Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

---

Ten Thirteen Heribert Adam and Kagila Moodley quotes?

The Use of the Term section is heavily skewed towards a pro-Israeli POV. The quotes are, as Jayjg uses the term, highly "cherry-picked" from that source and overweighted to that source. I will work on making this more NPOV and focus on other sources and quotes that are much needed for accuracy and balance. Please, no disruption towards this effort, and let's try to be fair here. I would suggest 2 items:

1) That Heribert Adam and Moodley are represented more clearly and NPOV, and not "cherry-picked" to represent the POV of pro-Israeli editors. Adam has said that "his interest lies in how both sides in the Middle East conflict can reach a fair and just peace and his claim was backed by an analysis that uncovered both similarities and differences between the South African and Middle East models." [1]. He's not just a source for those favoring "Criticism" only.

2) We have too many Heribert Adam quotes period.Kiyosaki 07:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts? Thanks,Kiyosaki 08:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley are practically the only academics who have actually studied this, so they should be leaned on fairly heavily. The quotes in question represent their views fairly, particularly about the term itself and its usage. Further comments which make uncivil references to other editors will be completely ignored. Given the history of your edits, you should assume that your proposals are all universally opposed unless you get consensus here first. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, given the history of your edits you have not shown us that you are NPOV, especially when it comes to subject about Israel. Kindly stop making personal attacks. I do appreciate that you addressed the subject at hand for once! The quotes reflected from this source are "cherry-picked", to use a term that you know, to represent a POV that is not neutral. You have to look at the big picture, not the one you might particularly want.

I think the mistake you are making on this page is to tell us what your personal opinions are, when all we're supposed to discuss and write about is what relevant, reliable sources say about this concept. Sorry, but if Adam and Moodley are going to be used as a source, they have to be represented fairly and accurately as to what their views are. Removing RS info from Adam and Moodley's study, that one doesn't happen to like, is POV editing, Kindly help us make this POV. After all, why is this article tagged "POV"? Are you suggesting it doesn't represent the Zionist POV that you support? That's not true. Thanks.Kiyosaki 02:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki, I would encourage you to read the policies you seem to be so fond of quoting. Jayjg has not personally attacked you or really even come close. You however have consistency refused to engage in civil and appropriate discussion. Despite your endless accusations there is no question that the references you continually complain about are acceptable as per WP:RS.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I will. You could kindly review WP:Civility and henceforth please discuss the subject article and issues at hand instead of the endless personal issues Jayjg and you might have with editors. It is beginning to appear to be a delay tactic. Let's all stick to the subject. Thanks much.

Question: Therefore, if we have 13 Adam and Moodley quotes, they can't all be pro-Israel POV. Do you disagree? Did you read the discussion above? Did you read the Adam quote that was reverted without discussion? What is the issue with it? Let's please discuss it already.Kiyosaki 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are neutral and relevant; you seem to see "pro-Israel" in just about everything. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, the quotes are not neutral. You are wrong again. Kiyosaki 11:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between an assertion and an argument. Are you claiming that Adam and Moodley are themselves "pro-Israel"? Do you have any evidence that the quotes themselves are "pro-Israel"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, thanks for the "drive-by" comment Jayjg. You have not read the sources nor done the research. Adam is NPOV. Kindly attempt to make Wikipedia NPOV, not what your Hebrew POV wants. We understand that you are a Hebrew and Israeli orientered editor, however you must follow WP:NPOV not what you wish. ThanksKiyosaki 09:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you explain to all of us what exactly you mean by "Hebrew pov".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Kindly review in detail: [2] Thanks much.Kiyosaki 10:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Kiyosaki: "Hebrew POV" is an offensive term. JayJG's contributions are unquestionably biased in favour of Israel (IMO), but this does not mean that they represent a "Jewish POV". "Israel, the state" and "Jews, the people" are not the same, and it bears repeating that many of Israel's most vocal and effective critics are themselves Jewish.

• Please withdraw your comment. CJCurrie 01:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just discovered this. Even assuming good faith, I think that Kiyosaki has some serious explaining to do if s/he wants to be taken seriously on this forum. CJCurrie 02:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been obvious for a while. It's a shame he had to be so explicit before it was noticed by all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, bear in mind that I hadn't come across this person before. I knew he was erratic, but I didn't realize he was a racist until the recent posts. CJCurrie 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. You seem to be implying that racism is an issue but not antisemitism, or that the latter matters less when appearing to come from the left, rather than the right. It has been obvious for weeks to just about everyone on this page that he was a deeply problematic editor in that regard, and most of us didn't know who he was either until a few days ago. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I consider anti-Semitism to be a form of racism. Kiyosaki has proven himself to be an anti-Semite, and is therefore a racist. Clear now? CJCurrie 22:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's clearer, yes, though I'd take issue with the idea of anti-Semitism being a form of racism, given that Jews can come from any racial group, but I take your point. My point was simply that it was obvious to quite a few editors very early on that we were dealing with anti-Semitism, either from the left or the right. I think you were blinded to it, or saw it but didn't count what he was saying as anti-Semitism, because you believed it to be coming from the left. Not just you but a few others too. As I said elsewhere, I'm not saying this in order to harp on about it, but in an effort to make the serious point that editors are, or were, being supported here and elsewhere who perhaps should not be, because their issue is Jews and not Israeli policies as such. It is sometimes difficult to spot the distinction, but when the level of anti-Israel vitriol reaches the crescendo displayed by Kiyosaki, and when decent sources are being rejected just because the user disagrees with them, then the unpleasant possibility suggests itself strongly, as it did in this case quite early on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that was implied by CJCurrie anywhere. In any case, is it really relevant to this talkpage now that the user in question has presumably been banned? Can we perhaps return to the questions raised below? Thanks. Hornplease 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then please do explain what he meant. I think it is indeed relevant that this page was hijacked by an anti-Semite for over a month who was supported by some editors. I'm making the point not in order to harp on about it, but in the hope that it can be avoided in the future, by certain editors making themselves more aware of that possibility, and of the signs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The page was hijacked by a bigot because the bigot in question chose, by and large, intially to attempt to keep himself within what, given the assumption of good faith, are the parameters of civilised discourse. As long as an editor is raising points that appear to be answerable reasonably, I dont think we should be avoiding the discussion, whether or not they're racists. I, personally, might think that the article is unbalanced as it stands; Kiyosaki was going further than I would, but his motives in doing so are irrelevant to me as long as he keeps to WP policy in terms of interaction with editors and content guidelines. I think the same for you as well; trying to discern why someone is saying something on controversial articles can give one a headache, so I dont do it, merely looking at what they actually say.

Frankly, you should do the same. Can we start by ending this conversation and focusing on content? Particularly the question I have raised below?

Hornplease 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that editors need only stick to the policies, but he didn't. It was obvious that he was a bigot and a bad editor, yet some people here supported him because they thought they agreed with his politics. If we would all stick only to insisting the content policies be adhered to, and not give disruptive editors leeway because we agree with them, we might actually turn out a decent article at some point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see a question from you below. Can you repeat it, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Slim, Kiyosaki's bigotry was not obvious until very recently. Your previous remark about being on the lookout for "unpleasant possibilities" was fair. Your assumption that that "some people here supported him" while knowing he was a bigot, is not. (For my part, I didn't even bother to read many of his posts.) CJCurrie 01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki's disruptiveness, bad editing, and attacks on other editors were certainly visible from the very start. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It was obvious to me that he was a bigot and a bad editor. If someone with that frame of mind and poor editing and research skills had turned up and started adding Zionist POV, you'd have come down on him like a ton of bricks. But because you agreed with his POV, you overlooked the bad behavior. That's the kind of thing I'm asking people to stop. I agree with Hornplease that what matters is how people write and use sources (assuming I understood Horn correctly); so when we see someone not doing that, we should oppose them, even if we agree or think we agree with their political views. If we all do that, a good article will eventually emerge, but if we don't, it definitely won't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious question, Slim: where was the evidence of bigotry prior to his recent posts? It's possible that I missed something; if so, I'd appreciate it if you'd point it out.

I don't disagree that he was always a bad editor, but my initial suspicion was that he couldn't write English very well. I hadn't come across the "Disruptive Apartheid Editor" before, didn't recognize the style, and was prepared to make some allowances for what seemed like unfamiliarity with the language. CJCurrie 01:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if it was possible to pretend he didn't harbor any bigotry, it was plain as day from the very beginning that he was increibly disruptive. He took up pages and pages of discussion based on ridiculous claims that reliable source were either non-notable or to "pro-Israel" to be acceptable. He persisted in reverting to his ridiculous version dozens of times and accused anyone who reverted him of being part of a nefarious conspiracy. When so many people did not say anything, it appeared that they were giving tacit approval to his actions. Indeed, it seems likely that what gave him the courage to continue was the sometimes explicit support he received on his talk page from users like Tiamut and Aminz.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that we define bigotry differently, CJ. He was obviously an anti-Israel bigot, and I use the word "bigot" because of the extremism and irrationality, which set off alarm bells. The bad editing wasn't only connected to poor English; when he starts saying that Heribert Adam isn't a good enough academic (even though he specializes in precisely this area), then you know there's a serious problem. If an extreme right-wing pro-Zionist editor arrived and started deleting good material and good sources, and generally causing chaos, you'd be really fed up with me if I simply averted my gaze and left you to fight him alone. Similarly, when extreme (apparently) left-wing editors turn up and behave badly, my hope is that you'll help to fend them off. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't rush to assume that we define bigotry differently, and I'm still waiting for proof that he was "obviously an anti-Israeli bigot" from the start. (Some page diffs might help, if you have them.) Btw, you weren't exactly fighting him alone. CJCurrie 02:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I was fighting him alone. You want diffs showing his anti-Israel bigotry?? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've already said that I didn't read all (or even most) of his posts. As I said above, "It's possible that I missed something; if so, I'd appreciate it if you'd point it out." If he legitimately was a bigot from the start, I'd like to know. CJCurrie 02:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What Slim is trying to do here is to use Kiyosaki's manifest bigotry to discredit every position he aligned himself with on this page. She is also trying to stain CJ with Kiyosaki's bigotry, however lightly. Before CJ outed Kiyosaki as a bigot, Slim was insinuating that Kiyosaki was CJ's sock puppet. All of these are versions of guilt-by-association, a cheap and discredited mode of ad hominem argument.--G-Dett 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Really! I'm always amazed by people who can read other people's minds and who purport to know their motives. And particularly, you G-Dett, with only a few dozen edits, and after not having edited for two months, you suddenly feel the need to jump into this talk page and project onto SlimVirgin what you "know" to be her mind. Very fascinating. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Compelling oppo research, MPerel. You must have found much to be amazed and fascinated by in Slim's recent comments to CJ – "If someone with that frame of mind and poor editing and research skills had turned up and started adding Zionist POV, you'd have come down on him like a ton of bricks. But because you agreed with his POV, you overlooked the bad behavior" etc. etc. You kept awfully quiet about that; perhaps you were struck dumb by amazement and fascination.--G-Dett 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie did not "out" Kiyosaki. A number of other editors did, and found evidence of his previous accounts. I have never implied that Kiyosaki was CJ's sockpuppet; show me where I did that. You're right that K's anti-Israel bigotry is discredited, but it was already. It is because of the bigotry that K is discredited, not because of him that the bigotry is discredited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is correct, to a point: she never said or implied that Kiyosaki was my sockpuppet. Whether or not I "outed" Kiyosaki is a matter of conjecture, though I notice he wasn't banned until after I posted the page diffs here. Perhaps I deserve an assist, but I'm not inclined to press the point. Meanwhile, I'll reiterate my request for page diffs demonstrating that Kiyosaki's bigotry was always manifest. CJCurrie 05:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My own impression was that it took a while for Kiyosaki's bigotry to become evident, although he was obviously a sockpuppet from the earliest days. What got me thinking was this: I reverted Kiyosaki several times, probably about as much as Humus did and a lot more than Crzrussian did. Kiyosaki questioned my reversions but he didn't attack me the way he did with Humus, Crzrussian, and (especially) SlimVirgin. He tried to drag several editors into "mediation" but not me. And I could only conclude that his grudge with these people had something to do with what was in their contribution histories outside this article, and/or with what was on their user pages but not on my user page. It was creepy for me just to see the pattern, and I was the one not being targeted. Kla'quot 08:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's SV's sentence that I read as implying that Kiyosaki is your sockpuppet: "I see Kiyosaki has just given you a barnstar. You seem to get a lot of support from sockpuppets, CJ." People set up sockpuppets in order to support their own positions. If they want to support other editors' positions I cannot imagine why on earth they'd do it through a sockpuppet instead of their real accounts. So I really can't understand SV's sarcasm in this sentence except as implying that you are praising yourself by way of a proxy.

Perhaps you do deserve an assist, but that's not my goal in chiming in here. My point is that SV is trying to leverage Kiyosaki's bigotry for all that it's worth, in order to foreclose every serious dispute on this page. Her question-begging response to me ("it is because of the bigotry that K is discredited," etc.) only underscores the point. Kiyosaki has clearly staked out some absurd positions here, for example in his objections about Ian Baruma and others. But these are instances of lawyerly cynicism and opportunism, not bigotry; and they are in any case only the mirror-image of the objections (on the part of SlimVirgin, Jayjg, et al) to figures like Desmond Tutu and Winnie Mandela, whose moral authority on the topic at hand is very obvious. --G-Dett 18:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting and replying to G-Dett) You would have to stetch Slimvirgin's statements pretty damn far in order to state that she implied that Kiyosaki was CJ's sockpuppet. You would have to stetch her words farther than any rational person would in order to suggest she is deviously trying to discredit her oppenents using their past support for Kiyosaki. I find it hard to believe that someone would even attempt to suggest such a thing considering the fact that this discussion has never left this single talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To be very clear: if Slim and CJ are both saying there was no insinuation about the sockpuppet being CJ's, then the matter is fully settled in my eyes, and I apologize for my misinterpretation. On the other hand, if you're telling me that that the crack "you seem to get a lot of support from sockpuppets" is not open to this sort of (mis)interpretation, then it's you who's doing the stretching.

As for Slim's comments following K's noxious crack about "Hebrew POV," they quite clearly attempt to discredit the positions he advanced en toto with the stain of his bigotry. And when she writes that "it is indeed relevant that this page was hijacked by an anti-Semite for over a month who was supported by some editors," and indicates that CJ is one of these, it is very clear that she is flirting with the logic of guilt by association. Guilt by association refers to the unwarranted discrediting both of arguments and of persons; the problem with it is not that it's "devious," but that it's a logical fallacy.--G-Dett 00:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim has never claimed that the past support for Kiyosaki has any bearing on anyone's argument rather she is saying that the support he recieved encouraged him to continue with his extremely disruptive "crusade".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization of the Allegations

We could reorganize and help the reader compartmentalize this article to organize the sources of the allegations by country. For instance: South African views, Israeli views, Palestinian and Arab views, American views, Other. South African views, in particular, should be covered in a less cluttered fashion. Kiyosaki 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid conditions leading to a South African style one-state solution

Kiyosaki, you're engaged in original research. You can't add material that you believe is related to the allegations, otherwise this will end up as your personal essay. You must find sources who discuss "allegations of Israeli apartheid" and then add what they say, but only what they say: not what you think they imply, or what you think is a related topic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is fine: "Pappe has stated that "the results of 56 years of continuous ethnic cleansing, discrimination, a whole legal and practical apparatus is the definition of apartheid", and that the Jewish National Fund is the "main agency of apartheid in Israel"." But you can't use this quote as an excuse to discuss the one-state solution. You could add the material to Binational solution instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Slim, it's not original research or "my personal essay". That's an unfair characterization. I think you need to read through what he says. He discusses Israel apartheid at length in the link I provided you, and his views on Israeli apartheid are driectly tied to why he doesn't support a Yettwo-state solution, and he states that he prefers the one-state solution. How is this not clear? You should not remove properly cited, relevant material without explanation until you have read through everything. OK? Assume good faith. PS Can you explain the reverts of all the other properly cited, relevant material that was deleted without discussion? I really would appreciate that.

Plus I see the header for "One State solution" remains completely and unfairly deleted and the info about Ali Abunimah and his book too. Can you explain? Are you saying that is not tied to Israeli Apartheid also? Kindly respond. Thanks. Thanks. Kiyosaki 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If he discusses his views on "allegations of Israeli apartheid," then those are the parts of his book/article that you must discuss and quote. You can't go wandering off into other things he talks about. It's partly the way you're writing that isn't appropriate, but it's mostly that you're trying to turn this into an essay on what you see as prejudice against Arabs in Israel. But that's not what the article is about. It's only about this specific allegation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Slim I not turing this into an "essay" about anything. That is an unfair characterization and wrong, kindly refrain from making false statements. You are attempting to limit properly cited, relevant material without explanation that is against your pro-Israeli POV. This article is about "allegations of Israeli apartheid" and Ali Abunimah and Ilan Pappe have made those allegations and they support a one-state solution and you removed all of it. Perhaps you could review Help:Reverting and the section on "Dont's" in particular. The "Do's" says: "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it." Thanks much. Kindly let me work on the section. You could reveiw this and help: [3] Kiyosaki 07:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(The following is not an endorsement of Kiyosaki's behaviour): We do discuss in this article who are the players in the debate, and we briefly describe their political views in addition to their comments about "Israeli apartheid." The fact that people who favour the analogy come from all parts of the political spectrum, and have such diverse views about how to resolve the conflict, is interesting. The allegations are made in order to effect political ends, and it seems appropriate to describe what those desired ends are. Does that make sense? Kla'quot 07:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. We should say who makes the allegation and, if they explain why, we should include that. We can't get into what their various beliefs about the future of Israel are, because that has nothing to do with the allegations they're making. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What behaviour are you specifically refering to? Can you illustrate with links? Kindly review [4], and why shouldn't this heading exist? Also, I do not believe that people who use the analogy have "political" goals, what politcal goals does Ilan Pappe have? What political goals does Desmond Tutu have, or Jimmy Carter. I don't think it's political. The article should cover what the topic heading is: "allegations of Israeli Apartheid". As it stands, much of my research has been deleted by those with a POV. How can we build the article when eveything gets reverted that a team of pro-Israel allies doesn't like? That's not proper vetting. It becomes their "essay" as the quotes cherry-picked from Heribert Adam show (see above heading). Thanks.Kiyosaki 08:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, there are people that believe apartheid conditions warrant a one-state solution similar to South Africa's solution, do you not believe this should be covered and those views expressed? Yes or No? If yes, then kindly restore the section with sources that you deleted. Help to improve it. If no, then please explain why you believe that. Also, the above Talk sections have at least 5 other questions left unanswered, can you review the Talk page, before reverting without discussion? Thanks.Kiyosaki 08:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is about allegations of Israel apartheid, so the material in the article and sources used must deal with allegations of Israeli apartheid, not speculative proposals for Israel's future. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you make no sense. The article contains a section about Israeli apartheid and Israel's future related to a two-state solution. Why not also cover those that discuss a one-state solution. Again, you make no sense whatsoever. Kiyosaki 11:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

At the title suggests, this article is about the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", not about "Proposals for a one-state solution".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There are people that believe apartheid conditions warrant a one-state solution similar to South Africa's solution. Kindly do the research. Kiyosaki 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but once again this article is about the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid, not about proposals for one state solution. Your additions are simply not relevant to this particular article, I'm sorry.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you believe what you say, then you should delete the section about proposals for a two-state solution. Pleae read through the links. Explain your inconsistency. I'll wait.Kiyosaki 11:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand the point being made. Surely if the article centers on an analogy with a problem from elsewhere, the analogous solution elsewhere is not peripheral? Calling it a personal essay is unwarrantedly harsh. Hornplease 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the allegation, not a crystal ball for discussing possible future states of Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet another Alpahbet soup from the "disruptive" and "contoversial" Jayjg. How about WP:NOR, or WP:OWN. Jayjg, do you have any qualifications whatsoever, please prove them. Kindly show us what they are, or please refrain from reverting in violation of Help:Reverting and WP:RS. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. Thanks.Kiyosaki 09:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize this but the qualifications of individual wikipedia editors are irrelevant and I am not exactly sure what you hope to accomplish by attempting to bring them up.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, I think you are missing everything. Please consider that there are editors that revert and remove WP:RS solely because they don't like it. That's POV editing, and that's not right. A Wikipedia editor that has no qualifications should never do that. Are you saying that, for instance, you and Jayjg are experts on this subject? Please show why you think you are, and we'll consider it. However, unless you do, you cannot delete WP:RS info , and kindly review Help:Reverting. Thanks. What is disappointing in your behavior is that the topic of this header/section is not being addressed. Can you please take your complaints elsewhere, and we refocus on the subject (one-state solution)? We would appreciate that. Thanks.Kiyosaki 10:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian ghettos

I may have overlooked it, but a key feature of the apartheid analogy appears to be missing from the article, namely the appropriation of land and the marginalisation of the (allegedly) oppressed group on the basis of land ownership and access, including the "homelands" solution in South Africa and the ghettoisation of palestinians.

• In both of the cases, the ascendant group (whites/jews) did come into possession of choice landed property in one way or another, whereas the disaffected group (coloureds/arabs) became segregated into townships and homelands.
• On the basis of the homeland constructs in South Africa, and the occupied territories in palestine, the inhabitants were denied effective political and civil rights as well as the opportunity for a prosperous future. Asgrrr 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My editing experience on this page is that an allied group of editors does not want the article vetted correctly if it reflects accurately on apartheid conditions that exist. Edit the aticle, and I'll take a look. Thanks.Kiyosaki 11:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Done! :) Asgrrr 15:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you reviewed WP:NOR? You need to find reliable sources that discuss this topic in the context of "Israeli apartheid". You can't just make up your own arguments regarding this. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, please do not "drive-by" without doing the research. Please read through the sources before making those kinds of comments in the future. Thanks much. There are a multitude of sources and footnotes for you to review. Kindly review before commenting in a disruptive manner. Kiyosaki 09:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I did NOT make up the arguments I wrote down, they have been expressed by others before me. You may not think that the actual sources I cited are up to scratch. Fine, so be it. But does that justify erasing without warning everything I wrote? Is that how this works? Can I go over the article with a magnifying glass and delete everything I don't think is properly sourced?

