Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid (WP:APARTHEID)

For discussion around the Allegations of apartheid articles.   First, I'll refer to Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid#Article_titles_and_NPOV. Second, when looking at history, one sees many compromises such as Debate about the controversial allegations of soi-disant "apartheid" in Israel, Judea, Samaria, the Occupied Territories in the West Bank & Gaza, and  the Palestinian National Authority. Most of those monsters were stillborn and non survived an early age. Third, I believe there should not be any article called "allegations of X apartheid". Both "allegations" and "apartheid" are sly and slippery words, so an article title then beccomes quadruply inflammatory, or something.That leaves two logical options: "Segregation in Israel", and "Israeeli apartheid". We know what happened with the latter. Regarding the former, G-Dett summed up the objections thusly: "a) it's a different topic; and b) the word "segregation" is itself highly charged (in the U.S. context)" b) is most easily countered by WP:GLOBALISE. Just as Israelis'll have to learn that most people think about the security wall and not about the apartheid debate when they hear "apartheid wall", Americans'll have to learn that "segregation" is not an highly charged word in the rest of the world. a) I think it's actually an argument for having that title. Not only that, but also one of the strongest. By necessity, one has to provide context when writing an encyclopedic article about  a highly controversial debate. There might be a time and a place for such an article, but not until there is an article that describes the segregation or lack thereof in Israel. First after the topic has been treated within such an article, can it be expanded into its own article (which should be the exception rather than the rule, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of chess)So here's Segregation in Israel. Most of the content could be gathered from articles in the "See Also" section; all of those articles are of high quality, and there is no reason why this one shouldn't be either. --Victor falk 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)  It's written in Latin. greg park avenue 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC) I knew there was something odd about it.--G-Dett 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC) First of all, the dummy article with the Latin ought to be moved immediately either to user-space or perhaps it could be a sub-page to this page.  But if it stays where it is, I suspect it is going to get tagged for speedy deletion, speedily.  Second of all, if the issue at hand is the title of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, I have read all the various discussions of using the word "segregation" and I don't think it is really accurate.  "Discrimination" would be more accurate.  Or perhaps we don't have to call it anything in the title.  Several people have opined that the most important thing in this article (or the only secondary source in the article) is the description of Adam and Moodley's work.  Having now read it, I think it belongs in an article on the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (which already exists).  Maybe there could be a sub-article, something like "Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", or "Accusations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "Rhetoric in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".  I think I like the last one best of all.  It is neutral and accurate.  But any of them would be better than what we have now.  6SJ7 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Victor, this is what I meant when I wrote, "by substituting 'segregation' for 'apartheid,' we'd just be steering our impasse from one room into another."  Between the "segregation" title and 6SJ7's "Rhetoric in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," however, I'd have to say the latter is closer to the topic.  It would be a very, very broad article, however, as a number of existing articles would be merged into it: New antisemitism, Pallywood, and so on.--G-Dett 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC) "very, very broad"? That's a tiny, tiny, bit understated (^_^) ...--Victor falk 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)G-Dett, I have to admire your cleverness and tenacity, but as we used to say in the old neighborhood, for crying out loud!  I am trying to see if we can resolve a dispute here, not create a bunch of new disputes!  6SJ7 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, you have hit the nail on the head here. That is the fundamental difference. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)There is of course both discrimination and segregation occurring in Israel, as in all other countries. An article called "Discrimination in Israel" would cover things like lower wages and racism against Arab citizens, Thai immigrants, etc. Segregation has a geographical connotation and a secondary meaning of separation that "discrimination" is lacking. And it is those special types of geographical separation, such as the separation barrier, the unilateral disengagement plan, and Hafrada that create the allegations of apartheid.