of the response is that he edited his own article, but the edit cited is an IP edit. And an editor says we should await word from the person himself? That does not seem like the Wikipedia way to me. Isn't it original research? How do we know whether someone purporting to be him is really him anyway? It all seems pretty shaky. 6SJ7 20:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7, have a read of John_Dugard. Also check out Special_Rapporteur. Answers are they for those that want to find them. Also, don't take my word on John Dugard, contact him yourself -- Netsnipe really should to do this to put it to rest. If we leave the resolution to just rhetoric, then it means we don't really want the truth. But I'll also take the parallel initiative ask Dugard today to post the documents or a note about the documents authencity on his website. --Ben Houston 21:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
RE: "And an editor says we should await word from the person himself? That does not seem like the Wikipedia way to me. Isn't it original research?" Is is not original research to accuse a document on a reputable website of being a fake based only on Netsnipe's "belief"? Also I have seen people check with authors numerous times on other biographies. User:Elizmr contacted Juan Cole to clarify about his middle name just a few weeks ago and Cole thus modified his CV to clarify. It works well, but should only be used on things that the author can easily verify without NPOV complications. --Ben Houston 21:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I had already read John Dugard. I am not particularly impressed. I have now also read Special Rapporteur as well as the criticisms of the "special rapporteur" system contained in one of the other sources cited in the article. I think some of those criticisms should be put into Special Rapporteur. Most interestingly in the case of John Dugard, the mandate of the "special rapporteur" in the case of the West Bank and Gaza is specifically limited to criticizing Israel, which Mr. Dugard has done with great enthusiasm and no concern for balance or objectivity whatsoever. What this all suggests to me is yet more confirmation of the fact that anyone can have an opinion, and more importantly in the case of Wikipedia, that articles that are based entirely on peoples' opinions (such as this one) are basically worthless. Of course, this all assumes that Mr. Dugard said what is reported on the "Palestinian Centre for Human Rights" web site. 6SJ7 02:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong after all, but thanks for hearing out my concerns. 

Subject: RE: Wikipedia: Authenticity of a statement you may have made
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:05:38 +0200
Message-ID: <5DC38EFDD2DE9145A6A28B619939E5D30100AAC8@IGRSXC001C.isrv.ad.leidenuniv.nl>
From: "Dugard, C.J.R." <c.j.r.dugard(+)law.leidenuniv.nl>

Dear Mr Lau
Yes, I did submit this statement in 2004. It was delivered verbally to
Third Committee of GA.It is not on UN website because it was a summary
of my report prepared for oral presentation.
Your research is better than my memory!
Many thanks.
Regards
John Dugard

Dugard's reply was CC'ed to <info-en-q(+)wikimedia.dot.org>

--  Netsnipe  ►  15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This still leaves the question of whether his opinions are important enough to be quoted in a Wikipedia article, considering that they are really just his opinions and do not appear to be based on any particular expertise. It also leaves the question of whether a private e-mail is a proper method for verifying information. 6SJ7 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
<info-en-q(+)wikimedia.dot.org> is an official channel of Wikipedia for correcting factual errors. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) --  Netsnipe  ►  21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a strange feeling that directly asking Dugard if he is as important as he makes himself out to be won't yield the same friendly reply we got from him last time :) -Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion proposal for post-arbitration period

See my proposal at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid#First post-arbitration proposal (by User:6SJ7). I do not think that my proposal there necessarily applies to this talk page. I would, however, propose that any proposals or discussions regarding merges take place on the central discussion page since it involves other articles. Part of the problem in the past was that discussions of the same issues were taking place on too many different pages. 6SJ7 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What are the remaining POV issues with this article?