Asgrrr, you didn't provide any sources for much of the material you inserted, only one of the two sources you did provide actually discussed "Israeli apartheid", and that source was an opinion piece by a non-notable individual. You need to find reliable sources that make these arguments in the context of "Israeli apartheid". And believe me, this article has been gone over with a magnifying glass. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that a "yes" then? Just in passing, I noticed an unsourced statement on Jimmy Carter. Is it considered OK for me to delete that, and everything else I don't feel is properly sourced? Asgrrr 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The seven towers of wisdom

To understand more about this matter I recommend the book the seven pillars of wisdom from Lawrence of Arabia If you read the Sykes-Picot Agreement and theBalfour Declaration you are probably able to understand how they got their "holey" mercenary Israel.--Ekkenekepen 13:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What this article seems to ignore

The suggestion that (without peace) Israel is an apartheid state analogous to South Africa is simply wrong. The basic evil of South African apartheid, against which I and so many other Jews fought, was the absolute control over a majority of blacks by a small minority of whites. It was the opposite of democracy. In Israel majority rules; it is a vibrant secular democracy, which just today recognized gay marriages performed abroad. Arabs serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court and get to vote for their representatives, many of whom strongly oppose Israeli policies. Israel has repeatedly offered to end its occupation of areas it captured in a defensive war in exchange for peace and full recognition. The reality is that other Arab and Muslim nations do in fact practice apartheid. In Jordan, no Jew can be a citizen or own land. The same is true in Saudi Arabia, which has separate roads for Muslims and non-Muslims. Even in the Palestinian authority, the increasing influence of Hamas threatens to create Islamic hegemony over non-Muslims. Arab Christians are leaving in droves.

Muslim practices, especially those of Saudi Arabia are material for another article. Dhimmtude is not currently expressed in the literature as apartheid, but there is no rational distinction. Fred Bauder 15:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred: don't bother responding to this. Zeq cut-and-pasted it directly from an Alan Dershowitz letter. CJCurrie 01:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie is correct; this quotation does not really belong on the talk page, especially unattributed. Instead, the most pertinent portions of it belong in the article itself. Following the link that CJCurrie provided below, I see that this is an excerpt from an article by Dershowitz, an indisputably notable person with unquestioned expertise in human rights and liberty. I'd also point out that (while this is not evident from the portion quoted above) the Dershowitz article is a critique of Jimmy Carter's use of the "apartheid" analogy in his new book, and probably should be mentioned alongside any mention of Carter's book in the article. I'll let someone else give that a go, as my inclination when selecting portions of the Dershowitz article would be to include far more of it than would probably be acceptable, on a few different levels. 6SJ7 02:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Alan Dershowitz has expressed remarkably similar views. [5] CJCurrie 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My experience on this page is that WP:RS is ignored and abused by pro-hebrew, pro-Israeli POV editors that want to violate WP:OWN, to deny that people refer to apartheid conditions in Palestine, or the "Occupied Territories". It's utterly dishonest and disgraceful, and that's my opinion. That is what I have observed, and I believe the the Talk page reflects it. Thanks.Kiyosaki 11:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the meme is rapidly spreading with two major books by prominent human rights spokesmen on the horizon. It is a public relations disaster, and on top of that essentially wrong: people need space where they can be themselves. Fred Bauder 15:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. But given that the meme is rapidly spreading, I repeat the question I laid out earlier: when do the similarities between this and, say, Islamofascism (also a pejorative term with strongly disputable basis in fact) start to outweigh the differences, namely the shrinking degree to which the term is known outside WP? And, at that point, how can we justify the divergent approaches to the two articles? Hornplease 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

According to NPOV policy we must show the other POV.

There for each of the sections such as "Occupation of the West Bank" "Israeli West Bank barrier " "Land policy inside the Green Line " etc... - must include under the same section a paragraph about why it is "aprtheid" (according to some) and why it is not (according to others).

In a similar way the opening paragrpah as well as the 1st and 2nd paragrph need to be changed - both POVs must be refelcted in the same paragraph. Zeq 03:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC) is back.

Mediation

I invite all to come to [6] to discuss mediation. WikieZach| talk 03:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The above MedCab case was opened by the banned sockpuppet Kiyosaki, so has been automatically closed. Hornplease 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki

For those unaware, check user confirms that Kiyosaki is the so-called Disruptive Apartheid Editor, a user banned for edits such as blanking a user page and calling the editor "a filthy jew, unclean." Some of his accounts are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Azure1; others at User:Jayjg/DAE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Split and suggested page move

The article currently has five sections: "Use of the term," "Criticism of the term," "Arguments for the term," "Arguments against the term," and "The debate on the two-state solution."

• I suggest the following:
  • The sections on "Criticism of the term" and "Arguments against the term" are the same thing and should be merged into one section with a link to a main page on Criticism of the term Israeli apartheid."
  • Some of the section on "Use of the term" should be moved to the section on "Arguments for the term" with a link to a main page on Support for the term Israeli apartheid."
  • The section on "The debate on the two-state solution" does not merit its own section and the content should be split between the Criticism and Support sections.
  • This article should be moved to the title "Israeli apartheid." The term in question is Israeli apartheid, not "allegations of." Calling them allegations does not follow the NPOV policy, it violates it. KazakhPol 22:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Since everything in the article is about Allegations of Israeli apartheid, it makes little sense to split it into sub-articles. Criticism of the term and arguments against it are different things, and in any event criticism sections are usually included in the main article, unless the article and criticism are both extremely long. The current name is vastly more NPOV, and was an agreed to compromise. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

KP, your suggestion is interesting, but I think that the present situation is one that was agreed to after a long and very bitter fight, one which led to some people leaving WP. I'd just as soon not tear open the scab, if we can avoid it. IronDuke 00:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The current title is not at all NPOV, it is a fabrication similar to that of "Islamic extremist terrorism" and "Zionist political violence." These pages do not have their current titles because of consensus, but by getting factions (the Islam Guild, the Jewish Guild, etc) to overrule policy and common sense. KazakhPol 02:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I could write a few pages about why the title should stay as it is and the article not be split up in the manner you suggest... but I have already written most of it before and don't see any good reason to get involved in all this for the who-knows-how-many-th time. So I will just say this: The title was agreed to as a compromise, and received a consensus and as far as I know it can only be undone by another consensus. That's not going to happen, partly because there are a number of people who believe that any title with "Israeli" and "apartheid" is POV, including the current title, but we are living with it because that is the best it was going to get. Beyond that, I agree with what Jay said above. 6SJ7 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is the agreed title and splitting the page into separate articles is pointless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here. This has all been gone over before. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

According to NPOV policy we must show the other POV.

There for each of the sections such as "Occupation of the West Bank" "Israeli West Bank barrier " "Land policy inside the Green Line " etc... - must include (under the same section) both POV: one - a paragraph about why it is "aprtheid" (according to some) and two - why it is not so (according to others).

In a similar way the opening paragrpah as well as the 1st and 2nd paragrph need to be changed - both POVs must be refelcted in the same paragraph. Zeq 04:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Guild? Interesting! Where's that? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. The Jewish WikiProject. It acts like the Islam guild anyways. KazakhPol 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Which Jewish WikiProject are you referring to, and which posters here are members? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So let me say if I get this right: KazakhPol wants us to create one article for the libel allegation, one against it, and one that draws the conclusion that those who support the libel allegation are correct, because, after all, there is a Jewish conspiracy involved here. If that worked, it would set an interesting precedent for NPOV at Wikipedia. --Leifern 13:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not a correct reading of the suggestion. Hornplease 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, of the many pages written in support of the current page title, the only relevant point that was made given the many other similar articles (Islamofascism in particular) is that the term was not in widespread enough usage at the time. It is now increasingly used; to keep content here seems a violation. All the various statements above saying this is the agreed title are frankly pointless. Hornplease 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there's no particular phrase - it's more like there's a meme that Israel practices apartheid. It has no basis in fact and logic and really only supports an anti-Israeli political agenda, much like the offensive meme that Israel and Nazi Germany are morally equivalent, or that Israel practices terrorism, etc. One can find similar memes that the Holocaust never happened, or that the CIA was behind the 9/11 attacks, etc. Just because the meme gets currency, popularity, etc., doesn't mean it's valid. --Leifern 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the comparison between apartheid South Africa and Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories "has no basis in fact and logic" is obviously POV, so if we've chosen the article title to reflect that view then the article title is POV. There are a great many equally controversial comparisons covered on Wikipedia: Islamofascism, Feminazi, Wage slavery, Ecoterrorism, Judicial activism – these are just a few. None of the titles of these articles has the disclaimer phrase "allegations of" in its title. Can someone explain the anomaly?--G-Dett 18:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comparison. Take a look at the Islamofascism article; do you notice something? It doesn't actually discuss the validity of the analogy, merely the use of the term, and the controversy around it. The same with the Feminazi article. Now contrast that with this article, which not only discusses the "Israeli apartheid" meme itself, but then devotes half its space to debating its validity. Here's an experiment for you G-Dett, if you're brave enough: Try going to the Islamofascism article and inserting a lengthy, well-sourced discussion of the validity of the conflation of Islam with fascism in it; I predict you will be reverted within 5 minutes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting and puzzling if true, Jay. If I find the energy – what's bravery got to do with this? – I'll give it a shot. In the meantime, to help me follow your train of thought, can you say who will revert me and why? And what does this have to do with article titles? What if I go over there and change the title to "The Allegation of Islamofascism" – will someone revert me?--G-Dett 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The editors there will revert you, immediately, because that's what they do every time someone attempts to insert such a discussion. You see, it's a given there that "Islamofascism" is merely a pejorative epithet, so all one can really do is discuss the history, usage, and controversy over the term, but (in distinction to this article) never the underlying arguments supporting it. Regarding that article's title, similar things have been tried and/or supported, including by me, with little success. See, for example, [7] [8] That article couldn't be called "Allegations of Islamofascism", since, as mentioned, the editors there won't actually allow any allegations that Islam is fascistic to exist in the article, merely a discussion of the use of the term itself. As for this article's title, it's the compromise title reached after a lengthy series of discussions, move wars, ArbCom cases, etc. It fits in with the series that it is broken out from, Allegations of apartheid, Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, etc. The "apartheid" allegation is trotted out in reference to just about every country (and everything else as well); the only reason this particular article is so long compared to most, is that the world penchant for singling Israel for unique and disproportionate obloquoy is mirrored by Wikipedia editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, Jay. Is this also true of the other topics I mentioned – wage slavery, ecoterrorism, etc.?--G-Dett 22:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Disruptive Apartheid Editor, whatever his many faults, is quite right that prominent South Africans have likened the situation in the Palestinian territories (not Israel proper, though this article tends to blur the distinction) to apartheid, and that it's disingenuous to suggest that they've made this comparison with "just about every other country" in the world. They haven't; they've done it pretty much uniquely with Palestine (by which I mean the territories). I also disagree with Jay's assertion that the comparison is rooted in the bigotry of the world and of Wikipedia. As conspiracy theories go, that one's pretty grand. And to say that it's "singling out" Israel to compare it to South Africa is begging the question – because, after all, apartheid South Africa was itself "singled out" for opprobrium. Apartheid aroused the disgust of the West not because it was the world's most serious human rights abuse, which it clearly was not. It aroused the West's disgust because South Africa, like Israel, was a Western democracy of sorts with its cultural, economic, historical, and institutional roots in the West, so Westerners felt morally implicated in its actions. You could argue that there is a double standard at work, but it's much more subtle and morally ambiguous bias than anti-Semitism. It's the sort of double standard that explains how the West found ethnic cleansing in the Balkans morally intolerable, but genocide in Rwanda merely tragic and unfortunate.--G-Dett 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, the Islamofascism article, while limited in scope, is exactly what we should see here, but under the page Israeli Apartheid. A simple discussion of origins, examples, and people who've chosen to criticise it. We dont need to summarise their arguments if the arguments are, as of now, non-notable. Would this be acceptable to you, Jay?

Also, Jay, please try to avoid saying things like people who happen to disagree with you on Israel-related pages are singling out Israel for 'disproportionate obloquy'. That creates a very negative environment for suggestions, as well as hinting at an assignation of (unpleasant) motives. A glance at my contributions, for example, should make it clear that I devote practically none of my time here to Israel-related issues. I just think that this article is under the wrong title, and it conveys the impression of bias to a disinterested, dispassionate observer. I'd be glad if Jay avoided that sort of thing unless he's sure of an editor's motives, and even then other approaches might be more useful, as I'm sure he knows. Hornplease 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is not people who "disagree with me", but rather the constant singling out of Israel disproportionate obloquy, though I certainly wasn't accusing you of doing so. An errant shell which tragically kills 20 Palestinians warrants world attention, and an entire Wikipedia article with hundreds of edits (and likely even more were it not constantly protected from editing), yet the situation in southern Sudan (3 million deaths and counting) goes relatively unnoticed. Did you know that from 1992-2002 almost 200,000 people were massacred in Algeria, mostly civilians? I believe that warrants an entire 3 sentences on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, the 2nd intifadeh, with about 5000 deaths on both sides in the same time-frame warrants page after page after page. Around 1.4 million refugees (on both sides) were created as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and there's no end to the articles about that (or at least to articles about the refugees on one side), and its aftermath. 12 million refugees were created as a result of the Partition of India; I believe they warrant two paragraphs. I think there are currently about 4 million Sudanese refugees, and I don't think they even have a specific article devoted to them. As for your idea, I'm not sure you understand the full import of what you're suggesting; you'd have to really restrict this article solely to people who use the term. You wouldn't even be able to drag in people who refer to "bantustans". Are the other editors on the page really amenable to that? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay, you say that this article includes the formulation Allegations of because it discusses not only the "history, usage, and controversy over the term" but also the "underlying arguments supporting it." But this is also true of the New Anti-Semitism article, right? Why isn't that one called Allegations of New Anti-Semitism?

Maybe we should create a separate article on The World Penchant for Singling Out Israel for Unique and Disproportionate Obloquoy, and link to it from this article. Then, if the article becomes rich enough in substantive detail, it could be renamed Allegations of a World Penchant for Singling Out Israel for Unique and Disproportionate Obloquoy. --G-Dett 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An important article

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/795055.html

"The figures show that Arab towns are reluctant to collect city taxes from their residents."

"determination on the part of city officials. Officials at the Israeli ministries charge the clannish nature of Arab society means the town leaders aren't taking steps that would be unpopular in their social circles, for instance, demanding their relatives pay tax. "

Zeq 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter in his own words

<message from banned user deleted>

Editors should read Jimmy Carter in his own words, but they should also know that this is the Disruptive Apartheid Editor again. CJCurrie 09:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic

this article should be deleted. By definition it is a POV, and most importantly it is not encyclopedic material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ILikeHowMuch (talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

The social phenomenon of Israeli Apartheid

Isarig, take a look at the article on Apartheid in South Africa, and I think you will see that its scope is much broader than just government policy. It has a larger social context, as did the racist system in the old South. Notice that the Apartheid article includes info that is in that broader context, not just law, but a larger pattern of what you have labelled "personal racism". ForkInTheGravy 06:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC) I should add that, as a parallel analogy to the phenomenon of South African Apartheid, this article should not be unnecessarily constrained in its comparisons to only a single aspect of that system. The program of destabilisation and the role of paramilitary and vigilante groups acting with either direct or tacit support of the government were just as much a part of the system. Imagine discussing the system of racial segregation in the Southern U.S. in which mention of the role of the KKK were deemed "irrelevant" as not pertaining to *official* government policy. To artificially limit the discussion to merely the component of the *legal* framework is misleading at best. ForkInTheGravy 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Incidentally, on the topic of the the Geocartographia poll, I am reminded of J.S. Mill's perceptive observation to the effect that the tyranny of prevailing opinion can be even more formidable than that of the magistrate. Doesn't it seem almost tautologically obvious that any system of racial prejudice, with or without the imprimatur of law, relies for its continued existence more essentially on the prejudice itself than on any de jure codification? ForkInTheGravy 08:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid is a term for a legal framework, enforced by the state. This article is about allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Personal racism is by definition not a part of this. If you want to start a new article about racism in Israel, or Racism of Israelis - go right ahead , but this is outside the scope of this article. Isarig 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicely and concisely put. Gzuckier 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put. The material Fork is trying to add is one of the most obvious examples of original research I've seen in this article in a long while. The article must talk about stuff that reliable sources have labeled "Israeli apartheid", not what any Wikipedia editor imagines might (or should) be discussed in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No one who has ever lived under a system of racial discrimination and domination could imagine that "personal" opinions, held by the majority of the dominant population, and in line with similar government policies don't enter into it. Neither does the internationally defined crime of apartheid, unsurprisingly enough.

The States Parties to the present Convention declare criminal those organizations, institutions and individuals committing the crime of apartheid. ... International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved, to individuals, members of organizations and institutions and representatives of the State, whether residing in the territory of the State in which the acts are perpetrated or in some other State, whenever they: (a) Commit, participate in, directly incite or conspire in the commission of the acts mentioned in article II of the present Convention; (emphasis added)

You are misreading what this says. Individuals can certainly be guilty of the crime of Apartheid, if they "Commit, participate in, directly incite or conspire in the commission of the acts mentioned in article II" - which are all part of an official policy & mechanisms implementing Apartheid. They are not guilty of the crime of Apartheid just for being racists. Thus while Jan Smuts may certainly be guilty of the crime of Apartheid, for initiating the legal framework of Apartheid in SA, he is not guilty of the crime of Apartheid for merely saying or thinking "I don't want no stinking coloureds living next to my house". Similarily, if an Israeli mayor decreed that his city is off-limits to Arabs, he might be guilty of Apartheid, but if he doesn't want an Arab neighbor, he may be a racist, but it is not Apartheid. Isarig 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Jayjg's separate concern, residential segregation is a principal argument of proponents of the Apartheid analogy. Any reliable source regardless of its use of the term "Israeli apartheid", including the Israeli government, that demonstrated residential segregation as a social fact would be appropiate here.--Carwil 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In a hypothetical case of actual (as opposed to imagined) apartheid, there surely would be social consequences of apartheid, and probably even social drivers of it. But the convention discusses apartheid as a structural arrangement that through legal means segregates citizens of the same country from each other on the basis of race or ethnicity, giving one group privileges at the expense of another. The reason why international humanitarian law strives to be so precise (examine the endless discussion on the precise criteria for something to be genocide, for example), is to prevent the possibility that allegations of a crime be co-opted for political purposes. In truth, the PA practices something that is much closer to apartheid than the Israeli government does, because no Jew (with the exception of Amira Hass) is allowed to live in areas they control. --Leifern 18:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that you need to find reliable sources that discuss these issues in the specific context of "Israeli apartheid", not something you consider to be related. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia no matter how strongly you feel you need to promote a particular POV or political cause. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To qualify as relevant to this article, sourced material must have the word "apartheid" in it? What if, say, it has the word "bantustan"?--G-Dett 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't allow it, though it's not as unmistakably obvious a case of original research as the "residential segregation" stuff, and if you accept Hornplease's idea it certainly wouldn't be allowed. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Likening West Bank cantons to South African bantustans doesn't constitute an allegation of Israeli apartheid?

What if an RS likened Israeli policies in the West Bank to "the political system that existed in South Africa until 1994"? Would you not allow its inclusion, personally? --G-Dett 01:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

G-Dett, any source should preferably use the term "Israeli apartheid" or "apartheid," but in order not to be absurdly strict about this, it's okay if the source doesn't use the actual term, but is very clearly and unambiguously making the analogy or arguing against it e.g. by comparing the situation to that of South Africa, or words to that effect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that a third-party source must have made the comparison, not a Wikipedia editor who thinks something ought to be described as apartheid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a writer who talks about West Bank bantustans making the comparison, and isn't it absurdly strict for Wikipedia editors to pretend otherwise?--G-Dett 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's possible he's talking about that, but I'd need to read it to be able to judge. The danger is that we confuse people who are talking about what they see as racism with what some people claim is an actual apartheid system. This is one of the problems with this article, namely that we mix up people who are using the term loosely as an insult and those who are using it seriously. So if we also start to use people who haven't used the term at all (when they could have done so if they had wanted to), it gets even murkier. Therefore, any source we use who doesn't actually use the term would have to be unambiguously talking about an alleged apartheid system rather than simple racism, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's possible who is talking about that? I was asking a general question about texts that use the word "bantustan." Bantustans were a unique and defining feature of apartheid South Africa. Anyone who invokes bantustans is invoking apartheid, period. Just as surely as anyone who invokes cattle cars and gas chambers is invoking the Holocaust.--G-Dett 07:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim is right that a serious problem with the article as it stands is that "we mix up people who are using the term loosely as an insult and those who are using it seriously." Accordingly, we need to clean up sentences like the following: "The term has been used by diverse groups and individuals across the political spectrum, including Desmond Tutu and other South African anti-apartheid leaders, Jimmy Carter, members of the Knesset, [5] Palestinian-rights activists,[6] the Syrian government,[7] student groups in the UK, U.S., and Canada, [8] the Congress of South African Trade Unions, [9], the Canadian Union of Public Employees, white supremacist David Duke,[10] Holocaust denier Paul Grubach of the Institute for Historical Review,[11] and anti-Semitic groups such as Jew Watch."--G-Dett 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just about everyone uses it as a political epithet, few use it in a technical sense. You'd have to lose almost all of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The notion that "apartheid" is either used in its technical legal sense or it's merely an epithet is a classic false choice, of course. Most people are not aware of the legal definitions of "genocide" or "terrorism"; this does not make any non-technical use of these terms an epithet.

The problem with the motley clutch of "diverse groups and individuals across the political spectrum" listed in the paragraph above is not that some of them, like Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter, know what apartheid is legally and technically, and others, like the members of Jew Watch, don't know and in all likelihood don't care. The problem is that the collection of names throws together prominent and influential people with marginal fruitcakes in a transparent POV-ploy to poison the well through guilt by association. The equivalent would be if in a Wikipedia article on affirmative action, someone were to write, Affirmative action has been vigorously opposed by diverse groups and individuals across the political spectrum, including conservatives, white supremacists, UC Regent Ward Connolly, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, libertarians, Nigger Watch and the Ku Klux Klan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

It's hilarious that our first note on the use of the term is "The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals." Way to poison the well!Grace Note 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what just about the only academic experts who have studied the subject say. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay, can you say how you've concluded that Adam and Moodley are the only academics who've studied the subject?--G-Dett 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One notes also that an enormous amount of space is given to Adam/Moodley and none to the contents of any of the books that make the allegations the article is about. I don't suggest that the authors of the "Israel is an apartheid state" have anything like the credentials of Adam but still, the case for is simply not presented here. And before you say it, no, I'm not going to read the books and add it myself. I find anti-Israeli polemics turgid at best and I hate working on articles in Wikipedia when I know the work will be destroyed as soon as my back is turned. Grace Note 03:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See previous note; they're just about the only academic experts who've studied the subject, and, unlike editors on this Talk: page, they don't have an axe to grind. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Here is the pot calling me black. Your editing record is a testament to the sharpness of your hatchet, Jay. You could try answering the points I made, rather than chasing a strawman. We don't only cite academic experts, Jay, and no one is disputing that their work should be covered here. However, the article is about allegations of blah de blah not work of some guy in Canada on blah de blah, so, you know, perhaps the allegations could be covered and not just your favourite source's pooh-poohing of the allegations? They are ludicrous enough not to need a biased article in Wikipedia to make them look that way. Even so, it's generally used as an epithet, a shitstirring device, so basing an article on an academic who says well, actually, Israel doesn't bear much resemblance to apartheid South Africa is not totally helpful. The people who use the term are by and large aware that it doesn't. So the questions remain: Why do people use the term? Who has done so in what terms? And so on. Okay, that's enough reasoning. I do it for the record, BTW, not because I think you can be swayed by it, so please don't feel you have to "explain" why the article should consist mainly of your views and as little as possible of anyone else's or why articles that are heavily biased to a particular POV, as this and others very much are, are "neutral". I know why. I don't care. Be happy. Grace Note 07:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't include or exclude any specific editors who have an axe to grind, I did answer your points, and hardly any of my views are in this article, since I've barely edited it - I've made only 2.5% of the edits to this article, many of them minor, and seven other editors have edited this article significantly more than me. Adam and Moodley don't say "Israel bear much resemblance etc.", but instead analyze the similarities and differences, and find both. As for analyzing why people use the epithet, etc., that's also exactly what Adam and Moodley do - Wikipedia editors shouldn't be analyzing these things. All in all, it would make sense if you actually had the facts straight before you started lashing out at me in your usual diatribes. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz writer now says it's apartheid.