--Victor falk 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)I'd have to agree with this analysis. See for comparison Segregation in Northern Ireland and Religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, two articles which I've been working up in the past few days. -- ChrisO 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)How about we use an acronym?  It would soften the term's epithetic blow, and we could simultaneously create a speech code and circumvent it.  I suggest Israeli Diaper Hat Debate.--G-Dett 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)The articles that are actually relevant to Allegations of Israeli apartheid are Human rights in Israel and West Bank. Most of the "Israeli apartheid" article isn't about "Segregation in Israel" at all, unless you're willing to concede at this point that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)  Discrimination: Definitions [1]. Etymology [2]. Synonyms [3].Segregation: Definitions [4]. Etymology [5]. Synonyms [6].--Victor falk 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)I would support Rhetoric in the Arab-Israeli conflict if it also includes New antisemitism. If such an obvious rhetorical device is allowed to exist as a title, I do not see why Allegations of apartheid. Thanks! --Cerejota 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)  Agree with Cerejota; best suggestion yet on this page.--G-Dett 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Compare also Islamofascism and Homosexual agenda. Not Allegations of Islamofascism, or Allegations of a homosexual agenda, I note. I would be interested to know why such bald yet controversial titles are acceptable but Israeli apartheid isn't. Is it really just a question of whose ox is being gored? -- ChrisO 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC) The difference being that a) antisemitism describes a real phenomenon, b) what actually constitutes antisemitism has always been debated, and c) those to whom the label applies inevitably deny it. On the other hand, everybody agrees that Israel isn't practicing actual apartheid, since only South Africa practiced that. In other words, the term is recognized by all as an analogy, metaphor, comparison, what have you. Contrariwise, "New Antisemitism" is seen by its proponents as real antisemitism, not a metaphor for antisemitism. The other differences between the articles would be the fact that there are literally a dozen highly recognized scholars who have discussed "New antisemitism", and the reflects that. Not so for "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC) I see, Adam and Moodley and Benny Morris are not notable scholars... not mention that Haaretz has had a series of appearances of highly noted academics who speak of apartheid... However, I think you are drawing a fine line here: There is indeed Antisemitism and this is not debated. In fact from time to time we are infused in these article with such a phenomena. However, "New Antisemitism" is not only a rhetorical device, it is a rhetorical device used in particular by the right-wing of the political spectrum to attack the left-wing of the political spectrum. The notable academics you mention do not use the term as serious academic discourse, but as rhetorical devices in political debates. There isn't even the equivalent of Adam and Moodley (a jewel of a study even -or specially- where I disagree with it) for New Antisemitism: sage-like pronunciations and propaganda pamphlets, while all valid content for wikipedia, cannot constitute a claim of superiority in terms of title.In the final analysis, New antisemitism is the mirror image of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, the allegations being used mostly by the left-wing to attack the right-wing. This is why it is attractive to me...NPOV requires that in the battle of ideas, the battleground should be defined equally: by creating Rhetoric in the Arab-Israeli conflict as a merge of both, we can create such an equal battleground. Let the games begin!--Cerejota 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Adam and Moodley are indeed scholars, as is Benny Morris. How much of the article reflects their views, though, vs. talking head soundbites from partisans? As for your analysis of New antisemism, it is not, in fact, "the right wing attacking the left wing". And mixing these different concepts is a classic example of original research. Jayjg (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)I have to take issue with the assertion that "allegations of Israeli apartheid" aren't covered by recognised scholars. This is trivially disprovable - search Google Books for "Israel apartheid" and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of books discussing the topic. There are several entire books specifically about it (see the works of Uri Davis, for example). You can argue that the comparison isn't legitimate but you certainly don't have any grounds for arguing that it's not been documented by scholars. -- ChrisO 07:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Does the existing article reflect that? Davis is an academic, it's true, but is also a noted extremist, insisting he is a "Palestinian Jew" and, perhaps uniquely, insisting on living in a Palestinian community. One would hardly expect a particularly nuanced argument from him, and in any event, the article doesn't seem to use much of his material. Jayjg (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) So does the fact the Davis defies the segregation endemic in Israeli society (i.e. that Jews must only live in Jewish communities) make him an extremist in your eyes? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)I think the fundamental question remains, "Would this topic be better covered as part of another article, or is it better covered as a topic of its own."  With the debate in Israel, I'm convinced it's become a topic of its own, much like New Antisemitism, Pallywood, or any number of similar articles.  If it hadn't, I'm not sure Wikipedia would need to cover it at all. While articles on discrimination or segregation could certainly also be created, my nagging feeling is that those would really be less appropriate, by changing the natural terms of each of those discussions.  In fact, that material is already treated in articles like Human_rights_in_Israel#Israel.27s_record:_human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories, or West_Bank_Closures, probably either of which are more natural ways of describing these controversies in Israeli society.  In terms of names, this is admittedly difficult; Israel Apartheid Debate still shows the most potential to me, in capturing a point I think could be better discussed in that article: the extent this term represents a full-on controversy in Israel both in what it alleges and as to those who have used the term.  If this wasn't true when AoIa was initially created, it most certainly is now, as seen in the nearly endless commentary on Carter's book, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and on and on.  The one other idea I have is to invert this, making Apartheid Debate (Israel), which would seem to clarify this point one further step, that the article discusses not just an allegation but an ongoing and extremely contentious multi-faceted debate with regard to Israel.  I know this is outside what many are asking, but it seems about as far as you can go without simply deciding to write an article on something else, while the case for that related to other existing articles doesn't seem conclusive. Mackan79 01:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)  I would prefer anything that suggests "comparisons" rather than "allegations". The latter is a bit of a straw man, and allows people to say "it's not apartheid, that's by definition specific to South Africa", which misses the point that Carter et alii are making. —Ashley Y 09:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC) It is the term "apartheid" that seems to upset objectors to all of these articles, so the suggestion doesn't seem engendered to solve the problem. In the case of the Israeli article, no doubt the entire debate could be easily and sensibly captured in a Human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip article. Jayjg (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) It might be not a bad idea, though I'm not sure. I'd like to see some input from other editors.--Victor falk 13:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I believe Tiamat's is a response below.  My problem also remains, that this is still a different topic, which would effectively bury a very prominent debate.  In discussing this earlier, one idea was to go ahead and create that article as somewhat of a parallel to AoIa, for a neutral discussion of the various "facts on the ground."  This makes sense for a number of reasons, and would be a way of reducing some of that material in the AoIa article.  It also became apparent articles like here already discuss that material, while also clarifying where the issues differ.  I think either article could be part of a solution here, if some greater effort were made to reduce a lot of the quotes in the Israel article, while directing readers to those for neutral discussions of the factual issues.  That would more appropriately limit the article to the discussion of the rhetorical debate, which I think many of us feel is what justifies the article.   Mackan79 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Would it make sense then to start moving the "facts on the ground" material to the more relevant article, pruning down the AoIa article, and see what is left after this process is complete? Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) It's something to try.  I thought it was something Cerejota was working on, though I'm not sure how far he's come; I noticed on looking through it earlier today that much of the factual material appears to have already been removed.  There do remain a lot of extraneous quotes and repetition.  I can look at it, not necessarily a great deal right now.  Of course the other articles remain an issue; if someone with concerns with the Israel article actually made an effort to improve it, though, I'd be more comfortable that we're making progress on all the rest of this. Mackan79 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I agree that it's something to try.  Meanwhile regarding the other articles, in light of my exchange with Benjamin (below), I think Wikipedia's idiosyncratic definition of apartheid has played a fundamental role in creating conditions for the mess we find ourselves in.  WP's working definition of apartheid essentially has a) carved away a core part of the standard dictionary definition (its applicability to non-SA contexts), and then b) treated all of the many instances of the word's use that fell under the excised part of the definition as deviant and therefore intrinsically notable.  