User:6SJ7 just put on a POV tag. Could we clarify what are the remaining POV issues with this page so that they can be dealt wit? Thx. --Ben Houston 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear: if no issues are brought up as to how to resolve the POV issue that 6SJ7 has with the article, I will remove the POV tag in 1 week. I say this to motivate 6SJ7 to be specific about the issue(s) he has with the article. Best. --Ben Houston 03:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the attempt to slant the whole discussion by associating the term with some right wing extremists who have nothing to do with Israel in the first paragraph. I am going to be bold and delete this. Just because David Duke and others like him say something, doesn't mean all other proponents of the term should be "guilty by association". Hitler loved dogs. So does George Bush. George Bush's love of dogs is not somehow tarred with the Hitler brush because of this. I accept that it may be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that certain anti-semites like to use this allegation as a stick with which to beat Jewish people, but I don't accept it should be given the prominence it has been given. --SandyDancer 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It's associated with all sorts of different people. It's unclear why you would want to hide the fact that is it used by far-right groups as well, considering that these are some of the groups that make most prominent use of it. Perhaps they are more radical or less savory than other groups listed in your view, but not in the views of others. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you.
First, could you not use the "hide" terminology - I am editing in good faith and am not seeking to hide anything - if I was, I would have deleted, not moved, the material! Play fair!
Second, the people in question are referred to in the sentence as "far right" - therefore as extremists. So putting them there makes a very clear statement. There is a section below where arguments against legitimacy of the term can be made. Perhaps what we need is a clear explanation that these people, among many different types of people, use the term, and because they are generally considered to be racist extremists that says something about the term itself? Because that is what this text seeks to establish. Putting it in the intro section clearly skews the argument.
Third - as you say yourself - "It's associated with all sorts of different people" - exactly my point! So why pick these ones to be singled out at the top of the article? I think doing so skews the article completely and unfairly and I am reverting. Please continue discussion here if I have not won you over. Thanks --SandyDancer 17:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted it back, to restore that paragraph. As I said in a previous edit summary, let's present the information and let the reader decide what to make of it. As for singling them out, that is not correct; these names appear immediately below the list of what I assume are "acceptable" users of the term, i.e. John Dugard, Desmond Tutu, and others. If you want to eliminate the paragraph break to make it even clearer that it's all part of one list, that's fine with me. But eliminating the names of the extremists while leaving the names of the "acceptables" is what makes it POV. 6SJ7 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The technique is called guilt by (weak) association. Its a rhetorical technique. Another great article to read through that employs this technique and a bunch of others is this article: New anti-Semitism. I think its funny since its so transparent -- the pattern across multiple articles is so clear. (Although in the last few weeks the New anti-Semitism article has improved a lot.) --Ben Houston 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I also let the guilt by association stay in partly because one Wikipedia faction has consistently tried to get this article outright deleted -- 3 times now since May 2006. Also, there was once an article on the topic back in 2004 but that article did not survive the AfD vote held that year. --Ben Houston 17:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for your words of wisdom Ben Houston ... I am going to have a fiddle with the paragraph in question, but am not reverting. --SandyDancer 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
OK I have amended the wording of the Introductory section, inspired by 6SJ7's helpful suggestion. What I have also done is amended the "Introduction to the controversy" heading to "Introdcution to the term". This article is about a term, an expression, and that section introduces this term by setting out how it has been used and by who. The article is not about a "controversy", and neither is this section. Of course I am not disputing the term is controversial - of course it is! --SandyDancer 19:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Good work on the compromise, everyone. IMHO, if the Introductory section gives the term credibility by association with figures like Bishop Tutu, it's not crazy to explain that the term is also latched onto by racists like Duke. Also, I should say that I hadn't looked at this page for several months -- I was really pleasantly surprised by how clearly and fairly the page lays out both sides of the debate. Have you thought about submitting for good article status or another peer review? TheronJ 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As a new user, I am immensely gratified to see that good faith edits to a controversial article seem to have stuck - just goes to show this thing can work. --SandyDancer 10:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just that the revert tag team has worn down most of the other editors. --John Nagle 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz article

James Bowen, Making Israel take responsibility, Haaretz, September 15, 2006.

Quote:

"Many members of the IPSC are veterans of other anti-racist campaigns, such as those concerned with South Africa, East Timor and rights for Native Americans. IPSC members also support campaigns for West Papuans, Kurds, Tibetans and others. The Belfast branch is affiliated to a network which opposes attacks on immigrant workers in that city. With this wide perspective, we see that hafrada (separation) is the Zionist form of apartheid, so we argue that Israel should be treated like the old South Africa.
Our campaign is gaining momentum. Recently, several Irish cultural events rejected Israeli embassy sponsorship and Irish trade unionists prevented use of Dublin trams for training staff of the projected tram system between West Bank settlements. But this is only the beginning. This campaign, part of a world-wide effort to help Israelis overcome their dysfunctional denial of responsibility, will cease only when Israel conforms to International Law."

--Ben Houston 11:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move, Retitle Article ASAP