Shmuel Rosner, the chief U.S. correspondent of Haaretz, wrote, in October 2006, "Notes on Carter's 'apartheid' analogy":

“ Arguing about Apartheid is pointless. There is enough material evidence to prove that apartheid exists in the occupied territories in one form or another. If you argue about the use of this word, you lose. If you argue that Israel is blameless you also lose. The only argument you can make against Carter is about context and the bigger picture. But those who support the apartheid accusation aren't interested in nuance - they chose the word not because of its meaning but rather because of its history. It is a way to de-legitimize Israel's behavior in the West Bank and Gaza, and to turn it into South Africa of the 21st century. This is a false argument. ”

That's a clear statement, from the mainstream Jewish press in Israel. Any questions? --John Nagle 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have a question: So what? This is not a news article, it is the opinion of one person. I have no idea how "mainstream" it is within Israel, I suspect it is not very. While Haaretz news articles are a reliable source of information, an opinion article by a columnist is reflective only of his opinion. (That's one of the problems with this article, it is about nothing but opinions.) I also think that the part of the paragraph that you did not put in bold type changes the emphasis somewhat. It also makes one wonder if this writer has any idea what he is talking about, because at the beginning of the paragraph he seems to be saying that you can't argue factually against the use of the word, but at end he is saying that the use of the analogy rests on a false argument. Seems like doubletalk to me. 6SJ7 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's actually on his blog, for heaven's sake. --Leifern 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7 is right that this particular comment isn't very coherent. It's significant if he's a prominent journalist, and if he's not, not.--G-Dett 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Shmuel Rosner used to be head of news for Haaretz, then head of features, and now chief US correspondent, which would make him a prominent journalist. The article is about Jewish strategy for the 2006 US elections, and he's concerned that Carter's statements might hurt Republicans, which he seems to see as bad for Israel. He writes about a pro-Israel "Republican Jewish Coalition" organization and their ads aimed at US voters. The point he seems to be making is that trying to deny Israeli apartheid is a losing political strategy for Israel. --John Nagle 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He's suggesting Carter's statements might hurt Democrats. The syntax is sloppy and misleading, but when he talks about "Jewish voters and their party" the reference is to the Democratic party.

I think that's right; he was talking about the Democratic party, even though he later points out that Republican support for Israel is stronger than Democratic support. Of course, this was all written pre-election; the post-election political landscape is quite different. Rosner doesn't seem to have addressed the issue since the election. --John Nagle 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If he's prominent, then yes his opinion merits mention in this article, as long as it's fairly represented. 6SJ7 is right that he heavily qualifies his initial statements about the apartheid comparison.--G-Dett 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rosner certainly generates plenty of articles which get published. Check Google for his output. He's spoken at the Hudson Insitute and at the Ohio University School of Journalism. Rabbi Lansberg of Temple Emanu-El speaks highly of him. So he seems to be visible and well thought of as a journalist. --John Nagle 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You have basically just provided a list of his former positions, none of which make him inherantly notable, if you can find another source that refers to how prominent he is in Israel that is one thing, but your current evidence of his prominence seems to essentially be original research. Anyways, his argument seems to mostly consist of rhetorical devices, I'm not even sure if he is really stating that he believes in the Apartheid allegation, it seems more likely that he is commenting on much of the rest of the world believes the allegation. Also, editorials are meant to be provocative, the general concept is that a writer says something to either shock or at least provoke some sort of strong emotion among the readers in order to get them talking with friends and acquaintances, the ultimate goal of which is more or less just to sell more newspapers.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry John, we can only include comment pieces from newspapers and/or journalists when they are supportive of Israel. I tried very, very hard to have a journalist's comments on Rachel Corrie's death, which the journalist had not viewed or even researched, made on her blog, removed, but I was opposed in the most spurious terms. I wouldn't support including this though. I don't think journos should be given any more weight in this encyclopaedia than the guy next door. Grace Note 07:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Shmuel Rosner is very supportive of Israel, and a hard-liner. (See his "The Israeli Public Demands Action from his Leaders", on invading Lebanon.) He's arguing in his apartheid article that continuing to try to deny Israeli apartheid is counterproductive for supporters of Israel. That spin isn't working any more. He wants to refocus on "context and the bigger picture", which probably means talking about apartheid as being necessary for Israel's security. --John Nagle 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, on this topic we actually have academics who have written about it as their area of expertise, so of course they'd take precedence over journalists - I'm not aware of academics with an expertise in Rachel Corrie, perhaps you are. In lieu of subject experts, journalists certainly qualify as reliable sources. Also, recalling your Rachel Corrie edits, I note that you complained that the article only said Corrie was "killed" when trying to block the tractor, and that this didn't assign enough blame, though you had previously insisted that the Ma'alot massacre article should say the children killed in that massacre had merely "died", since any other reference to their "mode of deceasing", as you put it, would be assigning blame. A sad day for NPOV, that's for sure. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" vs "Israeli Apartheid"

Why does this page exist at "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid"? Something doesn't have to necessarily exist in order for there to be a page at "Israeli Apartheid." BhaiSaab ^talk 19:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the Israel lobby here has a major cow if they don't get their way about this. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid for the long, sad, story. --John Nagle 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the "Israeli lobby." Certain editors who do not need to be named refuse to allow the page to be moved to the consenus title because they are convinced political correctness overrules Wikipedia's policies. It's the same thing with the nonsense page on "Islamic extremist terrorism." Discussion on this point is muted, every time, before it can seriously begin. KazakhPol 01:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you use the phrase "Israeli lobby." If a Muslim editor uses that phrase on Wikipedia, people start shouting "Anti-Semite!!!" I find the title somewhat ridiculous, because it sets a precedent for every controversial article to be moved to "Allegations of..." BhaiSaab ^talk 03:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not set a precedent because the same people who insisted on it will insist on not moving pages they approve of. Grace Note 07:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be okay moving the page to Israeli apartheid if the article were then strictly limited to the rhetorical uses of the term and did not at all discuss the underlying political issues. But somehow I think that would actually intensify the acrimony over this topic. I suspect that many, though possibly not all, the editors who want this move are motivated by their (completely false) conviction that Israel actually practices apartheid and want to hijack the premise with the title. --Leifern 15:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Those who want to move do have precedent and consistency on their side. Pages like New Antisemitism discuss at great length the issues underlying their equally controversial theories, and don't have titles beginning Allegations of. Indeed, Leifern, can you name some other pages beginning with the phrase Allegations of? I don't know of any, and the reasoning offered for it here – like so much else on this litigious talk page – smacks of special pleading.--G-Dett 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me turn it around on you - how many articles do you know of that have a title that begs the question? For example, Palestinian terrorism redirects to Palestinian political violence, etc. The issue - and this should be clear by now - is that a number of us will not concede that there is such a thing as Israeli apartheid for the simple reason that the facts don't support such an allegation. We do of course accept that many people say there is such a thing, and that some of them may even believe there is, and that this should be discussed; but that just don't make it so. --Leifern 15:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

More special pleading, it seems. A Wikipedia title without a disclaimer is not a concession that all reasonable people agree the thing exists. See the pages on God, New Antisemitism, and the Tooth Fairy for a range of examples.--G-Dett 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the examples you provide do not specifically attribute something bad to someone in particular. I suspect that an article titled Left-wing antisemitism would be allowed to stand. This is all about making the right distinctions. --Leifern 16:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The theory covered by the New Antisemitism article posits that human-rights-oriented critics of Israel are ideologically in league with Jew-haters and Jew-baiters. How on earth you've concluded that this doesn't attribute something bad to someone in particular is beyond me. "Making the right distinctions" indeed; talk about begging the question.--G-Dett 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see it makes no such ideological connection. Your misrepresentation of the article and underlying concept speaks volumes about your own bias on this issue. --Leifern 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cut the nonsense, Leifern. NAS makes exactly that ideological connection. If you wish it didn't or think it shouldn't, go and edit it rather than trying to have things both ways.--G-Dett 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been involved in editing this article, know the content (and disputes) quite intimately, and can only tell you that you are absolutely wrong. Either you're deliberately misrepresenting things here, or you are interpreting the article according to your own beliefs. But please, show me how there's an "ideological connection." --Leifern 22:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's where, Leifern:

1. 'Jack Fischel, chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that the new anti-Semitism is a new phenomenon stemming from what he calls an "unprecedented coalition" of enemies: "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe ... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.'

2. 'The French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff argues that Judenhass based on racism and nationalism has been replaced by a new form based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. He identifies some of its main features as the use of anti-racism for anti-Jewish purposes.'

3. 'Although the Arab-Israeli conflict has produced real tragedy for Palestinians, Bauer suggests that Western latent antisemitism has fastened onto that tragedy in order to brand the Jews as mass murderers and Nazis as a way of solving the West's own psychological problems caused by the Holocaust.'

4. 'Those who argue in favor of the centrality of the left to the new anti-Semitism say that anti-Zionism may function as a proxy for anti-Semitism, allowing a socially acceptable opposition to the Israeli state to be espoused, rather than a socially unacceptable religious or ethnic hatred. At the same time, genuine grievances against Israel stemming from the Arab-Israeli conflict may become anti-Semitic in character and may manifest themselves as hostility toward Jews in general.'

5. 'Professor David Cesarani of Royal Holloway, University of London gave evidence that anti-Semitism "no longer has any resemblance to classical Nazi-style Jew hatred, because it is masked by or blended inadvertently into anti-Zionism, and because it is often articulated in the language of human rights. [78] The report states that ignorance of the history of anti-Semitism means that some may not even realize that the language and imagery they use are part of the tradition of anti-Semitic discourse.'

6. 'Gerry Gable, publisher of the anti-fascist Searchlight magazine, agrees that "a lot of anti-semitism is driven by the left. There are elements who take up a position on Israel and Palestine which in reality puts them in league with anti-Semites."'

If you want more examples I'll supply them. NAS is genuinely saturated in examples of this connection, naturally enough, because it is one of its central topics. If this diversion of yours was a bluff, consider it called; if a flirtation with deniability, consider it, uh, implausible.--G-Dett 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In none of the examples you supply is there either expressed or implied an ideological confluence. All it says is that some supposed right-wingers, some supposed left-wingers, and some supposed-Muslims seem to find common ground in irrational hatred of Jews. In addition to that, these are all quotes from people who hold such views; the article only presents these and draws no further conclusions. So, there was no bluff, no plausible deniability, and you proved my point. --Leifern 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You know the look on a Vegas dealer's face when a bad gambler on a losing streak keeps doubling up? Equal parts pity, contempt, exasperation, and morbid fascination? Picture my face however you like, Leifern, and then imagine that look on it. I say "ideologically in league with Jew-haters and Jew-baiters," you leap on the phrase and accuse me of bad faith, bias, and misrepresentation; then when cornered with examples you offer up this weaselly substitute: "seem to find common ground in irrational hatred of Jews." To say you're drawing distinctions without differences would be high flattery for this gibberish. NAS only presents views and draws no conclusions? Same goes for this article. So to return to the question that prompted your ridiculously ill-advised challenge: why does this article need a disclaimer in the title, while NAS doesn't?--G-Dett 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

G-Dett, I can only deal with what you write and assume that you attach significant meaning to the words you choose. You wrote that a) an article about a controversy (new antisemitism) draws a conclusion about the controversy, which it doesn't; b) that the title draws that conclusion, which it doesn't; c) that the article - anywhere - asserts ideological common ground between otherwise disparate groups, which it doesn't. And I must repeat my previous point, which is that the title for the article on new antisemitism doesn't attribute antisemitism to a particular group, while Israeli apartheid would. It's a distinction you haven't addressed, but which must be central to this discussion. As for your pity, scorn, etc., I really couldn't give a shit. I don't do this to earn your respect, which - to be honest - isn't worth anything to me. --Leifern 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, by all means do attach significant meaning to my words, instead of misquoting them. The words of mine that plunged you headlong into this folly were these: "The theory covered by the New Antisemitism article posits that human-rights-oriented critics of Israel are ideologically in league with Jew-haters and Jew-baiters." Read that as slowly as you need to, Leifern, and mouth the words aloud if it helps. Especially the ones I've italicized for you. When you're finished, review your points (a), (b), and (c) above: you will notice that they instantly evaporate. That leaves your latest distinction without a difference: "the title for the article on new antisemitism doesn't attribute antisemitism to a particular group, while Israeli apartheid would." More balderdash. Both theories covered by these articles (one, that Israel practices a form of apartheid, and two, that there is a new form of antisemitism in which left-wing criticism of Israeli policies is ideologically convergent with right-wing Jew-baiting and Arab opposition to the Jewish state) are hotly debated; both posit phenomena the existence of which is denied by many prominent voices in reliable sources; and both attribute something very negative indeed to specific groups of people. But only one of these two articles includes in its title a disclaimer phrase, casting doubt upon the validity of the theory it covers.

I know very well it's not my respect you're after. But there is your own self-respect to consider, and in the interests of that you might search out firmer ground for the next shrilly mounted challenge.--G-Dett 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There are also dozens of WP articles with the specific disclaimer 'Allegation..' in their title, and dozens more with other disclaimers. This is not about the 'Israeli lobby' or any some such - but about the simple fact that you have failed to reach a consensus for your favored title, presumably because your arguments for it are unconvincing. It is time to let it go. Isarig 16:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nor is there any consensus for the current title. The reason it stays is because of the ideological dedication and administrative muscle of a handful of editors. You're right that this has nothing to do with any "lobby" in the formal sense, but it has even less to do with convincing arguments.--G-Dett 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

G-Dett, start a blog, write opinion pieces in the thousands of places that welcome such things on the web, if you have such an overwhelming urge to demonize Israel. But I'm not going to apologize that we don't just go along with your opinion here. --Leifern 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Have I said a word about Israel here, Leifern? Wikipedia has certain standards which you would do well to respect; they are undermined by special pleading. Watch the slurs, and keep your demagoguery in check.--G-Dett 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I dont know who you are and what your problem is, but I think you had better withdraw that statement. Nothing said so far was said necessarily with the intent of 'demonising' a sovereign state. On the contrary, if you find yourself incapable of assuming good faith on this issue, you had best edit elsewhere. Hornplease 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please. It was G-Dett who is reading things into articles that don't exist, and also talks about a conspiracy to subvert other points of view. He/she has made his/her bias pretty clear. I'll assume good faith, but when someone shows their colors, I am free to make a constructive suggestion, which is to take his/her point of view to a more suitable venue than Wikipedia. By rights, this article shouldn't even exist.--Leifern 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

contribs) 19:28, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I think he was attempting to put his arguments out there, which is what a talkpage is for. You read a motivation into his arguments other than good faith. There's a difference. I notice that you think sending a non-abusive user off the encyclopaedia is a constructive suggestion. Please, take a moment. Try editing something about the English Premier League, perhaps, to calm down. Hornplease 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

People sometimes forget that there is nothing in the AGF policy that instructs users to "be stupid". G-Dett almost has explicitly stated what Leifern called him on, encouraging him to "edit other articles" because of this sounds rather ridiculous, especially when it is just coming from another superfluous partisan like Hornplease.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease, I don't know what your motivations are, where you get your ideas or sense of reality from, but one thing I do know, is that you have absolutely no basis to judge my emotional state. --Leifern 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you would agree that you were over-reacting a little. That clearly didn't work. My basis for judging your 'emotional state', as you so breathlessly put it, were the things you typed up above. My suggestion still stands: calm down. Hornplease 09:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I suggest to G-Dett that a better place for him to promote his opinion is the many other places on the web intended for such things is ehm overreacting, but your suggestion to edit the English Premiere League is constructive, I guess. And for pointing out that you know nothing about my emotional state, I am told that I am "breathless" and to "calm down." --Leifern 22:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This response is for the record, not for Leifern.

I have not suggested the existence of any "conspiracy." The editorial cooperation I pointed to happens in broad daylight, not in some back room, and is animated by ideological affinities, not secret association and coordination. There are no invisible machinations of any sort. What I referred to in passing is, in other words, by definition non-conspiratorial. Leifern has invoked this bogus word because antisemitism (both historical and contemporary) has always trafficked in conspiracy theories, and Leifern hopes to contaminate me with that.

Nor have I "demonized" Israel, as Leifern claimed in that nasty little fit of demagoguery. I have indeed barely mentioned Israel on this page. My focus here has been the sophistry, special pleading, and double standards which have characterized editorial decisions about the content of this article.--G-Dett 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion page for an encyclopedia article, it is not here for you to write generalized descriptions of your editing habits and your problems with wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't the place to discuss problems with editorial decisions about article content? Do try to make sense, Moshe. Irony is not your metiér.--G-Dett 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Except you were not discussing "editorial decisions about article content", you were essentially going on a whiny tangent about people not accepting your ideas. Also, I am not sure what you think the definition of irony is, but according to the english language I said nothing ironic nor even came close to attemping to in my last statement.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to address the statement that appears in this section that there was no consensus for the current title of the article. As I have pointed out before, that is clearly incorrect. The accepted procedures were followed to determine whether a consensus existed, and a consensus (as defined for this purpose) was achieved. Although I know there have been some moves to change certain procedures on Wikipedia, I assume that there is still a polling procedure for requests for page moves. If you want to change the name, follow the procedure and see if you get a consensus to change it. This is exactly what had to be done to change the name from its original title ("Israeli apartheid"), and it is only fair that the same hurdles be jumped by those who want to change it back. 6SJ7 04:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Does 'consensus' here mean something other than what I think it does? a division of votes between two mutually exclusive alternatives, in which one receives a substantial minority of votes, is called a consensus on WP? (I'm not being sarcastic.) Hornplease 09:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, did you know that there was a poll last summer that covered exactly this? [9]There was consensus for the current title. The discussion and other events around the poll were so divisive that, believe me, a lot of people don't want to go through that again. Kla'quot 08:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, and I did look at the poll. I enquired about the term "consensus" when there was no such thing, as consensus is understood off WP. As you say, it was 'divisive'. Several arguments used there - centering around the fact that the phrase is a propagandist creation which WP should not give additional credence to - make less sense now that the meme has caught on, and WP can report rather than create it. I have said this already, elsewhere on this page.