Hence all the quote-farm articles, with no objective indications of notability. --G-Dett 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Ashley is right that the "it's not apartheid, that's by definition specific to South Africa" line misses the point, just as it would miss the point to say that "ethnic cleansing (etničko čišćenje) is by definition specific to the former Yugoslavia."  At any rate the claim is objectively false.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines "apartheid" as follows: Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European (Coloured or mixed, Bantu, Indian, etc.); applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib. The misconception that "apartheid" only properly refers to South Africa, and that any other use is a metaphorical extension that must be documented and explained by Wikipedia, is perhaps the core misconception spawning this whole disastrous series.  That some sources use a term in its dictionary sense is decidedly not notable, unless some other sources note it and begin to discuss or debate the usage itself.--G-Dett 14:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Ah ! I have to admit I thought it was only for South Africa. My bad, sorry. Note that our Apartheid article doesn't help much:  "Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans, cognate to English apart and -hood) was a system of ethnic separation in South Africa from 1948, and was dismantled in a series of negotiations from 1990 to 1993, culminating in democratic elections in 1994." (I see there's also a legal definition at Crime of apartheid but ... what to do with that one ?). Benjamin.pineau 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC) It's not your bad, Benjamin, the apartheid-related articles on Wikipedia constitute something of an ecosystem unto itself, its groundwater contaminated by this core sophistry.  It may also be interesting to look at the history of the History of South Africa in the apartheid era article you've quoted from, beginning with edits like these: [7]  [8] Note that the article used to be called simply Apartheid (now a redirect), and that it began thusly:Apartheid is an Afrikaans word, meaning "separation" or literally "apartness". In English, it has come to mean any legally sanctioned system of racial segregation, such as existed in The Republic of South Africa between 1948 and 1990. The first recorded use of the word is in 1917, during a speech by Jan Smuts, then Prime Minister of South Africa. Until folks you've recently made the acquaintance of arrived there.  What you see now on all apartheid-related pages is an intricately designed, hermetic, self-referential semantic wiki-world in which "apartheid" refers only to South Africa – pace the OED, pace common usage – and all other instances of its usage, the many thousands of them, are "attempts to extend the meaning" (an unsourced notion of course) which in their very deviance are intrinsically notable, therefore meriting articles organized by country which collect such instances and build narratives around them.--G-Dett 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC) You can't quote Wikipedia's own definition from one moment in time. Here's the Encyclopaedia Britannica's:Apartheid. (Afrikaans: “apartness”), policy that governed relations between South Africa's white minority and nonwhite majority and sanctioned racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against nonwhites. The implementation of apartheid, often called “separate development” since the 1960s, was made possible through the Population Registration Act of 1950, which classified all South Africans as either Bantu (all black Africans), Coloured (those of mixed race), or white. A fourth category—Asian (Indian and Pakistani)—was later added. No mention of "any legally sanctioned system of racial segregation." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Hi Slim, I wasn't quoting the previous WP definition as authoritative (!); I was quoting it to show that the article Benjamin was quoting from has been seriously shaped by the dispute we're working through on this page, and that the very definition of apartheid has always been central to that dispute.  The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, is about as authoritative a source on linguistic usage as you can get.--G-Dett 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) If citing the OED is too anglophilic for some tastes, here's Merriam-Webster:Function: nounEtymology: Afrikaans, from apart apart + -heid -hood1 : racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa2 : SEPARATION, SEGREGATION <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid> It may be worth stressing that as use of the word as a general term has become standard, the word is less and less to be found in italics or within inverted commas, which are standard for foreign terms.  In other words, the term's 'naturalization' into standard English has proceeded apace with its becoming a general as opposed to proper noun.