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No Move. Duja 14:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid? Where else in the entire volume of Wikipedia does an article start with "allegations"? The proper title should be Israeli apartheid, with the details of if the accusations are true or not--or if they are true to what extent--in cleaned up paragraphs below. Take Media bias in the United States for example. Every side claims that the left or the right is "in control" of the media, but the article doesn't start out with "Allegations of Right-Wing Bias or Left-Wing Bias". The very term "allegations" is inherently NPOV and needs to be removed ASAP. Counter your critics with facts, sources and logic--not loaded vocabulary or weasel words. I suggest we amend this immediately.--209.129.64.1 17:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a wierd name, but there's a determined pro-Israel lobby that has a cow if they don't get their way. Read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid. It's entertaining. --John Nagle 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
What's not entertaining is your continued conspiracism and personal attacks. Please try to avoid them in the future. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, John, it was the anti-Israel lobby that had the cow and tried to get people blocked for disagreeing with them. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't name anyone in my remarks above. However, the ArbComm decision on this article did: "Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur." --John Nagle 05:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Added suggested rename tag on the main article pending consensus on this talk page.--209.129.64.1 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. See Apollo moon landing hoax accusations for an example of an article with a title like this. Leave the title as it is and lets have a balanced article. --SandyDancer 18:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Feet can't easily be put on the ground on the moon for independent verification. However, 3rd party investigators, the press, human rights groups, government commissions and so forth can--and are-- easily deployed in the Middle East to keep an eye on things. When the term "Israeli Apartheid" comes up in public discourse it isn't prefaced by "allegations". The same thing goes with Islamofascism. I question the reality of how you can combine Islam with a fascist government, but that does not stop me from saying the term is widely used by neoconservative talk-show hosts and pundits. Split the conversation in pro/con statements just like any other article and leave the title intact, with the strictest possible literal interpretation of a common term.--209.129.64.1 18:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Good argument. I agree with you now. Support --SandyDancer 00:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Opposition on the basis that the proposal was from an anon ip is a ridiculous ad hominem. Oppose on the facts. --Coroebus 09:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We shouldn't give undue influence to the people accusing Israel of being an apartheid state when they are for the most part pretty far from the mainstream voices. If we change the title back we will inherantly be taking the side in a political debate. The current title is simply a less bias and more matter of fact way of describing the accusations.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has been settled on as a compromise; it's to be hoped no one will try to use it as an excuse to cause trouble again. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The anon's distinction re: "feet can't be put on the moon" is ridiculous. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Well it does have comedic value.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this article has been nominated for deletion multiple times since it was created in April/June 2006. There used to be an article on the topic in 2004 but it didn't survive the AfD held later that year. I favor having an article on the topic above all else. I think the effect of the article title on the readers of the article is minimal, although the awkward name does seriously lower its Google Ranking when searching for information on the term -- since people won't search for "Allegations". --Ben 20:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated above and the reasons stated when a consensus was reached to move it from "IA" to "Allegations of IA". Maybe the anon who suggested this was not aware of all of the history behind this; if so, the last RFM may be found at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid. And as SlimVirgin pointed out, the current name is indeed a compromise; if you really want to dredge up this issue again, maybe we need to get the idea of merging this article into another, back into the mix as well. We already have the snide comments from John Nagle, I can just see the whole ugly mess starting up again. Can't we just leave bad enough alone, for now? 6SJ7 21:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is really relieving to see this will to defend the compromise. The same is expected if a fourth AfD attempt comes up. Bertilvidet 21:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I hardly think that comments like that help the situation. You are taking people's willingness to let things sit, at least for some period of time, and throwing it back in their faces. If that keeps up, and others make the same kind of remarks, what do you expect the result to be? 6SJ7 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think praising people's will to accept a compromise, and hoping for it to last, can hurt anybody. Bertilvidet 08:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as before, the term is not used by any serious academic. I also oppose Nagle's insulting mischaracterization of editors voting differently than he would like. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The Cuba title was created by Jayjg above after this one. Thus that article isn't a precedent for this title but rather this article is acting as a precedent for that one. --Ben 13:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support this article is about the term, not the allegations. I don't believe there is a "homosexual agenda" but I recognize the term exists, and therefore the article exists under that name (not Allegations of a homosexual agenda). A title like remove the word "allegations" from these articles (Allegations about the Fiji coup of 2000, Allegations of Satanism in popular culture, Allegations of domestic violence, CNN controversies and allegations of bias) and you get completely different articles. If we remove the word from this title, it doesn't change what this article is about. Satanism in popular culture, Doestic Violence, The Fiji coup of 2000 are all topics of their own seperate from allegations concerning these topics. Are we suggesting that this article stay here, and we create another article to cover the main topic of the term Israeli apartheid? Of course not because they are one in the same, therefore I support simplifying the title. We can make it clear in the intro that this is just a term used be a minority POV, and isn't a fact. I believe that is the only purpose of including the word in the title, which doesn't seem necessary (as I said, just look at homosexual agenda, white supremacy, etc. and other topics). I really don't see why there is so much objection against this, and how this title is a 'compromise'.--Andrew c 02:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Each time I see the name of this article I´m reminded of the titles that are "missing" from Wikipedia: The alleged Virgin Mary, or Alleged UFOs.... ;-) ..Btw, I feel the expression Honor killing to be deeply insulting, (and please: don´t tell me that there is anything "honrable" about killing women) but I haven´t tried to change it to Alleged honor killing, or Socalled honor killing, since, oh horror, the name Honor killing is common. And so is the name Israeli apartheid. Like it or not. Regards, Huldra 08:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It was a compromise reached after endless argument. It isn't ideal but, as the others above indicate, they barely tolerate the article's existence as it is, rename it and they'll try and delete it or gut it again --Coroebus 09:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
So, because one POV dislikes this topic so much, they get to control the title? That makes no sense at all. It was a compromise between deleting the article and having a bad title? I can understand completely that this subject is very controversial, and not based in facts. This applies to a very large number of topics that are not qualified in the title. Huldra brings up some more good examples. If a topic isn't proven, and isn't a majority view, you express this clearly in the text of the article, not the title. Maybe I would personally want to put "Allegations..." or "Alleged..." in front of a large number of topics that I find dubious, but that doesn't mean I should get my way or the article will be deleted. --Andrew c 13:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that is exactly the trade-off. Although the title is in fact a compromise, not complete control by one side (the alternatives were worse, e.g. Israeli Apartheid (epithet). I'm afraid we're dealing with the realities on the ground here. --Coroebus 19:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