You may not want to go through that again, I may not want to write long paragraphs on this page, but the real world doesnt wait on our desires. Hornplease 08:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone's counted, but unless Wikipedia is to devolve into a mob rule, there should be a clear consensus about a title that captures the premise for a controversial topic. By titling this article "Israeli apartheid," Wikipedia (at least) implicitly accepts the premise that Israel practices apartheid - which is clearly yours and G-Dett's opinion. Unless we are willing to accept an article titled "Jimmy Carter's antisemitism," we should not let this fly here - unless we are willing to limit the scope of this article only to the rhetorical uses of the phrase itself. --Leifern 22:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WP doesnt accept any such thing by changing the title. See the discussion below. Since you have made assumptions about my personal views on the matter that are unwarranted by any of my statements here - assumptions which are, in fact, wrong - and you seem to think that "Carters antisemitism" is as common a meme as "Israeli Apartheid", I think you really don't qualify, either in terms of civility or awareness, for further personal discussion. Anyone else have an opinion about the move? Hornplease 07:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to ignore your blatant personal attacks. Are we measuring the prevalence as memes now? What are the measures for that? Either we have editorial principles or not. --Leifern 13:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I don't think Allegations of Israeli apartheid is perfect, but it's a lot better than Israeli apartheid. Here's why: "Israeli apartheid" is not a distinct political term. Apartheid is the political term, and "Israeli apartheid" is an application of that term. People apply the term "apartheid" colloquially towards a lot of things, and in all cases it means the same thing: systemic discrimination that reminds someone of South Africa. My preference for a title would be Israeli apartheid analogy but it's not worth fighting for. Kla'quot 08:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, Islamofascism is an application of the term 'fascism' to Islam. Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, also. The point is that while apartheid is used as an analogy elsewhere, the one that is common enough now is the Israeli comparison. Hornplease 08:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your position. I consider the title of this article a terrible precedent to set. Homosexual agenda, white supremacy, Intelligent Design, Benevolent dictator are all examples of articles that make very controversial claims, but are not qualified with "allegations of...". If we are using precedent, why not examine Allegations of domestic violence and Domestic violence. One article deals with the term, and the other article deals with legal charges that may or may not be true. I say, if we have an article on Allegations of Israeli apartheid, that article should discuss the allegations, and we should have a seperate article called Israeli apartheid. (barring that, if we don't have enough content to create a spinout article, it makes much more sense to just have the title Israeli apartheid). I honestly do not understand why this upsets people so much. Wikipedia is not taking a stance by having an article describing a controversial term. Look at my 4 examples above. It doesn't upset me that there is an article called white supremacy, because I understand that this is a term, and it doesn't mean that wikipedia believes white people are supreme. This seems like a simple naming convention issue. We use the most common name for something. There is no acception about adding POV qualifiers. It isn't Allegations of a homosexual agenda, it's just homosexual agenda.--Andrew c 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But, of course, we do have articles like Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, and, indeed, Allegations of apartheid, of which this is a daughter article, much like Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba. Believe me, attempts to put the latter at Cuban apartheid, or even Cuban tourist apartheid, were mightily resisted. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"State terrorism by United States of America" is not a simple, common term. The majority of the 266 google hits are wikipedia mirrors of the "allegations..." page. "Cuban apartheid" similarly gets 173 google hits ("Cuban tourist apartheid" gets 25). How many google hits does "Israeli apartheid" get? Is this article simply about legal allegations, or also about the term? How much of this article is devoted to actual criminal allegations (i.e. before a court) vs. its use as an epithet? I maintain that this article is primary describing a controversial term, and that wikipedia naming conventions should require us to use the simple term itself as the title. Yeah, its a controversial term, but that doesn't stop us from naming other articles by what it most commonly used. I feel adding "allegations" is not only inaccurate, but also the reasoning behind its inclusion is dubious. We make an article NPOV by not giving undue weight to minority views, and qualifying and substantiating controversial positions, and always, always citing reliable sources. We don't try to add ackward modifiers to the title in order to try and be more 'neutral'. The 4 articles I named above (concerning controversial terms), would you consider adding the word "allegations" in front of those titles in order to make them more neutral as well? Because I really see no different between the allegations of a homosexual agenda and 'allegations' of an Israeli apartheid. --Andrew c 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, fun with Google. Googling +American +"state terrorism" gets 383,000 hits, and even "American state terrorism" gets 12,200 hits, and they're all pretty much related to the topic. Similarly "tourist apartheid" and "tourism apartheid" together get over 2,600 hits. Even +"medical apartheid" +cuba gets 625 hits. Regarding naming of articles, when it's about controversial claims, the word "allegation" or "alleged" is often used in titles; see also Alleged North Korean human experimentation, Alleged 1991 drug business involvement of Álvaro Uribe, Alleged plot against Ratu Iloilo, 2000, Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials, Allegations of labor exploitation in the chocolate industry, Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état etc. At one point editors did try to keep this article mostly about the term itself, which might have helped your case, but other editors felt that the purpose of the article was to expose Israel's "crimes" in detail, so here we are. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the rename proposal, and in fact, i was to propose it myself before reading this, and i was going to use Islamofascism as my argument. But i see it has already been done. "Israeli apartheid" gets 315 000 hits. This is a real term, and it needs to be covered as such. Regarding "At one point editors did try to keep this article mostly about the term itself, which might have helped your case, but other editors felt that the purpose of the article was to expose Israel's "crimes" in detail, so here we are.", its easy, just split out the allegations from the term, creating two articles, just as proposed above. --Striver 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, Alleged North Korean human experimentation, Alleged 1991 drug business involvement of Álvaro Uribe, Alleged plot against Ratu Iloilo, 2000, Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials, Allegations of labor exploitation in the chocolate industry, Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état are all about alleged incidents, none is about a term. --Striver 05:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and this article is all about allegations as well. If we restricted it solely to the term "Israel apartheid" (as, for example, the Islamofascism article is restricted to the term Islamofascism), this article would be considerably shorter. This entire discussion has been covereed, at length, on the Talk: page; it would be helpful it people read that and the archives before re-hashing old debates. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Maybe we do need two seperate articles after all. One covering the term itself, and one covering specific legal allegations. Islamofascism is a great counter example. Don't get me wromg, I understand Jayjg's concerns. However, I do not believe this article is currently, for the most part, describing specific allegations, but instead describing the term's use. As for the google fun. I'm not saying that people do not accuse the US of state terrorism. I'm saying that "State terrorism by United States of America" and "Cuban apartheid" are not terms on the same level as Israeli partheid. Same for the large "allegations" list. Those are not terms, but specific controversial incidents. If this article was different, I could understand its current title. But as it stands, I really, really don't see the issue with removing "allegations". But perhaps we could create 2 articles to cover both uses, right?--Andrew c 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, others really, really see an issue with changing the name, and would see an even greater issue with having two articles on a subject that deserves none. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not a reply to Andrew's argument, merely a statement of belief. Hornplease 07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to Andrew at length on his Talk: page, and your statement is not a response to mine, merely finger-wagging. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That is right, either rename or split: we can not have Israeli apartheid as a redirect. --Striver 19:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course we can have Israeli apartheid as a re-direct; the only reasonable alternative would be to delete it (and this article) entirely, but I suspect you would disapprove of that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was that we need to have an article about the term, it can't be a redirect. --Striver 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a "point", it's an assertion, and an incorrect one. We already have an article about the term - this one! Not that it particularly enhances Wikipedia to have it. On the contrary. In a better encyclopedia neither this article nor the re-direct would exist. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, did you notice Allegations of state sponsored terrorism by Syria and Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, mentioned above? They're not about "incidents". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, i suppose you will go to the islamofascis article and support renaming it to "allgations of islamofascism"? Or is it only in America and Israel related articles that you support having "allegations" in the title? And yes. we also need a "American terrorism" article for covering the term, considering the notability of the term. --Striver 17:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, the Islamofascism article isn't about "allegations", it's about the term. As has been stated previously, the editors there are very careful to keep any actual allegations out of the article, so the phrase "Allegations" would not make sense. Please pay attention to previous discussions so that we don't have to repeat them. That said, I have supported renaming "Islamofascism" to something more neutral, like "Islamofascism (epithet)" or "Islamofascism (term)", but attempts by editors on this page to get the article renamed have been rebuffed; see [10]. Next, it's quite odd that you seem to have missed the example of an article involving "Allegations" and Syria - can you explain that oversight? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Because i know nothing about it, i do not know if it is a prominent term and i know almost nothing about syria. --Striver 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these two examples create a helpful distinction and shed light on how we should be using the word "allegations." Insofar as Allegations of state sponsored terrorism by Syria (I haven't yet read the article by the way) is about actions which Syria stands accused of but denies, such as the assassination of Hariri in Lebanon, "allegations" is exactly the right word. But where the dispute is about a choice of words, or a metaphor used to describe an action that everyone agrees indeed took place, I think "allegations" is the wrong word. I don't think for example it would make sense to talk about the "allegation of state terrorism" in the case of the Syrian massacre at Hama. Most people call it a massacre; the Syrian government calls it counter-insurgency; others call it state terrorism, and so on – but for the most part the facts and details are a matter of the historical record, not of "allegations." The same goes for this article. The policies and practices being discussed here – checkpoints, the building of the wall/fence/barrier whatever, the Jewish-only highways in the occupied territories, etc. – are largely a matter of consensus from a strictly factual perspective. The question is how to interpret or characterize, legitimize or delegitimize, etc. this state of affairs. I think "allegations" is entirely the wrong word for disputes about fair/unfair characterizations. If some people were saying that West Bank Palestinians don't have the same access to water sources that Jewish settlers do, and the Israeli government for its part were denying this – then we'd have an "allegation."

In short, "allegations" should not be a POV-word on Wikipedia. It has a concrete and neutral meaning. There is no doubt (or very little doubt anyway) in my mind that Syria assassinated Hariri, but I think it should be called what it is: "the alleged Syrian assassination of Hariri."

Same goes for Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (and again, I have yet to read it). If it's about whether our actions in Central America or Indonesia or Vietnam or whatever constitute terrorism, then we should drop the "allegations of" because it's just a POV-phrase. "U.S. State Terrorism" is a prominent enough concept for the American and international left (and has been for some forty years now) that it deserves to be treated as an article, just like Islamofascism or whatever. On the other hand, specific charges that the U.S., for example, engineered car bombings or assassinations during the Lebanese civil war, should, if denied by the U.S., be described as "allegations" by Wikipedia regardless of whether individual editors find them plausible.

When a concept enjoys wide and sustained usage, then to treat it on its own terms is not to advance or propagate it. "Intelligent design" and "New Antisemitism" are both fine as article titles in my eyes, even though I think the theory covered in each is tendentious BS. The debate about this article should not be whether it's fair, true, or hateful, but whether the concept has legs, is enduring, is widely or only very marginally used, etc. We should either drop it (on the basis of its being too fringey a usage) or we should keep it as "Israeli Apartheid," because this article is not for the most part about allegations. --G-Dett 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be splitting hairs here; both articles are about multiple allegations made against Syria and United States regarding their activities, and whether or not they constitute terrorism. The only reason they don't go into the same depth of analysis as this article is the obvious one; Israel is always singled out for special negative treatment. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Obloquy, you mean.

Not that this is especially relevant or anything, but do you think there are instances where Israel is singled out for special positive treatment?

I can see how it would seem like hair-splitting, but I really don't think it is. It's not hair-splitting to note the difference between allegations that the United States engineered the 9/11 attacks, on the one hand, and descriptions of the bombing of Nagasaki as state terrorism on the other. The latter belongs in an article called "U.S. State Terrorism," which describes the origins of the concept and what it purports to explain, leaving readers to form their conclusions; while the former belongs in an article (or article subsection) called "Allegations of U.S. state terrorism" which would briefly list other such charges and tell readers where they could out more.

"Allegations" has an objective and neutral meaning, and we shouldn't be using it to nudge Wikipedia readers one way or another on an issue. If I were a casual user of Wikipedia with no sense of its subterranean world of talk-page politics, who happened upon this article, I'd think its subject was practices the existence of which were in dispute. Like "allegations of torture in Israeli detention centers" or the like. We shouldn't be confusing allegations with analogies, and we shouldn't be trying to shape the reader's reaction to a subject by massaging its title.--G-Dett 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I got tired of putting "obloquy" in every other comment. :-) As for your other statement, it seems to me that you are now assuming that it is a fact that Israel practices apartheid; in reality, there is a great deal of dispute over whether or not Israel practices "apartheid", and this article is filled with various allegations regarding specific practices, and the pretexts people use to brand them as "apartheid". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should be tiring of teasing you about "obloquy." I looked up its etymology, by the way. I think its etymological opposite, if we can call it that, is "eulogy." But the meaning of obloquy seems to have been cross-contaminated by 'oblique', which obviously has a different root system. Shakespeare plays on the these tangled roots in Timon of Athens: "All's obliquie: There's nothing leuell in our cursed Natures But direct villanie."

I don't think Israeli apartheid is a fact. Far from it. I just think the Israeli practices some liken to apartheid are facts, for the most part not in dispute. There's certainly little evidence that they're in dispute in this article. Do I have this wrong? I don't think so. It's not like Israel officials are saying, 'hey, the West Bank settlements are open to all,' and the Palestinians saying, 'Well, no, they make it difficult for us to live there,' and so on. That would be an allegation. The apartheid "meme" (as someone around here is calling it) is a characterization, an analogy, an interpretation, whatever, and it may well offend many, maybe rightly so, but it's not an allegation, and no, it's certainly not a fact. --G-Dett 20:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You call it "a characterization, an analogy, an interpretation, whatever"; underlying all of those is the allegation that Israel is practicing some form of apartheid. In fact, many who make the allegation consider it far worse that the real apartheid, regardless of the absurdness of the claim. Naming the article "Israeli apartheid" would be a violation of NPOV, since it would be giving undue weight to extremist views. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You tell me: Is "Israeli apartheid" a prominently used term of not? Yes or no? --Striver 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking me, Jay, or everybody? I think the answer may have been debatable once, but is no longer. The concept has legs, for a wide variety of people, as the article itself acknowledges. --G-Dett 19:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"The concept has legs, for a wide variety of people...", just as Jewish lobby, the Protocols of Zion, etc. This is an allegation and should be titled as such. Take your petty politicking elsewhere. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither the Jewish Lobby article nor the Protocols of the Elders of Zion article have the words "allegations of" in their title. Should they?--G-Dett 21:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Protocols is not an allegation, it is a fabrication. I don't know about the Jewish lobby. Some users seem to know more since they run around screaming about it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Outdated comments on proposed renaming

The following comments were written before the proposed renaming was properly listed at WP:RM so I have moved them out of the section below to avoid confusing people:
I just noticed there is a "Requested Move" template at the top of this section. It says the request has been listed at WP:RM but I do not see it there, so I don't know whether the correct procedure is being followed here. I also am not quite sure that the procedure for these things is the same is it was the last time I participated in such a request. I don't see anyone voting oops, I mean listing whether they support or oppose a move with the words "Support" or "Oppose" at the beginning. But I will do it anyway: [The first comment under "Rename" then followed, and several comments down was the following, with "bullet" and bold type now removed.]
Update: As far as I can tell right now, there is no valid "move poll" going on here. I see that the "Requested Move" tag has been removed, most likely because it was never listed in the proper place. I am not even sure who put that tag there, or when. The "Opinions" sub-heading probably should be removed as well. 6SJ7 12:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then ill fix it. --Striver 12:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename

{{rename|Israeli apartheid}}

Support

1. Support per Jewish lobby, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and Islamofascism, none of with contains any qualificator, and they should not, since the term are notable enough on their own, just as this term is, obviously. --Striver 07:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Israeli Apartheid isn't a term which can have an article about it (e.g. Islamofascism which doesn't imply that Islam as a whole is fascist), it's a clear statement - that Israel is practicing apartheid. This is in itself POV and therefore an article shouldn't be named as such. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Support. This article should not be singled out this way. ForkInTheGravy 07:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per Striver. --- ALM 12:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support as the article presents facts. It is the explanation for these actions that can be challenged i.e. why Israel is apratheid, but facts of happening are definitely out there. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, strongly, because this article is not about allegations. It is alleged that Israel practices torture in detention centers; Israel denies it. It is alleged that Israel has nuclear weapons; Israel refuses to confirm or deny. But the practices and policies addressed in this article are not alleged by one party and denied by another; everyone agrees they're happening - the debate is whether they're fairly compared to apartheid. "Allegation" does not mean comparison, or interpretation, or condemnation, or epithet; and it should not be used as a POV-word to shape a reader's response to this article.--G-Dett 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   By that logic, the article might as well be renamed Libel against Israel's defense policy or Defensive policies of Israel against terrorism. --Leifern 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Support, for above reasons, and also because reasonable interpretations widely made are referenceable phenomena. That is, a different interpretation could also be a NPOV phenomena. So we could simultaneously have Israeli apartheid and Israeli security measures. Consider also wage slavery and capitalism, which is honestly the best analogy I can find. Slavery is a well-defined system of coerced labor, but labor leaders in the northern U.S. (and later socialists, anarchists and others) charged that waged labor was also coerced and suffered through. IMHO, the case for Israeli apartheid is much stronger and clearly much more widely accepted (though obviously wage slavery is a minority opinion at present), so a fortiori, it should be considered as a phenomenon, not an accusation.--Carwil 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong support, although I suspect this vote won't actually solve anything. CJCurrie 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Qualified support. I agree with G-Dett that the word "allegation" is wrong. I'm not completely convinced, though, that there might not be some better term we could use. john k 20:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong support thank you Striver. KazakhPol 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support "allege" is a WP:WTA. //Dirak 11:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Now that President Jimmy Carter and a top Haaretz editor say it's real, denial just looks silly. --John Nagle 07:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That is called "appealing to authority" and is considered a logical fallacy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for all the reasons I have stated on the talk page since last May, including the last poll, I mean, consensus-determining procedure, which approved the move to the current title. This was not my first choice for a title, but the fact is, the article is about allegations, actually it is about propaganda, so if anyone wants to change it to "Israeli apartheid" propaganda, with the quotation marks in the title, I'm ok with that, but I am doubtful that this would achieve consensus. The current title did, and so it should remain. 6SJ7 04:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per long-established consensus. Beit Or 12:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose, and strongly. Such a renaming would amount to hijacking the premise and begging the question. --Leifern 13:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Opposeper 6SJ7 and Beit Or and WP:POINT Elizmr 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - not again. Consensus was hard enough to build the first dozen times, lets not undermine all that now. Tewfik^Talk 18:14, 14 December 2006
6. Oppose Once again, renaming would take an implicit pov, I would also point out that the claim that there is not precedent for this kind of title is patently false as many people have pointed out many such wikipedia titles above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong oppose - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soap box for politically motivated distortions. -- Olve 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per WP:NPOV, Allegations of apartheid, Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, Allegations of state sponsored terrorism by Syria, Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials, Allegations of labor exploitation in the chocolate industry, Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - per 6SJ7, Beit Or, Leifern, Elizmr, Tewfik, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Olve, Jayjg and many others (see earlier polls). I find the current title POV, but the proposed one is much worse. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Evolver of Borg 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Jayjg. It's exactly what I did first... I put "Allegations" in "Search" and 'BAM' dozens of Allegations articles popped. So what's the problem ? This is really the issue - the Allegations. This is what's interesting - these allegations. This is also the issue of the article - the allegations. Therefore, name should be Allegations. Amoruso 22:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per ForkInTheGravy, this article should not be singled out. There are several "Allegations" articles. This is consistent with content and precedent. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Article isn't about 'Israeli Apartheid'. Seriously - read the thing. It's about the allegations of Israeli Apartheid. This isn't a POV, it's a statement of fact. Bibigon 03:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose The article is already a POV can o' worms; it doesn't need a namechange to make it worse. Tzaquiel 06:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per own comment in support section. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Gzuckier 14:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose for the reasons already stated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose for POV reasons GabrielF 03:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose Shlomke 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose A name change just seems to add to an already heated and charged term. Keep it from getting out of hand. NYC2TLV 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename to "Comparisons between Israel and apartheid" (or similar)

1. I think this is better than either. I agree with G-Dett that the word "allegations" is inaccurate. —Ashley Y 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   There's something I don't understand here. If Israel is Aprtheid then what is the Palestinian Authority ? No Jews can safely enter the PA these days let alone be its citizens or have religious freedom that's obvious (see Joseph's tomb, the ancient synagogue in Gaza - you even know something like that existed?) etc. And how about Syria ? Are there any Jews in Syria ? What happened to them ? Why ? And Egypt ? What's going on with Egypt and its lost Jews ? and its treatment to Copts? Are we really allowing this propoganda to take place in the context of the middle east ? How can Israel of all nations in the Islamic Arabic Middle East(Saudi Arabia's constitution doesn't allow anyone to become a citizen who is not MUSLIM!) be the one who has an article with the word "Apartheid" in its title ? Does this makes sense to anyone ? Amoruso 05:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   The PA is clearly a Bantustan. john k 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The PA that was created by Arafat and Hamas ? Amoruso 12:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree with Ashley - something along these lines would, I think, be better, although I'd like to see some work on getting the wording better. john k 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename to "Israel and Apartheid"

I suggest renaming to "Israel and Apartheid". This broadens the topic, which is of course not always a good thing, but I suspect in this case it would enrich the article. I have not researched this broader topic in any depth, but the abstract for an academic paper entitled Israel and South Africa: The Unnatural Alliance, which I found very quickly by a google search on "Israel SADF" is enough to satisfy me at least that this is fertile ground. For instance I don't think anyone would dispute that Israel and the South African Apartheid regime faced very similar strategic problems, namely those of being surrounded by hostile neighbours and having a large and predominantly hostile subaltern ethnic group within its own borders. It is also known that there were trade connections between the two states, including arms sales. And because we also know that the Apartheid regime was for many decades successful at counterinsurgency, it would be surprising, or even astonishing (well to me at least), if we were to find that the government or the military of Israel never looked to Apartheid South Africa for solutions to its own political and military problems.

So the title "Israel and Apartheid" would have three big advantages:

1. It would put allegations of Israeli Apartheid (true or not) in a fuller (and very interesting) historical context.
2. It would make it possible to consider the alleged similarity between the South African Apartheid regime and Israel as one of degree rather than a yes/no question (although it would still of course be important to acknowledge that many people claim that Israel practises full-fledged apartheid while many others deny this adamantly).
3. Because the title would no longer explicitly reference Israeli apartheid (real or imagined) as opposed to South African apartheid, it would cease to be so contentious which would mean we could avoid another painful debate like this in future. Yes, it would be fudge, but a rather good and reasonable one nonetheless.

I hope the above makes sense because I am extremely tired right now. Apologies if it is at all garbled. Ireneshusband 08:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense but your idea is little different from many other previous proposals.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - for the record, I want to note that TruthSpreader^Talk, Carwil, and probably G-Dett justify their position by claiming that the allegation is true. Q.E.D. for those who oppose. --Leifern 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Ashley's is the best alternate suggestion I've seen, especially if we replace "Israel" with "the Israeli occupation." (Are any of the people who use this term referring to Israel itself?) As for "the record," let my position appear there in my own clear words and not Leifern's confused ones.--G-Dett 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Striver has noted that the overwhelming majority of articles with the word "allegations" in their titles, including those that have been named by our opponents on this page – Alleged North Korean human experimentation, Alleged 1991 drug business involvement of Álvaro Uribe, Alleged plot against Ratu Iloilo, 2000, Allegations of labor exploitation in the chocolate industry, Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état, etc. – are about alleged incidents, not controversial descriptions. The exceptions – that is, the cases when what are not "allegations" to be proved/disproved but rather descriptions to be debated, are nevertheless mislabelled "allegations" in their titles – occur only when the subject is not merely controversial but taboo. An example of this kind of solecism would be Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, which (with the exception of the Nicaragua section) deals not with allegations legal or otherwise but rather with provocative comparisons. Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials on the other hand is appropriate (however syntactically hapless, evoking as it does Crawford Ranch under siege), because the topic is legal charges, remote as the possibility of those may be. The point here is that Wikipedia shouldn't be misusing words, shouldn't be POV-massaging the titles of articles, and maybe most importantly, shouldn't and usually doesn't tiptoe around taboos. We've got pictures of these on this thing, for G-d's sake.--G-Dett 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that summs up my view. There are articles about alledged events, and then there are real events that are called controversial stuff. This is of the latter, ie the facts of the events are not disputed while Alleged North Korean human experimentation is of the former, ie, the facts of the events are disputed. When the facts are not disputed, but are given controversial names, wikipedia just gives the name, as in Islamofascism. I feel deeply offended by that label, but i dont go a WP:POINT it to Allegations of Islamofascism. It's not even a redirect. The only reason this is named Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America instead of Israeli apartheid and American terrorism, both very notable terms, is that we have a heavy western bias due to the simple fact that most internet users are in the west. --Striver 00:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You might not be aware of it but "apartheid" is a legal charge too exactly like war crimes. I don't know about the war crimes, but saying that there's apartheid in Israel is an allegation - it's simply a lie. It speaks of events that don't happen, it's not just a description. It's like looking at a picture through several mirrors which twist the entire picture up and down and make it thin and fat and you look at something compeltely differnet that never happened. It's a lie, therefore allegation at most. Amoruso 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Amoruso, apartheid has a legal definition, but as Jay has pointed out, the majority of those who advance the idea of Israeli apartheid are not invoking it. Murder also has a legal definition, but there's a difference between saying OJ Simpson is a murderer, and saying Yasir Arafat is a murderer. The first is an allegation; the second is something different. And that difference holds good, regardless of who you are and whether you believe in the factual truth, the moral truth, or the absolute scurrilousness of either or both of those statements.

• Comment : There's no difference between alleged events and alleged description it's the same thing. The alleged act here is apartheid. And if one reads the article and knows Israel society and has the slightest idea of real life here he knows this allegation is one big scum. The article should be probably go for AFD anyway - this notion is so ridiculous that it's quite laughable to read the article, and this is not supposed to be a parody but an encyclopedia. The allegations are ridiculous, therefore they should focus on them and how ridiculous they are. That's why the name of the article is of course much better than simply "Apartheid". Israeli Apartheid is an oxymoron really. Btw,Allegations of Islamofascism doesn't make any sense which is the reason it's not called that way, maybe you mean Allegations that certain modern Islamist movements resemble European fascist movements. This shows why calling this example as resembling this makes no sense. Islamofascism is a term and it doesn't talk about Islam in general but specific groups of Islam and it's a term. The question is would you like an article called The fascism of Islam. Hope you see the difference. Amoruso 02:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the arguments for renaming the article (inadvertently) make the case rather nicely for deleting the whole big mess. A group of people could get together and, let's say, characterize speed limits above 50 km/h as "genocide." The facts wouldn't be in question, because there are speed limits above 50 km/h that arguably cause lots of deaths, but the characterization would be highly inaccurate. The characterization would amount to an allegation with very little substance behind it. Further, we've been assured many times that titling this article as proposed wouldn't imply that apartheid was taking place; yet now all of a sudden the facts no longer are in dispute, as if it should be clear to any sane person that apartheid was taking place. When even Carter - who puts the libel on the cover his book - has to concede that this form of "apartheid" has nothing to do with racism, it seems pretty obvious to me that apartheid is at best a rhetorical device; using it in a way that bears no resemblance to the actual crime of apartheid trivializes the crime - and yes, it is a precisely defined crime. I say we move to a speedy delete of this travesty of an article. --Leifern 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I had promised myself that I was not going to bring up the idea of deletion, as I have several times in the past. Every time I do, there is a lot of whining from the people who support having this ridiculous article. Fortunately I can keep my promise, since I didn't bring it up, Leifern did. Unfortunately, I don't see any better prospects for an AfD of this article than was the case on the two previous attempts (I don't count the one that was only open for about a half-hour.) While I think both of those AfD's were invalidated (the first one by the initiator, who was the creator of the article using a sockpuppet, and the second one by an admin who closed it prematurely), the fact is that there was significant opposition to deleting the article. It is frustrating, because each time there was a clear majority in favor of deletion, but not the required "consensus." It's a shame, because I think Wikipedia robs itself of the credibility that it is seeking by having articles like this. 6SJ7 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the last AFD was closed by an admin in what seemed like nanoseconds. I don't hold out much hope that reason will prevail this time around, either, but I want to at least go on the record. --Leifern 15:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind there hasn't really been a proper AfD on this article. The first nomination was a strawman nomination by a sockpuppet of the creator of this article User:HOTR, and the second was a similar strawman nomination by a sockpuppet of User:Dervish Tsaddik. The whole point was to ensure that the article was "Kept", thus making future AfDs much harder. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Leifern makes two good arguments for keeping this article and renaming it. The first is his thought experiment about a bunch of people getting together and characterizing speed limits above 50 km/h as "genocide." "The facts wouldn't be in question, because there are speed limits above 50 km/h that arguably cause lots of deaths, but the characterization would be highly inaccurate." Right he is. But if that weird comparison caught on, and was used, discussed, researched, deployed, deplored, and dilated upon by a whole range of significant scholars and pundits for several decades, and if a Nobel laureate and former American president then wrote a book called Highway Genocide, which was then the subject of high-profile discussion in the mainstream national media, then yes, a Wikipedia article on the subject would be appropriate. I fully agree with Leifern that the comparison would be a ludicrous one, but since, as he says, "the facts wouldn't be in question," then "allegations" would be a complete misnomer. "Allegations of Highway Genocide" meanwhile would be an appropriate title for an article on, say, trials of Rwandan warlords in the Hague. Speaking of which, Leifern makes a great point (echoing previous points made by Jay) when he says that references to Israeli apartheid are more of a "rhetorical device" than a legal reference to the "precisely defined crime." Another reason why the word "allegations" is so inappropriate here.--G-Dett 16:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

G-Dett, I actually agree with you up to a point. The fact that it is a "rhetorical device" made it appropriate for the title to be changed to something with a parenthetical qualifier after "Israeli apartheid." Such as, for example, "Israeli apartheid (political epithet)". In fact, within hours after this article's creation last May (as "Israeli apartheid"), someone moved it it "Israeli apartheid (phrase)." There were then a bunch of moves back and forth, in between protections of the article. Some people preferred "Israeli apartheid (epithet)" -- or (political epithet). I was looking for some middle ground between (phrase) and (epithet), but never really found one. The problem is that the creator of this article and others who supported its existence, fought any parenthetical phrase tooth and nail. All sorts of claims were made about policies or guidelines that supposedly prevented a name with such a qualifier. In the subsequent arbitration, an accusation on these grounds was made against one of the people who had moved the article to (phrase) (that person would be me; the ArbComm thought so little of that accusation that they didn't even discuss it.) I think there may have been a poll concerning one or more of these variations, but it did not achieve a consensus. However, there clearly was strong opposition -- and as it turned out, a consensus against -- leaving it as simply "Israeli apartheid." With all other options exhausted, the name "Allegations of..." was settled upon. I do not think it was anybody's first choice. After a lot of controversy, strife, and a request for arbitration, this name finally achieved a consensus. Perhaps this will help you understand why, when you and others come along and try to change the name back to its original name, the reaction of many is "Oh no, not again." 6SJ7 17:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, 6SJ7, indeed that does help to explain the reluctance about this. At the same time, I'm troubled that so many people want to put a disclaimer – and feel entitled to put a disclaimer – into a title because they find the subject matter outrageous and offensive. So far as I can see, this just isn't done in Wikipedia. If an idea has legs, has some currency and recognition and is the subject of wide discussion, then Wikipedia covers it, with a title that simply names the idea without any framing devices suggesting doubt or dismissal or endorsement, and with article content that merely describes the idea, the evidence cited in support of it and the evidence cited in criticism of it, and lets readers decide for themselves what to make of it. As for the previous debates you recount, I can see why "Israeli Apartheid (phrase)" and "Israeli Apartheid (epithet)" wouldn't fly. The disputed comparison is not a fixed phrase like "Islamofascism" or "weapons of mass destruction"; it occurs in all sorts of permutations. And "epithet" is obviously loaded and biased; it dismisses out of hand the very subject that it purports to be neutrally presenting. Do you think there'd be a lot of resistance to, say, "Comparisons between Israeli occupation and apartheid," with various redirects? "Comparison" seems to me a remarkably neutral word, one likely to be accepted both by those who find the idea morally compelling and those who find it merely incendiary.--G-Dett 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed name "Comparisons between..." I would have to think about it, and would like to see discussion from a variety of people about it. I see no need to rush into anything, as I find the current title to be tolerable as long as this toxic article has to exist at all. Right now, there is a poll as to whether the name should be changed to "Israeli apartheid", which I vehemently oppose, and I would like to see that process concluded before we move on to the question of whether there is another title that could be an improvement over the current one. 6SJ7 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, 6SJ7, one thing at a time. As for the vehement opposition you mention, I'll confess I still don't really understand it. At least I can't understand it in terms of any established precedent. It appears to be rooted in the conviction that the very idea that Israel practices apartheid is false and offensive. Fine. Wikipedia is filled with articles about notions that are arguably false and unfair, but we don't insert wording meant to suggest this in their titles. --G-Dett 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have it exactly backwards here. What we need to do is clean up the content, which is still filled with polemics, nonsense, and original research. My goodness, it's still quoting people like Yakov Malik and Amira Hass. If the article itself were to be turned into something academic, rather than a political platform, then a different name might suggest itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Let those who are well-versed in the natablity and value of the sources (a group that would not include me) be satisfied as to the content of the article, and that it has some academic validity and is not merely a set of allegations and refutations of allegations. Until then, "Allegations of..." is probably the most appropriate title. 6SJ7 04:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you really questioning the WP:RS credentials of Amira Hass? If so, then the only possible conclusion is that your criteria are 100% ideological. Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. Good G-d, man, she's been living in the OT for years, knows her turf, and is a correspondent for one of the world's great newspapers. Get over it. Stop vetting sources on the basis of whether they agree with you.--G-Dett 05:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, did Amira Hass suddenly become an academic? As far as I knew, she was perhaps the only Israeli Jew who was allowed, by Palestinians, to live among Palestinians, and was essentially a mouthpiece for the Palestinian cause. Or have I mistaken her for a different Amira Hass? If you insist that she is some sort of neutral or authoritative source, then the only possible conclusion is that your criteria are 100% ideological. Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. Get over it. Stop vetting sources on the basis of whether they agree with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Same Hass, and no, she isn't an academic. Stop pretending that this constitutes some sort of objective criteria for you. If someone is an academic but disagrees with you, you flex your biceps and puff your chest and try to bounce him out of WP:RS by calling him "basically a guy in a University with a well-known political agenda who likes to promote that agenda" or whatever. Having some first-hand knowledge of what she writes about would give Hass some authority in the eyes of most; your attempt to make a liability of this obvious strength is a cheap ploy made cheaper by the insinuations about compromised loyalty. As for the rest of your response, the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I babytalk you bewilderingly resort to, I can only say this is thin gruel, Jay, and unworthy of someone I've come to (grudgingly) respect as a spirited interlocutor.--G-Dett 14:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually think Hass some interesting points of view from time to time, though I suspect she has to relinquish some of her intellectual honesty as a form for rent to live in Ramallah. But there is no question she has a point of view. The point on "academic" is to differentiate between a serious effort at comparing Israel's policy with apartheid as opposed to a comparison that is made to further a conclusion that was made a long time ago. --Leifern 15:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion illustrates one of the major problems, if not the major problem, with this article. We are talking about a person who lives in the West Bank, so it is probably safe to say that she has knowledge, perhaps even rising to the level of expertise, regarding the factual situation in the West Bank. She can tell us how West Bank Palestinians are being treated in such areas as housing, travel, employment, etc., and she can draw comparisons with how Jewish residents are treated. (That assumes she is reporting accurately and honestly, but if she is not, it can still go in an article, along with the refutation of her statements by other sources.) That is all fair game because it involves facts. But this article is not about facts. It is about opinions as to a comparison between Israeli policies and "apartheid" -- or to bring it down to the level of one person, about a comparison between what she sees in her daily life and what took place in another system that took place in another time, thousands of miles away, about which she presumably has no expertise. (On the other side of the coin, Bishop Tutu knows what went on in South Africa, but when it comes to the West Bank, he has an ideology but no particular expertise that I know of.) And its even more abstract than that, it's not about whether one situation was better or worse than the other, or in what ways the two situations are alike or different, it is about whether it is reason to call them the same thing. How can she be a reliable source for that? For that matter, how can anyone be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6SJ7 (talk • contribs)

You make good points. I would argue, though, that someone who has attempted to make an academic study of the situation would be a more reliable source than anyone else. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley the only scholars?

Jay, can you say how you've concluded that Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley are the only academics who've studied this subject? --G-Dett 17:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there must have been a qualification to that statement when it was made. Consider [11], [12], [13]. (Fascinating article in JSTOR in a 1971 issue of Phylon discussing the Jewish community in South Africa discussing similar issues then that came up when I did a search.)

I do know that Uri Davis [14] has been banging on about it for a few decades.

That's just from looking around for five minutes. So I can only assume Jayjg was making some other point. Hornplease 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the archives for discussion of this. When an editor pointed out examples of the comparison in peer-reviewed journals, Jay responded: "Peer-reviewed? The journals still have their biases, and are of highly varying quality, often not publishing in areas about which they have any expertise, and even then there are very few. Feminist Review? What is this magazine, and what does it know about the Arab-Israeli conflict? Journal of Palestine Studies? The mouthpiece of the Institute for Palestine Studies, an Arab "thinktank"; its work is not complete garbage, but it is certainly highly biased. The article in the Middle East Journal by L. Farsakh? It's quite open that its purpose is to "materialize the project of viable Palestinian independence". You're working with very, very little here, because serious academics don't throw around political epithets like 'apartheid'." There are many other examples of its use in peer-reviewed scholarship, but from what I can tell, Jay's thinking is that any scholar who compares Israeli policies to South African apartheid is by definition not a serious scholar; therefore there is "practically" no serious scholarship on the subject; therefore we should "lean heavily" on those scholars deemed serious by Jay.--G-Dett 00:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

At another point, he dismisses a clutch of articles because their authors are "Palestinians or notorious anti-Zionists." --G-Dett 00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I might agree with some of the specific instances Jay quotes above, but I dont think one can draw a general conclusion from them. Consider the Routledge journal "Ethnic and Racial Studies"; hardly a PLO mouthpiece. Yet an article exists: [15] from another sociologist known in apartheid studies. The comparison is also made in Human Rights Review [16], in a fascinating article that also discusses the behaviour of the former USSR; and the Ben-Gurion University's in house journal published an article in 1997 [17] expressly attacking several mainstream studies that had categorised Israel as a herrenvolk rather than a liberal democracy, by arguing for an extension of the classification (to include a new class of 'ethnic democracies') that would exclude South Africa but include Israel and, apparently, Malaysia(?). So clearly these two scholar's arent the only mainstream people who've worked in this region. Hornplease 09:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with you (and with Jay) that some of these sources are less compelling than others. But the point is, Wikipedia editors need to use objective criteria for evaluating the relevance of a source, not our own opinions about credibility based on ethnicity or ideology or whatever. Objective criteria for ranking scholarly sources in the present case would mean privileging work published in the scholar's field of expertise, and subject to peer review (so naturally an article published in Feminist Review would receive less emphasis than one in Journal of Palestine Studies). But who Wikipedia editors deem "notoriously anti-Zionist" or "ultra-leftist" or whatever is totally irrelevant. And to suggest that Palestinian scholars should be discounted, as one administrator here has done, or to sneer about Arab "think tanks," is to stray into Kiyosaki-territory, and editors need to be bolder about saying so.--G-Dett 15:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yike, I go away for a couple of days, and come back to find I've been badly strawmaned. Please quote my views vis-à-vis academics accurately, then we can discuss the issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Did I misquote you?--G-Dett 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, it should be perfectly obvious even to you that Jayjg never implied that A & M were the only scholars, just that they were some of the few scholars of this particular subject.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Adam and Moodley are practically the only academics who have actually studied this, so they should be leaned on fairly heavily..."; "That's exactly what just about the only academic experts who have studied the subject say..." etc. etc.

There are many scholars who've studied this and written about it. What does it mean to say that A & M are "practically the only," or "just about the only," so we should lean on them to frame the article? Even if there were only one or two others – and there are a great many more than that – wouldn't we need to look to them as much as to A & M? It seems to me we're giving such weight to A & M not because of the prominence or influence of their scholarship, and certainly not because they're "just about the only academic experts who have studied the subject," etc., but because some Wikipedia editors agree with the thrust of their arguments.--G-Dett 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between saying A&M are "practically/just about the only academics who have actually studied this" and A&M are "the only academics who've studied this subject". Furthermore, this particular area is basically A&M's specialty, vs. other academics who have either dabbled in it briefly, or are academics from other disciplines who have opined on the subject without having any subject matter expertise. As I said before, I don't appreciate being strawmanned - and for that matter, I don't appreciate article sections that are little more than vehicles for attacking other editors. G-Dett, given our previous encounters you seem to still nursing a fair bit of hostility towards me; I'd recommend losing that, and working together collegially instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This section isn't about you, Jay. It's about the article leaning heavily upon the views of two scholars, heavily discounting the work of other scholars, and meanwhile basing these calibrations on what appear to be impressionistic criteria and a good dose of special pleading. There are objective ways of measuring the stature and influence of a given scholar, for example by consulting scholarly citation indices. Instead we have your judgment, for all I can tell unsubstantiated, that the scholars you disparage have merely "opined on the subject without having any subject matter expertise." I don't think this judgment of yours will withstand scrutiny; such scrutiny should in any event be the next phase of this discussion.

As for working together collegially, I'll toast to that. Let's be civil, even collegial, but let's also be realistic. You and I have overlapping interests but very different understandings of the issues, but far more importantly, we have very different understandings of the role that ideological judgments should play in the interpretation and application of basic WP rules and guidelines. (For example, I think it's pretty outrageous that Juan Cole's credentials, which were never an issue when he appeared to be criticizing the apartheid analogy, suddenly become a "serious issue" because it emerges that he in fact employs the analogy.) In any case, this latter difference is why we've clashed in the past, and are almost certain to clash in the future. By all means, let us do so civilly and collegially. --G-Dett 14:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's quite obvious this section is about me; you've directed the comments specifically to me, and even gone to the trouble of combing through ancient archives, quoting out of context comments on superficially related subjects. The people and articles mentioned were not quoted in this article not because of my comments discounting them, but, in fact, primarily because none of the editors mentioning them at the time had actually read them. Please keep in mind that as much as you might like to blame me for the bias you think see in the article, I've been a minor and relatively infrequent editor here. As for the quality of the academics, scholarly citation indices would be relevant for experts in the same field, but completely irrelevant if their expertise is elsewhere. Wikipedia editors, are, in fact, editors, and should certainly use their editorial judgment and common sense in ascertaining whether an academic's expertise is relevant to a particular area or not. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I take it that the people and articles I mention above are thus acceptable to you? Hornplease 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly going to respond to comments that start with "Whatever". Either treat my statements with respect, and respond to them in a reasonable way, or don't bother engaging me on the Talk: page. Want to try again? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'Whatever' part was for the part of your above edit that seemed to attempt to defend your infrequent editing here. 'Whatever'='I think that much of what you say is not germane to the discussion'. I am going to point this out again: lets not make this about you. As far as I am concerned, whether or not you think that G-Dett is directly discussing your comments is irrelevant, as long as its not incivil; I just know that we should be focusing on the links that have now appeared - magically! - on the page. If you wish respect, keep to the matter at hand; you perhaps know that finger-pointing on a talkpage can lead nowhere -except to a loss of respect all round.

Thus I ask again: I take it that the people and articles I mention above are acceptable to you? Hornplease 07:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually find it laughable that with righteous condenscension you would instruct Jayjg to earn respect by not engaging in finger-pointing when almost all of your actions at this talk page have been comprised of exactly that.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think that. However, could we discuss your opinion on the set of articles I have linked to above? Hornplease 07:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you mention a specific article, author, publication, and what in that article you feel is worth quoting? Let's start with one. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Heavens, man, even if one or two of the links seem to have gone dead, there are several links that still work. Start with the discussion of several articles by Smooha, in the Ben-Gurion Univ's Journal of Israel Studies:

Several attempts to categorize Israel in the context of the Arab-Jewish cleavage are noteworthy. Benvenisti claims that post-1967 Israel is a Herrenvolk democracy. Israeli Palestinians are second-class citizens because "their citizenship does not assure them equality in law, as one crucial test of citizenship is military service." 17 The West Bank and Gaza strip were in practice annexed to Israel, while their Palestinian inhabitants were denied civil and political rights. For this reason, Benvenisti reasons, Greater Israel (Israel proper ceased to exist) is a typical Herrenvolk democracy. 18

On a closer look, the classification of Israel as a Herrenvolk democracy, [End Page 202] in both its pre- and post-1967 borders, does not make sense. The Arab minority in Israel enjoys the privileges of citizenship, whereas the non-citizen Palestinian population of the territories has never sought Israeli citizenship. The establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, as part of a process of separation between Israel and the territories, proves that Benvenisti's approach is fundamentally wrong.

While Benvenisti focuses on Greater Israel, Lustick offers a comprehensive study of Arab-Jewish relations in Israel proper. 19 Finding both the liberal and consociational models of democracy inapplicable to Israel; he suggests a third model, that of "control," to account for the Israeli case. His central thesis is that the Arab minority lives under a system of control that severely restricts its political rights and behavior. In other words, Israeli democracy does not function as far as Israeli Arabs are concerned, and in fact emerges from Lustick's detailed analysis as an essentially Herrenvolk democracy. In 1988, however, Lustick restated his position, conceding that the system of control has largely been dismantled, and arguing that Israel is becoming a binational (i.e., consociational or quasi-consociational) state. 20

Lustick's claim must be qualified. It is true that, until the 1970s, Israel exercised a strict system of control to neutralize the Israeli Arabs; however, the machinery of control also continued thereafter, albeit in a more covert and sophisticated, but no less, effective manner, because this is a necessary component of every ethnic democracy. Hence, Lustick errs in his later conclusion that control has disappeared and Israel has drawn nearer to, or has become, a consociational democracy.

Rouhana and Ghanem portray Israel as an exclusive ethnic state—a regime close to "ethnic non-democracy." Like Lustick in his original statement, they do not explicitly use the term Herrenvolk democracy, but they clearly imply it. They carefully refrain from describing Israel as a democracy. Nor do they apply the model of ethnic democracy to Israel, because they reject ethnic democracy altogether as not democratic. Israel is not a democracy because it fails the acid test of equal treatment of its citizens, deprives the Arabs of their basic human need for equality, belonging, and identity, and forces them into abnormal development as a minority. The characterization of Israel as a de facto Herrenvolk democracy by Rouhana and Ghanem is extraordinary and puzzling...

The articles in question are: Meron Benvenisti, The Pendulum and the Truncheon: Territories, Jews and Arabs (Jerusalem, 1988) [Hebrew]; Meron Benvenisti, 1987 Report: Demographic, Economic, Legal, Social and Political Developments in the West Bank (Jerusalem, 1987);Ian Lustick, Arabs in the Jewish State: Israel's Control of a National Minority (Austin, TX, 1980); Ian Lustick, "The Political Road to Binationalism: Arabs in Jewish Politics," in Ilan Peleg and Ofira Seliktar (eds), The Emergence of a Binational Israel: The Second Republic in the Making (Boulder, CO, 1987) 97-123.; Nadim Rouhana and As'ad Ghanem, "The Crisis of Minorities in Ethnic States: The Case of the Palestinian Citizens of Israel," International Journal of Middle East Studies (in press).

Hornplease 08:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't see where those quotes actually referred to "apartheid"; could you make the connection a little clearer? Herrenvolk is actually a Nazi racial designation. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, should ahve completed the quote:

The characterization of Israel as a de facto Herrenvolk democracy by Rouhana and Ghanem is extraordinary and puzzling. Unlike Benvenisti and those who find basic resemblance between Greater Israel and apartheid-ridden South Africa, they do not invoke the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians in the occupied territories in order to validate their claim. The condemnation of Israel as non-democratic is made solely in the context of Arab-Jewish relations within Israel proper by two specialists of this area. [End Page 203] Rouhana and Ghanem recognize but dismiss the facts that Israeli Arabs enjoy civil and political rights, have collective rights as a minority, engage in a continued and militant struggle for change, do not face repression by the authorities, and score partial achievements. These two researchers also know but reject the facts that the Arab minority also appreciates its Israeli citizenship so dearly that it cannot contemplate leaving the country, and that it believes in Israeli democracy so strongly that it sees it as an effective tool for affecting appreciable improvement in its status in society. On the other hand, Yiftachel and Peled accept the classification of Israel as an ethnic democracy, but suggest further distinctions and refinements. Yiftachel questions the ability of ethnic democracy in general, and in Israel in particular, to survive and to maintain its stability over the long-run when it operates within a bi-ethnic, rather than a multi-ethnic, society and in a setting of an indigenous, rather than immigrant, minority. Israel is similar in this respect to Cyprus, Northern Ireland, and Sri Lanka, where ethnic democracy has collapsed. On the other hand, ethnic democracy was successfully preserved in Malaysia because the minority was immigrant and not native. When political stability has been maintained in states with bi-ethnic societies, such as Belgium, this is accomplished by consociational democracy....