That still makes no sense. The only reason, according to wikipedia guidelines, that we'd need to add a disambiguation parenthetical comment is if there is already an article at Israeli Apartheid. This is clearly just an attempt to put POV in a title. There is no reason WHAT SO EVER under any guideline that I have ever read that terms used for page titles need to be qualified in this manner. Should Flat Earth be changed to Allegations of a Flat Earth because everyone knows the world isn't flat? What about Creationism etc. We can have articles on very dubious topics without inserting these unnecessary qualifiers in the title. Allegations of domestic violence and Domestic violence are two different articles for a reason. Same thing fpr Fascist and Fascist (epithet), Faggot and Faggot (epithet). We don't have an Israeli apartheid article so there is no need to dab the title. This is a matter of naming conventions.--Andrew c 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. Some of the commentators who are supporting the change of the title are not acknowledging that using the term "IA" is very controversial and politically motivated and at its essence is POV. When anyone hears the word "Apartied" they think of South Africa and white colonialists instituting separation for racist and economically opressive reasons. Proabably many of us on the page were involved in protesting against that situation in the past. The situation in Israel is not a self-evident parallel with the South African situation as some above seen to assume. There are not racial differences between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Jews started off historically in the Middle East as a people and lived in and around Israel throughout history, and in exile prayed three times a day to return there someday. Israel didn't enter the land occupied by Jordan and Egypt for financial reasons, they did it in a war becuase their borders were threatened violently by the surrounding nations, who would not accept the exisitance of a Jewish state in the Middle East for any size for any reason. The separation continues for security reasons, not racial ones. It is tragic that peaceful Palestinians get inconvenienced in very horrible and unfair ways by the separation, however it is equally and probably even more tragic that the Palestinian leadership and Arab leadership have devoted the energy and financial assets they have had into instilling hate into their people against Jews and Israel and inciting them to do violence to Israelis and Jews rather than building something good in Palestine. And sure not every Palestinian is violent towards Jews and Israelis, but recent polls do show that the majority do support attacks against civilians inside of Israel. The term "IA" draws an unavoidable an inaccurate comparison to the SA situation. The article does a nice job of discussing this, I think, and to show both sides of this issue. But to use the POV title negates the truly controversial aspect of the whole issue and is an unacceptable title for Wikipedia. Elizmr 21:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Elizmr makes a good case for one side of the debate about the term -- although I find it not that relevant to the article title. I find that the battle over the title is more of a misguided proxy battle and it is generally not that important or meaningful except as a show of power for one side or the other. The only thing it actually effects is this article's Google Ranking for common search terms -- since no one is going to search for allegations but rather the terms "Israel" and "apartheid" and variants of. The current top Google hit for these terms is a ZMagazine article which gives a very left wing perspective. The only thing changing the title of this article will achieve is to possibly at some point displace as the top hit the leftist POV article with the more balanced article here that gives both sides of the debate. --Ben 21:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Ben, thanks for the left handed compliment (and I appreciate the search engine issue you raise), but my point was entirely about the article title. It is POV because it grafts the South African sense of racially motivated "apartied" onto the current situaition in the OT and creates an equivalence between the two situations in the mind of any reader. The end of the article can say any damn thing it wants, but the damage is already done by the promulgation of the term. It shouts "Israelis are racist opressors" or "Zionism is racism". Even the Arab-weighted UN decided that was not appropriate. Elizmr 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Elizmr, I appreciate the thought you've given this issue, but you don't refer once to a naming convention that supports your position. There is no need to add qualifiers to terms, even if the terms are POV. I do not think that white people are superior to other races, yet we have an article on white supremacy, not Allegations of white supremacy. Same thing with homosexual agenda, not Allegations of a homosexual agenda. These are the actual terms that are used. No one is arguing that these terms do not exist, and just because the article is titled, per guidelines, does not mean that wikipedia is endorsing the beliefs behind these terms. Ben raises an excellent point about why we have guidelines on titles. I acknowledge that I am ignoring the debate on the existence of an actual "Israeli apartheid" because I say that debate does not belong in the title. It is debated on whether the earth is flat, that humans were created on day 6 by the Judeo-Christian deity, on whether there is a homosexual agenda, on whether whites are superior to other races, however there is nothing in our guidelines that say we need to change the title of articles to accomidate these debates. The naming conflict page specifically says NOT to use subjective criteria on deciding the page name, such as Does the subject have a moral right to use the name? Does the subject have a legal right to use the name? Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights? Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?. I'll say that again, the answer to these questions plays NO ROLE in deciding what the article should be titled, if we are following these guidelines.--Andrew c 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the current title of the article is ok. Elizmr 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I also think Israeli Aparteid (term) or Israeli Aparteid (epithet) would work as well and would actually be better. Elizmr 23:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, parentheses in titles are used, under guidelines, for disambiguation purposes. And under these same guidelines, you only need to disambiguate titles IF there is a need for disambiguation. There are NO other pages on wikipedia with "Israeli Aparteid" in the title, therefore there is no need for a parenthetical comment. However, I do consider Israeli Aparteid (term) an improvement on the current title and the other suggestion, however I still feel strongly (and am supported by the guidelines) that the parenthetical comment is completely unnecessary. There is no reason that we need to qualify a title if it isn't for dab purposes. Creation Is Crucifixion is the name of a band. Wikipedia does not take the stance that all of creation is being crucified, and there is no reason for us to have the article Creation Is Crucifixion (band) because we do not yet have the need of disambiguation. The name of the band is confusing, and just reading those words does not help the reader understand what the article about. but that is the beauty of all this. The content of the article, not the title, is where the subject is explained. There is NO reason under any policy I have seen to create a title like the one we have. This isn't a matter of POV or content dispute, its a matter of simple naming conventions. If we allow a title like this, what is next, things like Allegations of God instead of God?--Andrew c 02:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