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

The only part that seems to deal with "Israeli apartheid" is the sentence that says Unlike Benvenisti and those who find basic resemblance between Greater Israel and apartheid-ridden South Africa.... It seems to me you should be referring directly to Benvenisti et al, rather than this source, which sees the situation in a different light. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point being? Remember that I started this by pointing out that the phrase Israeli apartheid, and the implied study of the parallels between Israeli state policy and that of pre-1991 SA was known and studied in academia long before the two Canadian scholars who are quoted extensively in the article. To defend the choice of those scholars on the assumption that 'nobody else has studied the issue' is simply not correct. I fail to see how you have taken this point on board at all. Can you clarify that, if possible? Hornplease 08:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole

Juan Cole opposes the use of the term "apartheid" for the situation within Israel proper, but he uses it himself for the situation in the territories. This presents something of a problem with regards to the format of the article. As I've edited it now, his opposition to its use within Israel and his own use of the word for Gaza and the West Bank are presented together, under the "criticism" section, where an earlier editor rather misleadingly placed Cole. This juxtaposition of quotes might plausibly be seen as OR, however. What's the alternative? Do we put him in both sections, "Use of the Term" and "Criticism of the Term"?--G-Dett 22:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig's solution is to delete reference to Cole's use of the term "apartheid" on his blog, on grounds that his blog is not a RS. This obviously seems an unsatisfactory solution, because the resulting edit makes it look like Cole is an opponent of the analogy, when in fact he is a proponent of the analogy who opposes it only when it's applied to the situation within Israel's 1967 borders. His position on the term is in other words identical to Carter's, so it's very misleading to list him as a critic.

Secondly, Isarig's RS objection to Cole's blog goes against both the letter and the spirit of WP:RS. As for the spirit of it, WP:RS warn against using blogs to substantiate claims because blogs are often not subject to sufficient fact-checking. But here the only claim being made in the article is that Cole uses the word "apartheid" on his blog, with regard to Israeli policies in the territories; citing Cole's blog to demonstrate that Cole says a given thing on said blog, obviously, does not raise problems of verifiability or reliability. As for the letter of WP:RS, the relevant section should dispel all doubts: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." Cole obviously fits the bill, so I'll restore the deleted material for now. --G-Dett 18:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern Israeli politics are not Cole's area of expertise, and neither is Apartheid. Blogs are not WP:RS. Find another source if you want to include this. Isarig 01:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP:RS has no blanket rule against blogs, for one thing. Because of fact-checking criteria, WP:RS warns against citing them as evidence that this or that event happened. But blogs are – obviously – an acceptable RS for Wikipedia article content specifying things that a given blogger has said on his blog. Otherwise we'd have to delete half of the information from the articles on Juan Cole, on Andrew Sullivan – for God's sake, on the entry blog itself. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but both the misapplication of WP:RS and the misrepresentation of Cole's views of the apartheid analogy seem pretty deliberate here.--G-Dett 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Daniel Pipes describes how according to a certain Sister Elaine Kelley, Pipes once said "The Palestinians are a miserable people, and they deserve to be"; the article then duly notes that "Pipes denies ever saying this." Isarig would have us believe that Wikipedia cannot tell the reader that Pipes denies making the inflammatory statement, because Pipes' denial took place on his own blog. What a lot of baloney. --G-Dett 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it comes from a blog is an issue, given that blogs have no editorial oversight, and can change without notice, warning or preserved history. That said, there are circumstances under which one can quote from blogs. The far more serious issue is Cole's lack of expertise in the area; he's basically a guy in a University with a well-known political agenda who likes to promote that agenda by bloviating on his blog. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal judgments about Cole on the part of Wikipedia editors are obviously not relevant. As you say, there are circumstances under which one can quote from blogs, and this is incontestibly one of them. I would be more apt to take seriously your misgivings about Cole's expertise if you applied them equally to his critical remarks on the apartheid analogy – though even in that case editing on the basis of personal evaluations would be inappropriate.--G-Dett 14:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, editors must of course use their personal judgment and good sense to help decide which sources are more relevant and encyclopedic and which are not - there is no mechanical way of doing this. As for Cole's specific remarks, I haven't looked at them, I've merely commented on whether or not blogs are encyclopedic; please assume good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cole persoanl blog is not WP:RS. As WP:RS tells us; "Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; " - Cole's comment, from this not notable commentator adds nothing to the article that is not already there. Isarig 16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors "should exercise caution" with blogs, yes. Consider said caution to have been exercised. If WP:RS meant to ban the use of blogs it would have done so, and it would not have included an explicit proviso for figures like Cole. Cole's award-winning "personal blog" is ranked the 99th most popular blog on the internet, and is frequently cited by the mainstream media. Articles on Iraq, Iran, and Israel by this "not notable commentator" and former president of the Middle East Studies Association have appeared in the Washington Post, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review, The Nation, the Daily Star, Tikkun and Salon.com, and he appears with some regularity as an expert commentator on the PBS Lehrer News Hour, Nightline, ABC Evening News, the Today Show, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Al Jazeera and CNN Headline News. He was good enough for everyone here (and continues to be good enough for Isarig) when critiquing the apartheid analogy; the disparagement of his credibility we're hearing now is as sudden as it is selective, and it takes cynicism to a new level.--G-Dett 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to post his copmmentary from the notable sources such as the Washington Post, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review, The Nation, the Daily Star, Tikkun and Salon.com - but his personal;, partisan and shrill blog is not a WP:RS - and is not good for critiquing the apartheid analogy not for supporting it. It adds nothing to the article taht isnot already there. Isarig 17:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Isarig. Also The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be the most popular text ever, but that does not make it credible. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Isarig and Humus sapiens, David Duke's blog is a reliable source but Juan Cole's is not; Holocaust denier Paul Grubach's blog is a reliable source but Cole's is not; Jew Watch is a reliable source but Informed Comment is not. I would remind you both that WP:AGF does not require that we assume good faith when there is strong evidence to the contrary.

Let us show a little consistency, a respect for intellectual seriousness and fairplay, and failing all else, a respect for the letter and spirit of WP rules and guidelines. I will not revert this any more. If no one else does, and the consensus is that, as Humus sapiens puts it, "bloggers don't belong," then I'll go through the article and edit it accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC).--G-Dett 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

They are RS for their own POV. That is what we say: they represent hate sites. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent me or my positions. Blogs are not WP:RS, and that includes Holocaust denier Paul Grubach's blog . If you can show where I have claimed otehrwise, please do so. Otherwise, I expect an apology. Isarig 00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you go now and delete from the article, on WP:RS grounds, all references to Paul Grubach, David Duke, and Jew Watch, you will have from me a full and sincere apology.--G-Dett 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when Jew Watch is a blog? AFAIK, Duke's radio and IHR are not blogs, either. But I see your attempt to make a WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence that these questions are in good faith, Humus, but my answers will be nevertheless. WP:RS warns against relying on "self-published" sources, of which blogs are only one kind (and www.davidduke.com is indeed a blog). Other kinds include self-published 'newsletters' like IHR, and hate sites like Jew Watch. Isarig's point (and yours, though you seem not to understand it) is that no such self-published material can ever be cited as a source. My point is that you can't cite Andrew Sullivan's blog as a source for article content about Bush's declining popularity; but you can cite Sullivan's blog as a source for article content about the sorts of things that Sullivan says. Especially if the article in question is about the sorts of things people say, and Sullivan's name has already been introduced as a prominent example.

That, friend, is the debate. By all means enter it, but understand it, be consistent, and be serious. As for WP:POINT, forget it. I don't do prank edits.--G-Dett 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You owed me an apology even if I did not remove those blogs, since you baselessly accused me of holding positions which I do not hold. Nevertheless, I've removed those blogs from the article. Isarig 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You have my apology, Isarig, as well as my congratulations on your quick work and good fortune in finding other sources.--G-Dett 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong: the mention of hate sites using this expression is out, Cole is in and someone seems to have broken 3RR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

well, we now know what kind of editor G-Dett is: His words and promises ("I will not revert this any more") are worthless. Isarig 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Cole's discussion of this issue on his blog is acceptable on at least two grounds: 1) Cole is a well-known, professional researcher who is writing (broadly speaking) within his area of expertise. Sure, his academic specialty is not Israel/Palestine, but he is an important scholar of Middle Eastern history, and it seems highly problematic to me to demand that the person be writing about a subject they've written a scholarly monograph about. If they've written a scholarly monograph about it, then there'd be no need to quote the blog in the first place. Secondly, in this particular instance, we are not using Cole as a source to indicate that Israel's policy in the occupied territories is an apartheid policy. We are using Cole as a source to indicate Cole's position on whether or not Israel's policy in the occupied territories is an apartheid policy. As I understand it, a person's personal website is completely appropriate as a source for that person's own opinions, which is what is going on in this case. john k 08:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fairly obvious that he is not a reliable source. First of all it is not even clear that this topic even falls inside his "area of expertise", second of all Cole has a unacceptable and acknowledged level of bias with regards to the subject so he cannot even come close to meeting the neutrality requirements. Thirdly, his blog is representative of a medium with zero journalistic oversight and credibility, like Jayjg said above Cole really just uses the website to promote his highly idiosyncratic views in a somewhat desperate bid for attention.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you spend a moment and delete the last five words of your above post, Moshe? I was about to do it myself, per WP:BLP, but thought I'd give you the opportunity. Hornplease 10:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Moshe is correct. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but unless he has RS backing him up in that Cole maintains a blog that is merely a desperate bid for attention, he had best delete it. Your intervention is not useful. Hornplease 07:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break, this is the talk page not the article, that policy does not apply here. This is the second time you have attempted to act like a neutral observer to try to gain an advantage in this argument. I think you will quickly find that that method only breeds mild irritation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two ways the Cole dispute has been addressed. The first is by reference to the proviso in WP:RS for self-published material by well-known researchers and journalists. To many editors, including myself, this applies obviously to Cole. Other editors have voiced the objection that Cole is outside of his expertise on Israeli political matters, and so is not covered by the proviso. John Kenney's succinct response to this objection has gone unanswered. The obvious problem with it, of course, is that Juan Cole is widely regarded by major national news media as an expert commentator in matters of the contemporary Middle East, including Palestine (and of course what goes on in the West Bank and Gaza is not only an Israeli political matter but an Arab one). There will always be POV-motivated objections to the "expertise" of this or that commentator from their ideological opponents. Nevertheless there are objective criteria for measuring the influence and prominence of a given commentator, and Juan Cole's expertise, however much it is disparaged by Jay or Moshe, is relied upon by the mainstream media far, far more than say, CAMERA or MEMRI or any of the other online bulletins that form the complacent bulk of a wiki-partisan's fatty intellectual diet.

The other side of this dispute is about whether blogs should ever be regarded as reliable sources. Isarig and Humus sapien say no, never. Jay says sometimes, but hasn't yet elaborated on his criteria. What I'm saying, and I gather that CJ and John Kenney concur, is that no, you can't rely on a blog to substantiate factual claims, e.g., you can't write that three dozen people were killed in a car bombing in Baghdad this morning, and then source it to Cole's Informed Comment blog. But yes, if the article content is about what a notable figure has said, then you can use their blog as a source for what they've said on that blog. This is a very widespread practice on Wikipedia, to the point of being virtually ubiquitous, and has indeed been relied upon on this very page, with no objection heretofore from Isarig or Humus whatsoever.

Isarig and Humus are now saying "no bloggery"(Humus' words) in any circumstances ever, not even to show what a blogger has said on his blog. This vehemence of theirs is, so far as I can tell, a very sudden and selective one, and about two days old – dating exactly, in other words, to the appearance of the Juan Cole quote in question. Their newly categorical position obviously presented problems for material they wished to keep in the article (presumably for its value in creating guilt by association), such as the use of the apartheid analogy by the racist and antisemitic lunatic fringe. The sources for the claim that white supremacist David Duke and Holocaust denier Paul Grubach use the apartheid analogy have been – naturally enough – their blogs. Isarig has since made an ad-hoc show of retroactive good faith, by finding non-blog sources for Duke and Grubach. Having shuffled through this little chore, he then shuffled back my way with his palm out for an apology (for having noted his hypocrisy and inconsistency). I gave it. But the fact is that the Duke and Grubach blogs, and the Jew Watch source, have figured prominently for five months in an article vigilantly edited by Isarig and Humus, without a challenge from either.

I now see that Humus sapiens is saying that www.davidduke.com and jewwatch.com are fine because they're "RS for their own POV." [18] That's exactly right, and ditto for Juan Cole – his blog is RS for his POV, and Cole's POV is, after all, exactly the subject of the disputed passage. Humus, in other words, does not understand the debate he has so enthusiastically thrown himself into, and is firing rounds from both sides in a spastic shootout with himself. Whether he knows it or not or likes it or not, this round found its mark. Let us hope his other half has the good sense and good sportsmanship henceforth to play dead.

The fact is, none of the key players on this page has taken a firm position on the use of blogs or non-RS sources for content about what the individuals who run them believe and say. The material from www.davidduke.com and www.jewwatch.com was initially added by Jayjg [19]; SlimVirgin soon followed by adding Grubach's blog.[20] These were subsequently all removed (not on RS grounds but on the grounds – much, much firmer in my opinion – that they constituted well-poisoning POV-pushing guilt by association, which indeed they do). Humus sapien, of all people – he of the "blogs don't belong" graffito – was the one to insist upon restoring them.[21] (So it is quite accurate and precise to say that Humus thinks Jew Watch is a reliable source, but Informed Comment is not. My apology to Isarig – quite sincere however circumscribed – does not extend to Humus.) There they remained untouched until last night, when Isarig's bluff was called and he set out sullenly to tinker with them.

Isarig has no problem whatsoever with using blogs as sources; the question hinges for him entirely on whether what he finds there supports the POV he's advancing or not. He added a blog source to this very page, when he wanted to find a refutation for Chris McGreal's piece in the Guardian.[22] (Isarig added that blog entry, incidentally, only after Humus tried, unsuccessfully, to have the Guardian piece itself thrown out as a "non-RS source."[23]).

Indeed, when Isarig wants blog material in a Wikipedia article, he doesn't even care if it fails the minimal test remarked by myself, CJCurrie, and John Kenney. That is, fact-checking be damned, he'll use blogs as sources for claims about events (and not just claims about a blogger's words).[24]

It is for these reasons that I've determined that Isarig's position on the Cole matter is not merely a misinterpretation and misapplication of WP:RS, but is in fact in its entirety spurious, an exercise in pure filibuster and fakery.

By contrast Humus sapien's position is, as noted, merely incoherent.

I expect the Cole controversy to die down after the latest edits, unless of course Isarig finds the audacity to fire up his basement presses and mint us all some freshly counterfeit currency, some new criteria which will exclude Salon.com from the ranks of WP:RS. I also expect that the pseudo-debate about blogs will die down, if not for the good reason of common sense and clarity of precedent, then for the bad reason that it would entail too many editors' hobby-horses being taken off the tracks and summarily shot. The problem of special pleading, on the other hand, is likely to linger on this page until we muster the rigor and the nerve to address it.--G-Dett 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a long statement, and you've certainly dug through the article history. I'm a little confused by it, though; what change to the article content are you suggesting, or trying to achieve? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay, he's trying to point out that there might be a little more done on this page if people paid more than lip service to WP policy; in fact, he's pointed out quite comprehensively that most of the arguments that have been made above are a little strange in light of the page history. I think what he wants is for a few people to accept a consistent position on when a blog is RS, and when it is not; when a person can be quoted, and when they cannot. Once that is done, Juan Cole can be - or not be - included. That Cole is not an authority on I/P - as G-D points out - is interesting given the fact that he is frequently quoted as one; in an article about public perception, perhaps he should be considered relevant.

I am available for any more translation, if required, between the hours of 10 and 3. Hornplease 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You both seem to be opining about editors; could you possibly try to discuss specific article content, and suggestions for changing that, instead? I think that would be much more clear, and more in line with the purpose of Talk pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The substantive points were to do with common sense, respect for the spirit and letter of WP guidelines, and the pervasive problem of special pleading. Regarding this last, I want to be clear about the distinction between partisans and cynics. Practically everyone is or becomes a partisan on Israel-Palestine pages, but amid this ubiquity of partisans there's a sprinkling of dedicated cynics and charlatans whom those of good faith on both sides need to be bolder about confronting. The whole meaning of WP:AGF is undermined rather than enhanced when we tolerate mountebanks.

But mostly the point was to give pleasure and provide finality. I felt that anyone who'd slogged that far into a ridiculously fake debate deserved both.--G-Dett 15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideally one should use Talk: pages for discussing article content, rather than confronting "dedicated cynics and charlatans", or preaching intolerance for "mountebanks". Going forward, why don't we do that instead? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally, suggesting progress! Please note I have been trying to suggest additional resources above. I can move it to a new section if req.Hornplease 06:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ultimate proof of Israeli apartheid

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3338907,00.html Zeq 07:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not this one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wBJgaBe5NgM . It states that Hareerz said that Jews may non marry non-Jews?! Is that true? --Striver 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

more and more --Striver 19:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you linking to youtube videos, what point are you trying to make, and why are you using this Talk: page for whatever you are doing? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Jews can marry whoever they want in a civil ceremony outside of Israel or without this ceremony they can be common law spouses with ALL THE RIGHTS of a married couple. This applies to gays as well as straights---an only instance of gay rights for the whole middle east where homosexuals do not only NOT have equal rights, but can be jailed (Egypt) or even killed (Iran). Orthodox jewish rabbis have religious views and follow them when blessing a union as do clergy from all faiths. What is wrong or racist about this? Striver, when you post views like this, you lose credibility as an editor. Elizmr 23:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh? "lose credibility as an editor"? Did you see me formulating it as a question? "It states that Hareetz said that Jews may non marry non-Jews?! Is that true?" If i see a questioner on C-Span talking to a former president of USA referring to Hareetz, quoting that Jews may not mary-Non jews, and then i ask if that is true in the talk page of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", then I am loosing "credibility as an editor"? Is that a scare tactic? --Striver 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Muslim men can marry whoever they want, the kids are considered muslim and that what counts (according to the father). The woman is just a womb. On the other hand should a muslim woman marry a non mulim man both can be killed .

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008060.php http://www.comeandsee.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=677 http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000706.php

BBC link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4229136.stm

Zeq 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And that is relevant to this article because? (note: i am not even commenting the info's accuracy)--Striver 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

here is another: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=187&x_article=1245 Zeq 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What are people going on about? Can this part of the discussion be archived? And why are people feeding a responding to a banned user's cryptic link?Hornplease 07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There should probably be an article about this issue, but at the moment - as far as I know - there is no accomodation for civil marriage that is entered into inside Israel. Which is to say that all marriages that take place in Israel must take place within the auspices of a religious group, whether it's Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Ba'hai, Druze, etc. Rabbis will not perform marriages between a Jew and a non-Jew for reasons that fall outside the scope of this article, but it has nothing to do with treating non-Jews as inferior. But as Eliezer has pointed out, Israel gives full recognition to any kind of marriage performed outside of Israel; which is an issue in itself but not related to alleged apartheid. --Leifern 21:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha!!! I found it! Read and weep, you who accused me of trolling! --Striver 21:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this article? Do any of those links mention "Israeli apartheid"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood something, this is new to me, but if true that non-Jews may not marry jews in Israel, even if they want, how is that not apartheid?--Striver 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And don't take this personally, but how is it not racism? Yes, its a good faith question. --Striver 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well because non-Jews can marry Jews in Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean: Dimitri and Inessa Yakubovich met in early 2004. She was 25, he 24. Both of Inessa's parents are Jewish. Dimitri has a Jewish father, meaning he is not Jewish according to halakha. They both served as drivers in the Israel Defense Forces. A short while after they first met, they began living together...."You feel like a second-class [citizen] who cannot marry in Israel and must go abroad," says Dimitri. "I serve in the reserves like everyone else, and no one asks me if I'm half-Jewish. It shouldn't be like this..."We fled Siberia because of anti-Semitism," says Inessa. "There I was a Jew and here I am a Russian. What is being done to us is not fair." [25]"? --Striver 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"

Striver, are you familiar with the original research policy? Are there any reliable sources which refer to whatever you are talking about as "Israeli apartheid"? If not, then I request that you stop using this Talk: page as a soapbox, per policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The second time im being accused of going against policy, on the same section, regarding two different subjects? Is that a systematical behavior in this part of wikipedia? It is not a good way to promote cooperation i tell you. Now, read this: "9. Israel: Israelis who marry Palestinians are not allowed to bring their spouses to live with them in the Jews-only part of the country - South Africa: During the mid-1980s, the Komani Case successfully challenged the Apartheid "pass laws" that broke up black families by preventing rural spouses from joining husbands or wives who worked in towns. [26]"--Striver 01:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Oh, but Striver, that is not a RS!". Oh, yes it is, it is a RS for Muslim opinions in Canada. Anyhow, how about this: "Under Sharon's tenure as prime minister from 2001, new forms of discriminatory legislation were passed, including the now notorious Nationality and Entry into Israel Law, which bars Israelis who marry Palestinians from bringing their spouses to live in the country. The legislation applies solely to Palestinian husbands or wives. Hassan Jabareen, a lawyer and director general of Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, challenged the law before the supreme court. He told the judges there was a parallel with a landmark case in 1980s South Africa - the Komani case - which successfully challenged the pass laws that broke up black families by preventing spouses from joining their husbands or wives in towns. [27]" And that was only my two first hits on this search--Striver 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, random google hits. There's a formulae for a great article. Shouldn't you Striver leave this article for people with actual knowledge about the region , and not just someone who hit a random google link and wanted it to be inserted ? just a thought. Amoruso 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, marriage law in Israel is based on one's religion. It's not Apartheid in any way, it's simply called not having a Civil Marriage. People can still get all the rights in what's called "known in public" but not marriage. Amoruso 02:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so can a Muslim man marry a Jewish woman in Israel, having an Islamic ceremony? --Striver 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Islamic religious authorities approve of it, yes. Isarig 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What other supposed western democracy does not have civil marriage? Even if the reason for such a rule is not to promote segregation between Jews (as defined by Orthodox rabbis) and non-Jews, that is surely the effect of such a policy. john k 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As for Muslim-Jewish, if they find a muslim clerk (sharia) who will agree to perform the marriage then yes they'll be married by Muslim law. But the Israeli law states that people of mixed religions who are married will be under the jurisdiction of the Court of Family matters. This court deals normally with all issues of family except the legality of the marriage and divorce. In this case , this court will decide which religious court has authority on the matter. It might decide to refer the case (it will come up probably only in a request for divorce) to the Muslim court or it might decide to keep it in its own jurisdiction probably. John k, "supposed democracy" sounds quite offensive. Is there any legal authority who doubts that Israel is a democracy ? Your question is a good one though. The history in Israel of not having a civil marriage is actually not an Israeli policy - it goes back to Ottoman Empire times. The Ottomans had this system for the differnet indigenous people of the land - Jews, Chrisitans and Muslims and let them perform their own religious cermenoies. There was no demand for a civil marriage back then. The British Mandate incoporated the same system and then Israel did too. Anyway, there is no effect for this claimed segregation. People can still live together as known in public and they can also marry abroad usualyl Cyprus and then come back as legally married.... Civil marriage will probably become a fact of law in the next few years, but it's more of a formality - it doesn't prevent the mixing of two people with different religions in any practical way. Amoruso 12:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Israel is a democracy, and I regret a choice of words that implied that, but I find the lack of civil marriage to be a profoundly illiberal policy. That it dates back to the Ottomans is no real excuse. My understanding is that it was a result of the need of early Israeli governments for support from the Orthodox parties, who demanded pretty much complete control over personal status issues as their price for supporting Labor governments. But this doesn't really relate very closely to the subject of this article. john k 15:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, Jay has mentioned the OR policy, meaning it can't be you to make the marriage restrictions/apartheid connection; you need to quote an RS that does it. You might check out Jonathan Cook, who's made the connection pretty extensively in "Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State" and in various articles.[28].--G-Dett 15:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, except for the fact that Jonathan Cook would hardly be a reliable source on this topic. Please remember, we're trying to use top-notch academic or similar sources wherever possible, not a partisan political activist and polemicist. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking about apartheid comparisons as a type of discourse, then the point is to show what prominent commentators have said on the subject, not to determine whether or not they are "reliable sources" for the factual truth. Cook's comments are a reliable source about what Cook thinks, and Cook is fairly representative of a certain reasonably prominent strain of leftist European commentary on Israel/Palestine matters, and, as such, his opinion is relevant to this article. john k 21:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a source that states that Cook is "fairly representative of a certain reasonably prominent strain of leftist European commentary on Israel/Palestine matters" I don't think he could be considered a reliable source for the purpose of this article's subject.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

He writes for Counterpunch. That should be sufficient. He's not a reliable source on the facts of Israel's situation, but he is a primary source on the ways that people have made these kinds of comparisons. john k 01:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Writing for Counterpunch is definitely not evidence that someone's a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Right; if anything, it indicates the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I'm saying? He's not a reliable source about conditions in Israel. He's a reliable source as to the kinds of arguments made by leftist, pro-Palestinian European journalists, because he is one. Counterpunch may not be a reliable source for facts, but it is a fairly representative source for what a certain segment of leftist opinion believes about Israel. Jay himself has argued that this article should be about rhetoric, and not about actual conditions, but if this is the case, then we have to actually discuss the rhetoric, don't we? john k 08:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid where?

It seems the arguments in favour of the term mostly refer to the situation in the occupied territories, while the arguments against the term mostly refer to the situation in Israel proper. Could this be clarified, please? —Ashley Y 10:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A very important point.--G-Dett 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer: Nowhere. Amoruso 02:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's excellent news, Amoruso. I'm glad to hear Arabs living in the territories have finally been given representation in the Knesset. —Ashley Y 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, as opposed to in the Palestinian parliament? Israel isn't even in the Gaza Strip; if you'll recall, it unilaterally withdrew last year. Are you suggesting that Israel should annex the West Bank? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's excellent news, Jayjg, I'm glad to hear that the Gaza Strip is a sovereign and independent country. And also, of course, that the Palestinian parliament has sovereignty over any territory at all. —Ashley Y 07:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's the beef, then the article ought to clearly state that international law recognizes much more stringent control in militarily occupied territories, and the concept of "apartheid" wouldn't apply at all, prima facie. Which I thought the proponents of the term knew; if not, that probably accounts for the disconnect Ashley Y refers to above. Gzuckier 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Separation program" section

I've cleaned up some of the unsourced propaganda and peacock terms that crept into the article, and restored the David Duke stuff, about which there has been plentiful discussion. I also removed the newly inserted "separation program" section, since none of the references I could see were actually referring to "Israeli apartheid". Is there any possible way of keeping original research out of this article, or am I fighting a lost cause against editors determined to use this article as a political soapbox? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The "separation program" section refers to territory occupied by Israel. Are we going to split hairs on this point? CJCurrie 01:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The section is also not new. [29] CJCurrie 02:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to avoid looking at the second half of the article too closely, since its mostly a long polemic, but in any event, is this article about "territory occupied by Israel", or about "Israeli apartheid"? If the latter, shouldn't the sources referred to be the ones making the argument that this is some sort of "apartheid", rather than Wikipedia editors making up arguments? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that this is splitting hairs. CJCurrie 02:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Maintain all you like; to me it looks like an argument made up by Kendrick7. Prove me wrong, find a reliable source that argues that this "separation program" is a characteristic of "Israeli apartheid". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay...

Jerusalem Center for Human Rights, The Wall and International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law:

The creation of the Wall is also the culmination of a “separation” policy that is racist in its origin, and is intended to establish a communal and political pattern of domination of the area in the interest of Jewish settlers, and at the expense of its indigenous population. This policy is even more insidious than the apartheid policy attempted in South Africa, which was roundly condemned and eventually abandoned as racist and unjust.

Palestinian grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign

The Apartheid Wall is part of the Zionist ideological project of discrimination, dispossession, expulsion and destruction that aims to cleanse Palestine from as many as possible Palestinians and to force the remaining population into submission within ghettos.

This stage of the program, euphemistically promoted as the "Separation Policy", consolidates the conquest of Palestinian territory by way of colonization and redeployment of settlers from Gaza to other areas to ensure a Jewish demographic supremacy.

Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem,[30]

After further inquiry, field work investigation and map analysis, the Applied Research Institute- Jerusalem has succeeded to draw a map of Sharon's actual motive behind his security plan in the West Bank, that of creation of an apartheid system in the territories. ... Besides the Israeli closure policy imposed on Palestinian town and cities since the beginning of Al-Aqsa Intifada two years ago, the West Bank- according to the new separation policy- will be fragmented into 8 blocks, creating 64 Palestinian ghettos.

--Carwil 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the quality of the sources; remember, we are trying to use top-notch sources, ideally expert academics. Now, what exactly is the "Applied Research Institute" that claims to be "Monitoring Israeli colonization activities"? I thought the goal in this article was to present neutral encyclopedic information, not promote the views of obvious propaganda groups. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, pick your tack. Either we're talking about allegations in a closed sense, in which case, these are perfectly good evidence that "separation policy" is alleged to be apartheid (and your original claim that calling SP is WP:OR is refuted). It's hard to imagine a stronger evidence that separation policy is alleged to be apartheid than such a claim by a coalition of NGOs that make the allegation themselves. Or else we're talking about the apartheid nature of an Israeli policy of religio-ethnic segregation, which would make Netanyahu's statements themselves, plus everything you deleted perfectly good evidence in and off itself.--Carwil 07:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Even though we're discussing "allegations", the specific arguments made must still come from reliable sources (ideally good academic ones). We can't just be quoting any blog's original research on the matter, nor can Wikipedia editors insert their own original research; Wikipedia still has standards, even for an article as execrable as this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course wikipedia editors cannot insert their own original research. But opinions expressed in polemical journalism are certainly worth including in an article about a particular argument largely made by left-wing journalists. john k 08:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Which specific "polemical" "left-wing journalist" sources have made this argument? So far, I have seen none. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oy... please state which "any blog" I'm quoting here, Jayjg. Please disregard any organization that has submitted documents to Israeli courts and/or the Hague. Just b/c you don't like their conclusions, doesn't delegitimate them. FYI,

The Apartheid Wall Campaign was established on October 2, 2002 at the Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network’s (PENGON) General Assembly meeting. PENGON, through the General Assembly decision, would focus most of its energy on this pressing issue. The Campaign is the only national, coordinated effort of its kind taking places against the Wall. PENGON is the Campaign center/headquarters and functions within the Campaign as the NGO Campaign organizer and national and international advocate against the Wall and on behalf of the communities. ... The Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network (PENGON) is a non-profit, non-governmental organization whose role is to serve the Palestinian environment by acting as a coordinating body for the Palestinian environmental organizations located in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip). PENGON was founded two years ago, following the start of the second Intifada, due to the increased demands and responsibilities of Palestinian environmental organizations to defend the Palestinian environment. PENGON is formed of 21 member organizations whose mandates cover a wide and interconnected range of environmental issues such as land defense, agriculture, water, rural issues, sustainable development, cultural heritage, health and sanitation, biodiversity, human rights and community participation.

With all due respect, WP:RS doesn't place the burden of proof on the writer. So, unless you have a clear explanation for why something is not RS, and post it on talk, don't expect to be able to just cut things. Your own reliability for guessing non-RS is quite limited in my experience.--Carwil 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just about anyone can submit whatever they want to the U.N., which itself is a political body, one of which's main purposes is to single Israel our for unique obloquy. The sources used and arguments made in that original research section had nothing in commmon with any of the sources you are now mentioning, the new sources you are mentioning are at best partisan political organizations, and in any event the information you've included is covered under the "apartheid wall" section. Enough is enough - this article will become a real encyclopedic examination of the term "Israeli apartheid", not another anti-Israel screed. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

When dealing with allegations, all they need is high noteriety, whether the people are wrong or idiots or otherwise. We don't wont a long droning article, so selecting the most academic sources would be best, though I don't see a need to only have top-notch academic sources.Voice-of-All 22:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, when noting who uses the term, we do mention sources that simply have high notoriety. But if we're actually going to discuss the allegations, then we need very good sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Carbonate

On another matter, I'm a bit troubled by the editing habits of User:Carbonate. He's clearly in violation of the 3RR at present, and his behaviour seems oddly similar to that of another recent contributor to this page. (It's possible that my suspicions on this latter front are unfounded, in which case I'd invite him to correct me.) CJCurrie 02:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I too have been reverted twice without explanation. Carbonate, we're waiting.--Carwil 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Future and purpose of this article

It seems to me that articles about human rights within the contexts of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Palestinian territories outside the 1949 armistice lines, in Israel, etc., are all appropriate for Wikipedia, and there are lots of articles about these topics.

What I think is missing are articles about the rhetoric employed for the controversies. Charges of apartheid are clearly an example, but there are many others: comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, which is quite prevalent. I don't know if it's possible, but I'd rather that we not conflate these two topics (human rights and rhetoric) but put our energy toward making both well-covered, NPOV articles in Wikipedia. --Leifern 15:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely support this initiative for an article on the rhetorical landscape of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It should include the examples Leifern gives, as well as others like: comparisons of Palestinians to Nazis; the comparison of Islamist movements to European Fascism; phrases like "terrorist sympathizers" or "apologists for terror"; the deliberate blurring of the distinction between "the Israeli government" and "the Jews" in both Arab Islamist and American Zionist discourse; the use of "antisemite" or "self-hating Jew" as epithets for critics of the occupation in American political discourse (and the relationship of these to propaganda phrases like "America-bashers" or "the blame-America-first crowd") etc. This could be an interesting article.--G-Dett 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support restricting this article to the specific topic of the political rhetoric around "apartheid" allegations, rather than it being yet another platform to fill with opinions about the human rights and political situation in Israel, the West Bank etc., which already have lots of polemics articles on those topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that you don't actually support including the political rhetoric around apartheid allegations, because it's not from "reliable sources". john k 08:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The way to prevent it from becoming another polemical platform would be to cover the topic of I/P propaganda in a more general way, no?--G-Dett 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of articles that relate specifically to the discourse. If there does turn out to be a consensus for renaming this article to "Comparisons...", I would recommend discussing the various comparisons people have made (Jimmy Carter, for instance), with relevant supporting or opposing facts. This article shouldn't be about the specific phrase "Israeli apartheid" but rather about any comparison between Israel and apartheid, whether it notes similarities or differences. —Ashley Y 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Employment" sub-section

The "Employment" sub-section quotes statistics from the 1990s, relies on exactly one source, and draws conclusions from that source which are not found in the article itself. The author does not state that the examples used are, in fact, examples of "apartheid", and the source itself states quite clearly that Recently, however, the idea that Arabs should be treated as equal citizens has begun to take root in Israeli society. Indeed, small signs of positive change are everywhere etc., something completely (and unsurprisingly) overlooked in the presentation in this article. Can anyone articulate a reason for keeping this section in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the article itself called "Israel's apartheid". Thus it s reasonable to assume that the negative examples provided are meant to be examples of Israeli apartheid. Also, what is wrong if one sentence (that's all it is) has only one source attached to it?Bless sins 18:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is only one source for this claim, then it could well be an extreme minority opinion. Please respond to the other issues raised (the author does not state that the examples used are, in fact, examples of "apartheid", etc). Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please point me to which policy of wikipedia these statements violate. I think you are referring to "Wp:Undue weight". However, I think it is fair to include this statement because it is only one sentence long. It is not like we are giving this several paragraphs (in which case it would be undue wieght). Can you also tell me how many sources would you like for this one sentence? In general how many sources does one sentence require in a non-Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article?

Also I did answer your question about "the author does not state that the examples used are, in fact, examples of "apartheid"". Because the article is titled "Israel's apartheid", it is reasonable to assume that the negative actions of Israel (as stated by the article) on the Palestinians/Arabs are examples of apartheid. Bless sins 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy this (the paragraph above) violates is WP:NOR. The article is indeed titled Allegations of Israeli apartheid, but if the author cites does not claim that this employment disparities are an example of Apartheid, then it is your own personal research that says they are - and that is not allowed. Isarig 05:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The author has titled his work "Israel's apartheid". Clealry the author is talking saying the disparities are an example of aparthied. Ofcourse, the author doesn't need to put after EVERY statement that the example given is an example of apartheid.Bless sins 06:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What is "clear" to you, looks like original research; surely not everything he mentions in the article is an example, in his view, of "apartheid". Also, you still fail to address the issue of the age of the article, it being a sole source of this POV, and in particular the failure to include the text indicating that these conditions were improving considerably. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see this at all, and am puzzled that you would claim that a series of points made towards proving a particular thesis, namely that state-backed discrimination exists in Israel comparable with apartheid, cannot be cited as evidence for what people believe about the similarity. For other readers, the relevant portion of the article is The problem, as the United States discovered in the 1950s, is that separate is usually inherently unequal. Israeli Arabs and Jews live essentially segregated lives -- their paths crossing only briefly at university -- with vastly differing opportunities. According to the New Israel Fund, an organization that promotes social justice, only 3.7 percent of Israel's federal employees are Arabs; Arabs hold only 50 out of 5,000 university faculty positions; and of the country's 61 poorest towns, 48 are Arab. Are you seriously saying, Jay, that saying that these facts have been cited as evidence for their claims by believers in the fact of Israeli apartheid is OR? How many times does a particular statistic have to be quoted in a reliable source in the specific context of the phrase apartheid? Can this be applied to the Kagila-Moodey article as well? I think you may trot out that term -OR- too easily. (Obloquy, anyone?) Hornplease 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What you fail to mention is that unlike the 1950's American South, there is nothing in Israeli law that precludes Arabs from fully integrating into Israeli society, in fact just like modern America, there are laws that prohibit explicit discrimination based on religion or ethnicity. Obviously there is going to be inter-racial and inter-confessional distrust between the two peoples but that is an inevitability. An arabic person may be weary of applying for a job in a Jewish area and a Jewish person may prefer to hire another Jewish person before an Arab, but you know what? That happens in almost every country. Just take a look at modern Europe, your comment about Muslims living seperate lives from Jews in Israel could be applied with the same degree of accuracy in countries like Great Britian or France. There is simply no evidence that supports your claim that there is state-backed discrimination inside Israel proper.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination exists in all countries, and certainly existed in the American south, but the fact that he compares Israel's situation to the American south indicates that he is not comparing it to Apartheid, which was a different system. Not all discrimination is "apartheid", unless we are willing at this point to concede that the word is now completely meaningless, and can be used to describe essentially any social situation one disapproves of. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Even the claim of "essentially segregated lives" is bogus. Of course lives aren't 100% integrated, since these are two different cultures, with different customs and languages. But what separation exists is purely voluntary - some Arabs prefer to live in an Arab town/village, and that's understandable. Most Arabs send their kids to Arab school - so they can study in Arabic. However, some send their kid to a Hebrew speaking school - I had an Arab classmate, for instance (whose father was a department head in the city hospital, by the way). Many Arabs live in towns with a Jewish majority, and there's no law against that, and no one prevents them from doing so. Several cities in Israel have substantially mixed populations, including Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, Lod, Ramle, Beer Sheva and others. There's no segregation, and no separation. okedem 10:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from naming his article "Israel's apartheid", the auhtor uses other words to describe the position of Arabs. Infact, within two to three sentences, the author uses the following phrases to describe the position of Arabs: "inherently unequal", "segregated", "vastly differing", "glaring discrimination" and there is even a hint that Arabs are not receiving "social justice".Bless sins 06:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this statement could be better contextualized, but the article is in Salon, which is a reputable publication. There is no reason to believe that it's an "extreme minority opinion." john k 08:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's not an extreme minority opinion, then where are the other sources mentioning this? And, like you, I find the lack of contextualization to be an issue which compounds the problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that other sources have not yet been cited doesn't mean they don't exist - given the nature of the argument, I would be very surprised if these kinds of arguments have not been made frequently by left-wing polemicists. It seems to me that in terms of the use of "Apartheid" to refer to Israel you have two different types of analogies, on the one hand, you have the way it is used by Carter, Tutu, Cole, and other fairly well-respected figures to refer to conditions in the occupied territories. On the other hand, you have a position advanced mostly by left-wing polemicists to refer to the treatment of Israeli Arabs in Israel proper. This latter position is, I think, almost certainly not true (while Israeli Arabs are certainly in some ways second-class citizens, their situation is in no way comparable to that of blacks in apartheid South Africa), but it appears to show up with some frequency in certain kinds of sources. It seems to me that what the article needs to do is to be clear that it is about discourse, rather than about conditions. We should separately discuss both of the kinds of arguments comparing Israeli behavior to "apartheid," as well as the counter-arguments offered to both. Due weight would suggest that the article focus more on the discussions about the Occupied Territories, since the other argument is a distinctly minority position. But I don't think it can be ignored in its entirety in an article of this sort. john k 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If the sources exist, then please quote them. That's what I keep asking. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But a source has been provided. As usual, the standard of proof you require for inclusion of arguments you disagree with is really really high, in a way that we rarely demand for anything else. john k 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A single source, has been provided, the opinion of Flore de Préneuf, from early 2000, and that source has been quoted in a biased way. Where are the other sources? And considering that Israel is held to a standard that is never applied to other countries, it seems only appropriate that polemic articles like this one be held to high standards as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that your personal POV isn't clouding your approach to this article. CJCurrie 03:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point about separating the arguments. The condition of Israel Arabs is so different from the Palestinians', it doesn't do justice to any of them to discuss the matter jointly. okedem 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

de Preneuf is a freelance journalist who wrote a small number of articles about Israel for Salon.com in the early 2000s. Her article isn't about "employment", but about general discrimination against Israeli Arabs, which the article itself says is changing. It's a pretty bad source, and it has been badly misconstrued. I've NPOVd the section for now, but it's still a rather bizarre insertion, and I'd like to hear a rational argument for its inclusion in the article in this way. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read all three pages of the article? CJCurrie 02:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Races

The whole concept of human races is highly controversial, and the claim that the Jews and the Palestinians are separate races is baseless. Jews, in fact, cannot be a race, since, as I have added (and User:Heptor reverted) "...anyone can convert to Judaism, thus joining the Jewish people, regardless of ancestry."

I think it should be clarified, in the "Arguments against the term -> Demographics" part, that there's no racial criteria to being Jewish, as the case of the Ethiopian Jews will clearly demonstrate. okedem 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewishness is certainly an ethnicity, or, at least, several ethnicities (Sephardic, Ashkenazic, etc.) I believe that Y Chromosome tests have determined that most Jews descend from a common male ancestor. And conversion to (orthodox) Judaism is notoriously difficult. john k 16:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox conversion to any religion is notoriously difficult; conversion to another "race" is way past difficult. Do you know of anyone who converted to Orthodox Arab? Gzuckier 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd imagine that a native Arabic-speaking Jew who converted to Islam or Christianity would be accepted as an Arab at least as much as an Arab who converted to Judaism would be considered a Jew. But I wasn't saying that Judaism is a "race". I was saying that Jewishness is an "ethnicity" as well as a religion, or, at least, a group of ethnicities. The idea that religion and ethnicity are easily separable is a highly problematic one. john k 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Most Jews do seem to share a common ancestry, but not all. Several ethnicities, such as Yemeni Jews and Ethiopian Jews seem to have no special genetic connection to the other ethnicities (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, etc). Still, they are just as part of the Jewish people as all the rest, and it's not in doubt. Judaism has a very clear policy of accepting anyone who wishes to join, provided he shows his true belief in the Jewish way. Orthodox conversion is more difficult than others, but still - many do undergo it. There are other types of conversion as well, Reform and Conservative, which are less demanding in many ways. Many have joined the Jewish people throughout the ages (like the entire Chozari kingdom). There's absolutely no racial criteria to Judaism. okedem 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

However, Ethiopian and Yemeni Jews constitute distinct ethnicities of their own, don't they? The Jews together may not form a single distinct ethnicity, but the vast majority of Jews are members of distinct Jewish ethnicities, whether or not said ethnicities are related to one another. Also, Reform and Conservative conversion are not accepted in Israel as making someone a Jew, are they? john k 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jews have so many "ethnicities", it's a moot point. Since Jews came to Israel from all over, there are many different origins. I, for instance, am half Ashkenzai, and half Mizrachi. It used to be different cultural groups, but that is becoming a thing of the past, as populations of different origins mix. By the way, you can find as many subdivisions as you want, and not distinct groups (Ashkenazis can be from Poland, Russia, Germany, Italy, etc). Anyways, it has nothing to do with race, the original discussion here.