What guideline says that disambiguation is the only situation in which a title can have a parenthetical term for clarification? As far as I know, there is none. This was discussed about 10 archived talk pages ago, not to mention it being an issue in the arbitration (though a somewhat minor issue as it turned out, and it was never resolved, which leaves the situation being that there is no guideline against it.) 6SJ7 17:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and: The issue of this article's title definitely IS a matter of POV, and not "simple naming conventions." The original title, "Israeli apartheid," was far from neutral. The current title is more neutral. 6SJ7 21:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you not read any of the discussion above? There are numerous other articles on Wikipedia which deal with concepts which are disputed, but unlike this article they aren't prefaced with "Allegations of". Just because the article is about a disputed concept doesn't mean the title has to be so heavily qualified - the article itself will provide the necessary qualification... oh why am I wasting my breath, the aim here isn't to get a balanced article, its to delete the article and make wikipedia inbalanced ... --SandyDancer 22:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I've reverted the lead to it's ancient state which makes it clear the apartheid is a crime. Just like the nightly news, they always say alleged murderer until the person has been convicted. -- Kendrick7 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. It was for this reason I supported the initial change of the name to include the term "Allegations." --Ben 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I seriously suggest everyone read Wikipedia:Naming conflict, but I have highlighted some key points below.
  • A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy.
  • Some may find this method to be unacceptable, but it is beneficial for all of us to stick to a uniform way of choosing an article title. An agreed set of group rules can help to determine naming practices in a consistent and fair fashion... The outcome [of a vote] may be determined on the basis of purely arbitrary and subjective factors. An objective procedure can help to avoid this.
  • If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree. Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.
It is clear to me that wikipedia specifically says controversial names due to political or inaccuracy reasons are allowed to be used. If the motivations for changing or qualifying a name are subjective (or attempts to 'right' a wrong or for POV reasons or whatever), these are all inappropriate reasons to change an article's name. As noted above, a vast majority of controvesial topics are not qualified in this manner (White supremacy, Homosexual agenda, creationism, Benevolent dictator, biblical literalism, etc). The basic overview of naming conventions is Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Adding parenthetical comments for non-disambiguation purposes seems contrary to the basic premise of naming on wikipedia. There is no other term or use for the phrase "Israeli apartheid", and adding parenethetical comments only makes linking to these articles not easy, and not second nature. The question is, where in the policy anywhere does it say that names can be qualified for POV reasons, that that parenthetical comments can be used in the manner or anything that supports the current title?--Andrew c 13:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Andrewc, thanks for posting the wikilink to the policy page; it is helpful. I think another part of the article you have asked us to read is quite relevant to our discussion here: "Descriptive names: Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." Elizmr 16:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
And maybe that is the heart of the debate. If we are discussing a term (or proper name), then the name of this article clearly does not fall under the "Descriptive names" category discussed there. I really think it's clear that this is an article about a controversial term/position. This article is not about an event where Israeli was taken to trial at the UN over the crime of Apartheid. It is about a "pejorative political epithet" used in the media, and among extremist political groups. This article is not describing an event, but instead discussing a term. For all of this, I believe the quoted part of the guidelines does not apply here. Please re-read the policy page. Wikipedia don't take sides in controversy, even if someone objects to the use of a term. We simply discuss the controversy.--Andrew c 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is like the difference between Intelligent design in politics and Intelligent design. Because the main article on the topic is so long, they created spinout articles to discuss the controversy in politics (among a number of other spinout articles.) However, we have no reason to fork out content into multiple articles dealing with Israeli apartheid, and this article is not specifically about an event, but instead generally discusses the term and related topics all together. Therefore, the more general heading of using the term itself for the title seems most appropriate. I really don't get why this is such a big deal.--Andrew c 21:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The example for descriptive names uses events, but descriptive names are not limited to events. The other category (the one you are quoting guidelines from above) is proper nouns. I think that "Israeli Aparteid" is more of a descriptive name for an alleged situation in Israel than a proper noun, isn't it? Anyway, I think the greater Wikipedia principle that we should be following is to take a neutral voice and the title, "IA" doesn't fit the bill in this regard. Elizmr 22:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But that is the whole point. If that were the case a) we wouldn't have articles like Homosexual agenda, White supremacy, Intelligent Design, Benevolent dictator, etc and b) we wouldn't have a naming conflict guideline that specifically says naming conflicts "generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy" and while "names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes", these are not valid reasons to change a name from a name that "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."--Andrew c 23:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I hardly think that the majority of English speakers have heard of this particular term. Elizmr 23:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That isn't even what the policy says. It's about recognition, not knowledge. I ask you, look through Category:Pejorative political terms, and tell me why this one term needs to be qualified, but all the other ones do not (and how many of those terms have you heard of)? The title of this article, when compared to other articles, wikipedia guidelines, and the naming conflict page, is nothing but a double standard.--Andrew c 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, we disagree on this. I don't think that you are going to convince me or I you, so I'm going to drop the conversation and let the majority speak. Elizmr 23:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that votes on these matters are not always representative of the community at large but can attract undue attention from special interest groups. This type of behavior is actually encouraged on the internet outside of Wikipedia, see for example: Megaphone desktop tool. This was a major problem on Digg.com for a while until they changed their vote weighting engine to look at the diversity of the people voting on a story, not just the raw numbers -- see [8] for details. --Ben 16:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the editors here it's best to assume good faith, don't you think? That's policy as well. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It should also be noted that WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a Democracy. See also Wikipedia:Consensus. -- Kendrick7 21:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus has been followed just fine in this case. There was a "consensus" (as that term is defined within Wikipedia), in a properly posted Request for Move, in favor of moving the article from "Israeli Apartheid" to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid." Now there has been a Request for Move to undo that action, and the result so far is a lack of consensus. In fact, not surprisingly, the proportion of participants opposed to the move to "IA" has been similar (though in much smaller numbers, thus far) to the proportion of participants for the move from "IA" in the first RFM. What's the problem? I understand that some people don't like the result, and are finding fault with the process in order to attack the result, but the process is what is prescribed by existing policies and guidelines and the result, as they say, "is what it is." 6SJ7 22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't look at me. I agree with you wholeheartedly. -- Kendrick7 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Support but I think it's past allegation. Cheers.Will314159 03:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SlimVirgin. -- tasc wordsdeeds 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SlimVirgin. -- Avi 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see how anyone that witnessed the controversy surrounding this article could recommend to do away with the major compromise hammered-out against all odds. TewfikTalk 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a warzone. Respecting Tewfik's argument, but very reluctant to base naming along the lines on an intellectual ceasefire. See American Empire for a relevant parallel. Put the phrase allegations in the body, not the title. --Carwil 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Appropriateness of Template:Israel-Palestinian Conflict?