I've never heard anyone question the Judaism of Yemeni Jews, and no one talks about origins. It simply doesn't matter.

Reform/conservative conversion has recently received recognition in Israel as a result of a supreme court ruling. It has to do with a power struggle between the different parts of Judaism. okedem 19:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues section

The issues section has turned into a personal essay about issues Wikipedia editors don't like about Israel. It must focus on who has called these issues apartheid and why i.e. what the SOURCES say, not what individual Wikipedians believe. I reverted CJCurrie's latest attempt to make this section even worse. We need to find good sources, if possible academic, and add which practises the sources cite as evidence of apartheid, and what the sources say about why those examples are evidence, and we need to leave our own opinions entirely out of the mix, otherwise it's OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See below. My "latest attempt to make this section even worse" was simply a reversion to the previous text (before JayJG's most recent edit), and I'm not certain why you're carrying on about sources when you've just removed two citations on the roads issue. CJCurrie 23:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Roads

SlimVirgin writes: I've said in the edit summary what's wrong with the section; don't keep adding it against objections.

My response: There's that irony thing again.

SlimVirgin may be interested to know that I was returning her description of the Schlomka piece at the very moment she decided to impose a blanket revert. Had I succeeded in making this change, the only substantive difference between our versions would have been the presence of the "roads" section in mine.

I'm quite puzzled as to what Slim's justification for removing the "roads" section could be, when the cited articles refer directly to the apartheid analogy. I wouldn't want to jump to any rash conclusions and suggest that that the section was deleted for political reasons, but I'm at a loss to understand Slim's motivations otherwise. Perhaps she could provide some elucidation. CJCurrie 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In a recent edit, SlimVirgin indicated that the article was "already too long", and that some information was "already mentioned elswhere".

With the evident intent of correcting these problems, she has combined these sections:

The Israeli West Bank barrier, which has also been called the "apartheid wall" — 88% of barrier is currently fenced and 11.5% walled — isolates Palestinian communities in the West Bank and consolidates the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements.

The Israeli foreign ministry says that the West Bank barrier will cause no transfer of population and that none of the estimated 10,000 Palestinians (0.5%) who will be left on the Israeli side of the barrier (based on the February 2005 route) will be forced to migrate. The barrier has been presented as a reasonable and necessary security precaution to protect Israeli civilians from Palestinian terrorism. Supporters of the barrier consider it to be largely responsible for reducing incidents of terrorism by 90% from 2002 to 2005. Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, stated in 2004 that the barrier is not a border but a temporary defensive measure designed to protect Israeli civilians from terrorist infiltration and attack, and can be dismantled if appropriate. The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the barrier is defensive and accepted the government's position that the route is based on security considerations.

To create this:

The West Bank barrier, which has also been called the "apartheid wall" isolates Palestinian communities in the West Bank and consolidates the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements. The Israeli foreign ministry says that it will cause no transfer of population and that none of the estimated 10,000 Palestinians (0.5%) who will be left on the Israeli side of the barrier (based on the February 2005 route) will be forced to migrate. The barrier has been presented as a reasonable and necessary security precaution to protect Israeli civilians from Palestinian terrorism. Supporters of the barrier consider it to be largely responsible for reducing incidents of terrorism by 90% from 2002 to 2005. Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, stated in 2004 that the barrier is not a border but a temporary defensive measure designed to protect Israeli civilians from terrorist infiltration and attack, and can be dismantled if appropriate. The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the barrier is defensive and accepted the government's position that the route is based on security considerations.

She has also deleted this:

Israel has created separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said "Palestinians are barred from or have restricted access to 450 miles of West Bank roads, a system with 'clear similarities' to South Africa's former apartheid regime". The Israeli newspaper Maariv reported that the Israeli government gave its military approval to implement a plan to culminate in barring all Palestinians from roads used by Israelis in the West Bank. "The purpose is to reach, in a gradual manner, within a year or two, total separation between the two populations. The first and immediate stage of separation applies to the roads in the territories: roads for Israelis only and roads for Palestinians only," the newspaper said.

apparently on the grounds that this already appears in the article:

and Israeli-only roads.

Readers may decide for themselves if this is a fair edit. CJCurrie 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than writing posts so long that people won't read them, why can't you stick to making edits relying on sources who specifically use the term "apartheid" and explaining why THEY use the term, and not why YOU believe they use it? In other words, please edit within the policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you're referring to, but it doesn't matter. Now that the roads section has been returned, I no problem accepting your edit. CJCurrie 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to your original research. Please don't add anything else to this article unless you have a source that ties the issue to apartheid, and then say why the source makes the link; don't tell us why you think the issues are linked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What "original research" are you referring to? CJCurrie 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example: in the beginning of that separation section you quote the following seven sources: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. The first three sources make no reference to or even implication of "apartheid". The fourth source, B'Tselem, is the first to actually make the analogy/allegation. The fifth merely repeats B'Tselem's opinion; and by the way, why are we using "commondreams.org" as a source? Anything relying on them should be immediately deleted. The sixth reference does make the analogy, but its quoting Fred Shlomka, an Israeli businessman and part-time political activist. Why would we care what he has to say? The seventh, even though it's B'Tselem, doesn't mention apartheid at all. You've built a whole argument based on one relevant source, one secondary source quoting the primary source, one non-notable source, and four original research sources. This needs to be cleaned up. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add any of those sources. For that matter, SlimVirgin didn't delete them. I'm still puzzled as how any of this constitutes "original research" on my part. CJCurrie 03:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you added those sources, many times. Here's an example of you doing it again, just a few hours ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By the same logic, SlimVirgin has also added those sources (more than once). The point is that I'm not the original author of the text, so the accusation of "original research" seems a tad off-base. CJCurrie 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could review the NOR policy, as you seem to have difficulty with it whenever you personally agree with the material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure SlimVirgin did all sorts of things in an attempt to bend over backwards and compromise. However, the fact remains that it was you who first re-inserted the original research, within 15 minutes of my initially deleting it. Not only that, but you then argued on the Talk: page that you couldn't understand why there were being deleted, and that it couldn't possibly be original research, that was just "splitting hairs" [38]. Are you now planning to take it out? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Responses: (i) I reverted it because you (inaccurately) stated that none of the sources had anything to do with allegations of apartheid, (ii) my "splitting hairs" comment had to do with the question of whether or not "allegations of apartheid in the occupied territories" should be covered in this article, and was not connected to any particular source that we were using.

To the main issue: some of the sources in the current edit provide readers with a general background on the concept of Hafrada, while others draw out the apartheid analogy in more explicit terms. I'm not certain that we need to adjust the article text at all, although better sources could certainly be found if necessary. (And I will reiterate that SlimVirgin has reposted the disputed information three times in the last 24 hours.) CJCurrie 03:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Provide readers with a general background" = original research. You need to use "Israeli apartheid" sources which provide readers with the background, not decide for yourself which facts are pertinent for that. I am quite certain that the original research sources will be going very soon, so there won't be much left in this section. I plan to read the other sections, and remove the original research sources from them as well. In the end, this article will contain only sources which make and discuss the analogy, per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:SOAP. I suggest you try to find better sources as soon as possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how summarizing the concept of "Hafrada", and then providing sources which draw out an apartheid analogy, contradicts in any way the conditions of WP:NOR. Would you be willing to cite the specific passage that you consulted before reaching this conclusion? CJCurrie 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Use "Israeli apartheid" sources which "summarize the concept of Hafrada" and tie it to "Israeli apartheid". Otherwise, you are introducing an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting "Hafrada is X and some have described Hafrada as Y" constitutes original research? CJCurrie 07:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, if "Hafrada is X" is your own opinion and especially when dwelt upon at length, as you did. Find sources who use it as an example of what they call Israeli apartheid, and don't add any of your own views, interpretations, or descriptions. If you stick to using only reliable sources, people will stop reverting your edits, all our editing lives will be happier, and the article will improve, so it's win-win. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(i) especially when dwelt upon at length, as you did. Actually, I didn't write the section

(ii) "In response to the Intifada, Israel began in 2002 to implement a "separation program" designed to separate Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank. The program includes the West Bank barrier, limitations on travel by Palestinians within the West Bank, and Israeli-only roads." Does anyone seriously believe that this passage constitutes original research? CJCurrie 07:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please prepare yourself for removal of all sources not on the topic of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and any sentences supported by them, as well as removal of other non-notable sources. I've given you more than fair enough warning; if you can find proper sources supporting this section, now is your chance. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. CJCurrie 01:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What question? The one about whether or not anyone seriously believes it constitutes original research? The question is, how could anyone not think that? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Add: We are not using Common Dreams as a source, except insofar as they've chosen to reprint an article from The Observer. I agree that it would be better to find the original material. For that matter, I agree that we should probably find a better source than Fred Shlomka. CJCurrie 03:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the Common Dreams source with the original Guardian article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg and SlimVirgin, however consistently you apply your concatenation of WP:RS and WP:NOR, you can't make it into policy by fiat. CJCurrie is right; defining Hafrada based on perfectly good WP:RS is very acceptable practice. If we had an article called "Palestine: Alleged Land of Giants" and Giant advocate X says Kareem is a giant, while Kareem's medical records say he is 7', it is perfectly acceptable to write the sentence, Advocates of a Giant Palestine point to Kareem, known to be 7' tall, citing both RSs. You're being obtuse, and it's not helping make a balanced article.

CJCurrie, for what it's worth, there's tons of RS on the subject, so most of the time you can find alternatives if you don't want to fight this out, try: Jeff Halper [39] and [40]

Jayjg, Your threatened deletion "this article will contain only sources..." is quite frankly an attempt at intimidation. Consider it publicly opposed, and get someone from outside the editors on the article to comment before you revert lots of time and effort.--Carwil 03:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

All articles must adhere to policy. That's not a threat, that's policy, and WP:NOR is already policy. Sabeel is hardly a "reliable source", it's a Christian Palestinian anti-Zionist group of political activists. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions is, similarly, another group of political activists. What makes them a "reliable source"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick reminder from WP:NOR:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. (emphasis mine)

--Carwil 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but more relevant is the following, from the introduction of the policy: "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." The words "directly related" are bolded in the original, so the sources used must be directly related to Israeli apartheid. The sources used here don't mention apartheid, or even refer to it, or even related concepts like "South Africa" or "bantustans" etc. Feel free to use sources about hafrada in the Hafrada article, but don't try to force them into this article, which is about "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", not "Hafrada". If you can find a reliable source linking the two, that's great, but until then, please adhere to policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

is the argument Jay and Slim are making here that we can't provide any context unless said context is already provided in a source specifically discussing the apartheid comparison, and that doing so is original research? john k 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument is that a very small number of editors have tried to use this article as an excuse to write personal essays about issues in Israel they don't like. They pepper their essays with key terms like "apartheid" and "Desmond Tutu" in order to keep them on-message, and the resultant mess is on the page for all to see. We should instead be publishing what commentators on the issue of "allegations of Israeli apartheid" have said; that is, which issues they believe are, or are not, reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and why. We don't need CJCurrie's context. We need the source's context. The sources will explain what their arguments are if they have any. There aren't many good sources who've written about this so it shouldn't be hard to track them down and publish what they've said. Doing anything else is OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that fair-minded readers will be able to recognize these comments for what they are. CJCurrie 07:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Simple statements of fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope fair-minded readers will also see this for what it is. CJCurrie 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Another simple statement of fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue in this section, as far as I can gather, is that the source refers to a specific policy, Hafrada, as being comparable to apartheid. I don't see how it can be OR to simply explain in a neutral way what that policy is, even if the sources discussing the apartheid comparison do not elaborate. Surely this is the kind of basic synthesis without which the writing of an encyclopedia would be impossible. john k 07:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's done succinctly and neutrally, it's fine, although it's still better to take it from a source who discusses it in terms of apartheid, and if no source can be found for that, we should let that tell us something. As I said, the problem on this page has been that a very small number of editors have tried to hijack it to demonize Israel, not to write a good article, so it's more important than usual that the policies be adhered to strictly. You can see for yourself what a mess the article's in. It didn't get that way because of the content policies, but because the content policies were ignored. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of assuming the worst about these unnamed editors, and stating that opinion at tedious length, it might actually help the project if you nominated acceptable sources for a definition of Hafrada in order to provide context. Hornplease 08:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming the worst of them. They made it clear what their agenda was, and it's being repeated "at tedious length" because it's the reason no progress can be made on improving this article. As for acceptable sources, we need to find sources who discuss the separation program in terms of allegations of apartheid, and who explain which issues make them believe the analogy is fair. I'm aware of no academic sources who do that. B'Tselem makes the comparison with roads and explains why. The article also cites Fred Schlomka, an Israeli businessman, and if you look at the link, he doesn't even say it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's always important that policies be adhered to in a sane and even-handed way. It's also important that we be careful about accusations. Are you calling CJCurrie one of the editors who is trying to hijack the article to demonize Israel? He's been around wikipedia for 2.5 years now, and his main area of interest appears to be Canadian politics. This kind of tooth and nail fighting over completely reasonable material (at least as far as the passage quoted by CJCurrie above goes) drives away reasonable people and turns the article into a back and forth revert war among extremists, which is why articles like this almost always suck. I'd also note that the problem with articles like this is not one way. It is not just people trying to "hijack articles to demonize Israel", although that's certainly a part of it. There are also just as many editors who appear to view their job as a knee-jerk defense of Israel, and this is just as much of a problem. As long as everyone sees the problem with the article as "the other side", rather than the dynamic of extremists on both sides fighting over the article and driving moderates away, these problems will continue. john k 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

John, with respect, you've just arrived here and don't know the history. This article was created as an attack page and has been liberally used as one. I agree that the content policies are always important, but when you have the kind of situation we're faced with here, it's more important than usual to adhere to them closely, and I've never seen a dispute continue when everyone has done that. You may not be aware that the second highest number of edits to this article have been made by Kiyosaki (talk · contribs), a reincarnation of a long-time banned anti-Semite; that may give you an indication of how absurd the editing of this page has been. As for CJC, he is certainly one of the anti-Israel editors who has caused a problem.

I agree that being defensive of Israel is as bad as attacking, which is why I keep calling for neutral academic sources to be used as far as possible, but it's a call that seems to fall on deaf ears. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin writes: As for CJC, he is certainly one of the anti-Israel editors who has caused a problem.

My response: gratuitous ad hominem attacks from SlimVirgin are hardly a cause for surprise at this point. This particular attack is unlikely to convince any neutral editors, and I'm half-tempted to pass it over in silence. Instead, I'm going to pose a challenge: can you find a single instance of me pushing my personal POV on this article? Page diffs, please. If you're going to accuse me of "causing problems", please show proof. CJCurrie 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: [41] [42]. Hot off the presses, edits made only minutes ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't pushing anyone's POV -- I was reverting your changes, which I believed (and still believe) to be unjustified. And perhaps you missed this the first time: "now, now, Jay ... you didn't give me a chance to make the supplementary changes; btw, I have the *original* Chris McGreal article from the Guardian in front of me right now" CJCurrie 04:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If your issue was the Chris McGreal article, you could have inserted that, rather than reverting all sorts of changes made throughout the article fixing a number of problematic issues. As it was, I ended up inserting the original Chris McGreal stuff. And, for example, when you admit that Fred Shlomka is not a good source, yet insert him anyway, it's hard to imagine what you could be doing aside from pushing a POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of good editing. Finding the best sources and writing up what they say clearly as part of a coherent narrative. That's what has been missing from this article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay: I was in the process of making further adjustments (including the removal of Shlomka's reference) when you blanket-reverted the page. Both times, actually. CJCurrie 04:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Please note: Hornplease's comments are made in response to SlimVirgin's edit from 20:30, 20 December 2006. CJCurrie 04:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your words 'neutral' here are obviously loaded. We seek peer reviewed, reliable sources, regardless of your perception of their neutrality. Please note the list of several sources I linked to in my discussion with Jayjg above, in the section where the inexplicable weight given to the single Kagila-Moodey source is discussed. And please do not people who disagree with you about the editing of this page as anti-Israel. You have no idea what our belief systems may be. Enough about the history of the page already. As I said above, you've gone on about it at tedious length; that is what is slowing down this article right now, not the number of suspected anti-Semites who've edited it in the past. Hornplease 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam/Moodley aren't a "single source", they are academics who specialize in the study of this specific topic, as well as related topics. They've written books and papers on it, presented at conferences about it, etc. They're not "pro-Israel" by any stretch of the imagination; on the contrary, they are quite dispassionate in their analysis, and sometimes quite damning. They are by far the single best source we have on the topic. However, because they are both academics and highly knowledgeable, they tend to show both sides of the debate. As such, those who wish to show only one side of the debate insist on downplaying them, and instead playing up non-academics like Desmond Tutu, who know almost nothing about the situation in Israel, and who compare practically everything to "apartheid"; or, even worse, they promote the views of Israeli businessmen like Fred Shlomka or partisan political groups like Sabeel, or dispense with policy altogether, and insert their own original research instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if we can't find neutral academics, other academics will do, but we should try to stick to scholarly sources as far as possible, and make the most use of the ones we do have. Instead, we've seen people try to use Israeli businessmen and poo-poo Adam and Moodley because they don't demonize Israel sufficiently — even though I believe they're the only sources we've found who've actually studied this allegation and who are in a position to understand it. That's the kind of attitude that has to stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reluctance to accept material from journalists and advocacy groups is really quite puzzling. There's nothing in WP:NOR that prevents, or even restricts, the use of such materials. CJCurrie 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would WP:NOR be relevant? The more relevant policy is WP:NPOV: find the best and most reputable sources you can. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:NPOV to prevent journalistic and advocacy sources from being used to represent particular positions. CJCurrie 04:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing that explicitly says that, but the policies do advise us to use the best and most appropriate sources, so we shouldn't rely on newspapers and advocacy groups if academic sources are available — and relying on a businessman is just odd. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be something of a definitional problem in these discussions. This article, as I understand it, is not about whether or not Israeli policies are like apartheid, but about arguments that people have made about whether or not Israeli policies are like apartheid. What should be our sources for such an article? Obviously reliable secondary sources, if any exist, would come first. The best sources would be scholarly studies of the way the apartheid comparison has been deployed. Do these exist? In the absence of such studies, the best way to get at what this discourse is would be to a) look at journalistic secondary sources; and b) go to the primary sources. I'm not sure where the issue of neutral sources comes into play, since what we are discussing is a polemical argument. As such, any primary source that makes the comparison between the Israeli system and apartheid is bound to be, well, polemical and biased. But that's not a bug, it's a feature. This article is, or should be, about the polemic. There are plenty of articles to discuss Israel's policy in the Occupied Territories (and the treatment of Arab citizens of Israel). This article should be focused not on conditions themselves, but on the arguments that have been made about conditions. As such, primary sources that represent the actual arguments being made should be included. Counterpunch, or whatever, may not be a reliable source for what is actually going on in the Occupied Territories (or Nazareth, or wherever), but it is a good source wherein one can find leftist arguments making the Apartheid comparison, and as such should be usable as a source. Now, if we can find secondary sources that have already synthesized this material, all the better, but these should not be mandatory, so long as the article is written in a neutral manner, emphasizing the claims people have made, rather than the supposed "actual" situation. john k 07:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

John k says: The best sources would be scholarly studies of the way the apartheid comparison has been deployed. Do these exist? In the absence of such studies, the best way to get at what this discourse is would be to a) look at journalistic secondary sources; and b) go to the primary sources. But John, of course such scholarly studies exist; in fact, Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley, who are experts in this area, have made just such studies, which is why some editors here keep recommending that we rely on such sources. Here's one example of a book-length treatment: [43] There has been a great deal of discussion of exactly this point on the Talk: page, so it astonishes me that you would still be asking this question. Given that you have now been made aware of this, I assume you will also agree that we should rely on such scholarly studies, rather than journalists. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That there's a couple of books discussing this is of course good, and we should use such sources for writing this article. At the same time, there's no reason to rely only on those sources. If Adam and Moodley don't talk about some particular issue relating to the subject of this article, we can turn to other sources, including journalistic ones. For some issues relating to this, journalistic sources may be of equivalent reliability to scholarly ones. Journalistic discussions of Carter's book, for instance, would be perfectly relevant. john k 02:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with john k. This article is named "Allegations...", not the best name I believe (I would prefer something along the lines of "comparisons"), but good enough. So that's what should be discussed. This means any sufficiently notable source that makes or denies such allegations is relevant here, and indeed a primary source in the context of "Allegations...", regardless of neutrality. If some well-known Arab Nationalist (say) draws a comparison between Israeli policy and South African apartheid, or if some well-known Zionist rejects the very idea, well, one can weigh up their notability, but their neutrality or lack thereof is not at issue. —Ashley Y 08:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hafrada"

I realize that this will come as a surprise to many editors who follow this page, but I've reached the conclusion that JayJG's decision to delete the "Hafrada" references was correct. These references do not refer to official Israeli policy, and do not represent the viewpoints of persons who are cited as having made the apartheid analogy. Therefore, they are not suitable for inclusion in the article. It may be possible to include references to "Hafrada" from proponents of the analogy, but the previous wording was inappropriate.

The debates on this page have often extremely bitter, and it's probably safe to say that there is very little trust among certain participants. It's quite easy, as a result, for contributors to become locked into inflexible positions, as was the case here. I recognize now that my previous stance was the result of a misinterpretation; I apologize for this, and I will not attempt to return the deleted material. I hope that other contributors will also take the necessary steps to correct themselves when they find themselves in error. CJCurrie 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your saying this; let's try to move forward in a less hostile and entrenched way. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bishara link

The Bishara link also doesn't seem to back up what the article says, so I've removed that too, along with Schlomka. The Bishara article could perhaps be used elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to have anything to add to this section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Carwil has restored this, but it doesn't say what Carwil claims it says. Are you sure you have the right link and the right Bishara? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Catchpole, not Carwil. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This was the source you removed. [44]. The headline reads "Israel's Pass Laws Will Wreck Peace Hopes". The byine reads "Apartheid in the territories". The first sentence reads "As Palestinians and aid agencies try to piece together life on the West Bank and reform Palestinian institutions in the wake of Israel's March invasion, Israel is putting in place a de facto apartheid system in the occupied territories that will only undermine international peace efforts and lead to further escalation and conflict.". What source are you thinking of? Catchpole 09:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not the link that's in the article, at least not as my browser sees it. The link in the article is by the Bishara who's a Knesset member. See footnote 16. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what's happened. We've called the link "Bishara." There must be another link called Bishara somewhere, linking to the Knesset member Bishara's article. Even though the former link in edit mode is correct, when you click on it, you're taken to footnote 16, which is the Knesset Bishara. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've called it Bishara2 and it's now linking to the correct article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)