I just added the new template and SlimVirgin just removed it. I think that it is appropriate and it is also informative in that it gives a neutral general guide to the topic of which some people claim that this term is a distortion of. I in no way put the term into the template, but rather the template onto the page. --Ben 22:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The template is great, it's just inappropriate for this article. This article is about a term, not about the conflict. If this article is actually about the conflict then it's repetitive and should be merged into Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Ben, I also don't think it belongs here. I must add that I have criticized the template, but that discussion belongs to its talk page. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen the template before now. I think the additional disputes that it creates outweighs its informational value. But even assuming that this template belongs on articles that are indisputably about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is not such an article. This is an article about a term. Where have we heard that before? It is the same debate that has plagued this article from Day 1. Why do we have to keep finding different ways to have the same debate? 6SJ7 22:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The term "Israeli Aparteid" is certainly a TOOL of and media WEAPON used in the conflict. Maybe that's what Ben means? Elizmr 23:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
We could just as easily add the Anti-Semitism template. Trying to add an arguably inappropriate tag is very provocative, and I would urge all the good-faith editors of this article not to be deliberately provocative, because the page has seen enough trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
On one hand, yes, we should avoid argument for the sake of argument. On the other hand, no compelling justification has been presented for the deletion of this tag - all the people against it seem to be saying is "don't start an argument". Why should it be so contentious to say that the use of the term "Israeli apartheid" is related to what would be termed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Surely its an uncontentious thing to say? Is the sky not blue? --SandyDancer 00:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think they are saying quite a lot else as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you please explain what your point is, because it really isn't clear? And if you can't explain, then you shouldn't be deleting things willy-nilly. --SandyDancer 01:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Sandy, there is more than one template that might be appropriate here; the anti-Semitism template, for example. If you want to argue in favor of the one you added, then I suggest we have both if there is space, and there seems to be. Neither should be at the top of the page, and we'll have to decide which one comes first, if no obvious place suggests itself. Either that or no templates, which would be the more sensible option. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
For example, like this. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think someone is engaging in some bullying here, but hey I'm getting pretty used to it. --Ben 13:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin. First you said above that I added the template in question - it wasn't me. Secondly, you tried to edit a quote from someone so that you could shoehorn in a link to the New anti-semitism article - not on, not on at all. Please, play fair, don't bully, don't misrepresent others, and don't try and damage the article to make your point. I am reverting that edit and I am deleting your spurious link. By putting a link to new anti-semitismat the beginning of the "criticisms" of the term section you effectively imply that effectively the term is a form of new anti-semitism, full stop. You may well think that but that is your point of view - please allow others to make their own mind up. Too much bullying here. --SandyDancer 22:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ben. First on appropriateness, who exactly are the Israelis allegedly creating a system of apartheid against, if not participants in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? And are not quite a few of those making the allegations also participants? Regardless of position on the allegations, the I-P conflict is relevant. Now, on the other template, anti-Semitism, does require an opinion on these allegations (i.e., that they are false and malicious for anti-Semitic purposes). To take that view stretches NPOV in my opinion. However, to assign that template to a page on Allegations of Anti-Semitism in Pro-Palestine Activism or some other such page, which by nature explores the issue would be entirely appropriate. In short, the question is, does the form of the article naturally fit into the template's sphere of information? --Carwil 15:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


The problem with the template is that it narrows the focus in a way that makes it less meaningful. The I-P conflict is a relatively new phenom, but the roots go way back before 67. The roots involve the history of the Jews going back to roman empire, through the arab conquests and empires, through the british empire and the two world wars, involve the former USSR, Islam, oil economics, western political movements and the manipulation of them, abraham, hagar, sarah, etc. Starting in 67 and framing the conflict as a simple one between Israelis and Palestinians is a politically convenient way of obscuring this background. Ben, it seems you are probably a scientist and you like to categorize things. That's fine, good for you, and it is certainly noble of you and good of you to help make some order on Wikipedia but in this case the category doesn't seem like the right one. And when someone disagrees with you, that does not consititue bullying. Elizmr 21:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Israeli apartheid goes back that far? I've never heard that -- maybe I am misunderstanding you? Israeli apartheid, seems to be a relatively recently used term -- dating at most to the 1960s and it seems to refer to the West Bank and Gaza strip territories and Israel current policies with regards to those.
I think concerns about the template in particular should be taken to the template talk page to be most effective. Please note I didn't set or edited once the date on that template -- others have been changing it between 1948 and 1880s. I am happy with either. The timeline link on that template also begins in the 1880s. --Ben 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that the issues relevant to the development and promotion of such an effectively evocative neologistic slur go back that far. Elizmr 21:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
While some do use the term as a slur, it is also used by a good number of respectable people. Try reading through the article. A lot of people are quoted, some Israeli members of parlament and others are respected international lawyers and anti-Apartheid activists. You should read through the article. --Ben 23:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Ben, don't you think it is a little insulting to imply that I haven't read the article? Elizmr 00:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess I am echoing SlimVirgin's recent words to me -- but that's a different and long story. She did this repeatedly to me and yes I did find it insulting and I apologize for doing the same thing. I am just saying that focusing on David Duke and his kind is to miss how other people who don't have his motivates make the comparison. The guy who developed the SA apartheid regime who makes the comparison isn't doing it out of spit, he even viewed apartheid as a good thing. For example, it is easy for me to focus on Republican sex scandal or the Iraq screw up and condemn them but that doesn't mean that everything the Republicans did during the past 6 years has been wrong -- that is the point I am making, take a step back for a second. It is important to view the legitimate commentators as well as the racists who tend to co-opt these things. --Ben 00:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And I am perfectly capable of seeing the big picture. And it is still a little insulting to assume I am focusing on David Duke. Why do you think you know what I am focusing on? I see that reasonable people have said these things. But at the same time, and with all due respect, what does Desmond Tutu really know about Israel? The term Israeli Aparteid is like a swastica painted in the middle of an Israeli flag in place of the star of David. While the latter implies that Jews are like nazis commiting nazi style final solution round them up and kill them genocide against the Palestinians, the former is implying that Israel is a racist state. Both are highly insulting politically motivated slurs against a group of people who are anything but genocidal killers or racists. But the article a good discussion and that's why I don't think it should be deleted, but it needs to have a title that is a little more reflective of the content as per the discussion above. Elizmr 01:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To consider all of Israel as a singular group of people and make generalizations is not recommended even if you are making positive generalizations. There are undeniably racist elements in Israel, although they are not large, have a read through here Anti-Arabism#Anti-Arabism_in_Israel. There are also many government reports on the topic of discrimination against Israel's Arab population -- see Israeli_Arab#Discrimination. Anyways, I'm calling it a night. Best. --Ben 01:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC) (expanded slightly)
I don't see anything in Elizmr's statement that falls under the category of treating "Israel as a singular group of people", quite the opposite, she was merely pointing out the flaws of treating Israel as if it were a "racist country". Obviously there are "racist elements" in Israel just as obvious as there are racist elements in any country on the planet, but these "elements" are no more meaningful, substantial, or influential than any other typical European-style democracy, and to treat them as if they are is fallacious and illogical.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Too addicted to Wikipedia... anyways to be specific, I was referring to this particular sentence of Elizmr's above: "Both are highly insulting politically motivated slurs against a group of people who are anything but genocidal killers or racists." --Ben 03:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, there are racists everywhere, but in the context of the greater middle east, Israel cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a racist country. Any discrimination the Arab popuulation experiences in Israel is quite mild compared to the way Jews have been treated in the surrounding countries and are treated if there are any left. Take a look at [9] for some nonWikipedia resources on this topic. We need some proportionality in our thinking and labeling on this racisim issue starting with this page title. Elizmr 16:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've read your blog Elizmr -- you are not a neutral commentator on the subject. The main issue is with Israel's settlement policy in the territories -- it is based on exclusionary ideals. It would be nice when the settlements were to end or alternatively if Israel decided to give the excluded Palestinians a vote -- the current position where Israel settlement policy allows for land to be taken from the Palestinians in the occupied territories but at the same time exclude them from having a say in the government that pushes these policies is horribly wrong and smacks of racism. Yes, other countries are bad as well but that doesn't serve as a justification. I understand that Israel is special to you and I don't aim to take that away, but you seem to be blind to some important specifics and tend to understand counterarguments to your positions in distorted ways that allow you to continue to self-justify your position. --Ben 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the best solution would be to do a RfC on the matter. --Ben 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben, yes, that is another side of the issue, and there are yet other sides as well, and they are all part of the truth of the complex situation. Everyone has an opinion; what matters is that Wikipedia present all POVs using neutral language. You can look at my edit history in the article space. I don't and have never edited in a way that excludes other viewpoints and actually have devoted time to cleaning up and refining prose I don't agree with at all so that all POVs are stated cogently. That is what makes me a neutral contributor. You have many of your own tightly held opinions and there's nothing wrong with that. There IS, however, something very wrong with the overly personal, attacking, and threatening tone you have taken with me on many occassions when we have edited articles on Wikipedia together. It is improper.

Also, what does any of this have to do with the template? As I see it, the template is a very early work in progress and is not ready for prime time (ie--addition of the template to article pages). Elizmr 23:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my tone, being reverted quickly by others I find to be aggravating. Please note that above in the vote just above this section there are also a lot of threats made by others -- thus it may be the situation as a whole on this page has once again deteriorated, although I do appreciate you focusing you attention on me. That said, I do appreciate your help on the template. Let's make it ready for prime time as you say relying of course on appropriate sources. I am not sure if you know what an RFC is but it is a means to get the opinions of uninvolved individuals -- it is great for breaking a stalemate between what can sometimes seem like partisan groups. --Ben 01:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
An RFC (and I do know what it is) is premature since the template is in a nascent state. I understand that you have worked on it and are proud of it, but it seems that if you add something that there is a lot of disagreement about to an already controversial page you might expect someone to revert you. But just for the record, I didn't revert you.
On your tone, thanks for the apology, but just to distinguish the comments you made above towards me were very PERSONAL, you said "YOU are not a neutral commentator" "I've read your blog" etc. I don't see that kind of personal comment being made by others here, but have experienced you in previous instances making this type of inappropriate comment.
Finally, and this is just a suggestion, you might also acknowledge that your personal take on various situations is also colored by your particular background and experiences and is only one aspect of the truth rather than best and truest truth. The best and truest truth is the combination of all POVs, cogently stated, rather than any single POV standing alone. Elizmr 16:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin created the Template:Anti-Semitism a month or so ago and added it to lots of pages. She has rewritten it a few times and changes it contents but she didn't wait until she had come up with a near final design until adding it to pages -- rather she added it to pages first for the most part. Thus the argument you are making has distinct counterexamples from one of Wikipedia's highest edit count editors. Also, I have added that template to about a dozen other pages and not one person has complained about just adding it -- this is the first existential complaint about it -- thus that seems a little weird. Thirdly, I have collaborated on its creation and while you personally may disagree with the contents the 5 or more editors who have already contributed felt it was fine. There was give and take -- I didn't create the whole thing nor am I responsible for most of the content. I understand that you feel strongly about it but I still do not think adding it to a page is a POV statement -- and my actions have clear and recent precedents from people like SlimVirgin. --Ben 16:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben, please, this isn't a court of law, and there is no need to argue like it is one. You must be aware that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is probably the most controversial and contested issue on Wikipedia. It even got a mention as such in a recent New Yorker article on Wikipedia (which you should read if you haven't; it was pretty good). My point is that a template on this issue is probably going to need to be knocked around a little more before launch than a template on something less controversial (and I'm not saying antisemitism isn't controversial, but I really want to leave SlimVirgin---who you have mentioned multiple times now in conversations with me to justify your own behavior---out of it). Please do not paint this as a situation where I am the only dissenting voice (implying unreasonableness). I looked at the template talk page, and it seems that not everyone is completely happy with it and it is a relatively recent template in development. Elizmr 16:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I welcome your contributions to the template and my adding it to the page does seem to have peeked your desire to contribute to it. Also, I would like to redirect this from a two-way argument between us since it may only be serving to further entrench us -- thus the idea of an independent RFC on the matter. --Ben 16:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

At a time when the template is ready for prime time, I would support your idea of an RFC. At present I think it is premature but entirely up to you. Elizmr 22:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Quoting

When quoting, we should be careful not to confuse quotes from primary and secondary sources. In the Rufin paragraph, we're mixing up translated quotes from Rufin with quotes from UPI about Rufin, using single and double quotes in a way that's very confusing. I've fixed it, but the changes have been reverted at least once. Please quote only Rufin, or else attribute the quote to the secondary source so it's clear who is saying what. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the current solution is much better than it was. Previously, and why I added in the exact quotes, was because it contained references to "criticism of Israel" was a pretext for justifying armed struggle when the source made no reference to criticism of Israel but rather "acts against Jews". My main goal was to ensure accurate of the quoting. Best. --Ben 16:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel_and_apartheid/Archive_14&oldid=1109974869"