--G-Dett 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC) From the World Book Encyclopedia, volume "A", last copyrighted in 1974, found in basement of my house, must undust it before copying:APARTHEID, ah PAHRT hayt, is the South Afican government's policy of rigid racial segregation. Its official goal is the separate development of the nation's several racial groups. Laws isolate these groups in most activities, but especially in education, employment, housing, politics, and recreation. The word apartheid means apartness in Afrikaans, one of the official languages of South Africa. Apartheid not only segregates whites and nonwhites, but it also has led to efforts to segregate South Africa's nonwhite groups from one another. For example, certain residential areas are reserved for persons of a particular racial group. To enforce segregated housing, the government has moved thousands of families. A nonwhite must have a pass to even enter a white neighborhood. Schools are completely segregated. Nonwhites cannot serve in Parliament or hold certain jobs that are reserved for whites. Apartheid became an official policy of South Africa after the Nationalist Party gained control of the government in 1948. This party is dominated by Afrikaners, the descendants of the early Dutch settlers of South Africa. South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth of Nations in 1961 after other member nations criticized its racial policies.  Thomas F. Pettigrew Now, the keyword is the government's policy. I hope it helps. greg park avenue 03:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)   === arbitrary break === The term Pallywood is objectionable to me, but I don't think that renaming it Allegations of the Palestinian manipulation of the broadcasting of current events would solve my problem with the article. As it is, I concede that there are some sick people out there who like to ascribe all kinds of wrongdoing to Palestinians using whatever feeble evidence they can muster. Now, I can either pretend that they don't exist and try to delete or rename the article, or I can accept that they do exist and try to make the article as faithful a representation of their views and those who reject them, as possible. Similarly, I don't think it's the word "apartheid" which is objectionable to editors who oppose the creation of an Israeli apartheid article, it's the subject itself. But the fact is that the subject exists, there is a discussion around it, and therefore it has to be faithfully represented by us, using terminology that discusses the subject in question and not euphemisms that cloud which subject it is exactly that is under discussion. Mackan's suggestion for Israeli apartheid debate or Israeli apartheid analogy or Apartheid debate (Israel) all some like great ways of including "apartheid" (the analogy being discussed) without taking sides in the debate. Tiamat 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)  Israeli apartheid analogy is the best, most neutral choice I've seen. It avoids the straw man of allegations, and it doesn't even imply that there be such a thing as apartheid outside SA. —Ashley Y 05:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Regarding the article name, the words "allegations" was used to neutralize the epithet "apartheid"; attempts to remove one without the other are an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) A false deduction. Yes, "allegations" neutralizes "apartheid", but so does "analogy". As the article says, "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw an analogy..." —Ashley Y 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC) On this matter it would probably be better to canvas the opinions of those who are bothered by the term "apartheid", rather than simply stating the views of one who approves of it. Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Hold on, everyone here "approves" of the term apartheid in WP articles, with the exception of Victor.  On the one side, there are those who support a copiously sourced and notable article involving the term apartheid.  On the other side there are those who support seven quote-farm articles using the term apartheid, each of which lacks secondary sources.  One side has stringent demands regarding notability; the other has very loose and relaxed standards regarding notability.  That is the core of the debate.--G-Dett 10:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC) In the same fashion those who find Pallywood and New antisemitism are canvassed for their opinion? Come on!This would mess would be resolved in a second if people realized the "apartheid" in the title comes from Adam and Moodley - as secondary source - and it is actually OR to eliminate it. Adam and Moodley didn't set out to study "Human rights in the West Bank and Gaza strip" they set out to study allegations of Israeli apartheid. Period.Like Nigger, you cannot simply rename the article something other than what it is about simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or find it offensive. I mean, I am very sure that any black person in the world finds the use of the word "nigger" as an insult at least as offensive as a Zionist finds Israeli apartheid (which is why I originally supported Israeli apartheid as a title: even if it is an epithet, it deserves to be represented as is, not weasel-worded. Now the article has changed, so it is a moot point). If we were to correctly respond to not being offensive, we would rename it to The N word, rather than it being a redirect. NPOV - Article naming clearly states title changes should not be used to settle POV disputes. I think the fundamental problem is that we are all trying to push POV instead of letting the sources speak. In fact, if we were to do a true NPOV title, it would be Views on Israeli apartheid as per WP:NPOV itself. Of course, I have said I can live with Allegations, in so far as the content is clear. Thanks! --Cerejota 01:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC) We're talking about this article, not any other articles; WP:OTHERSTUFF is much more relevant. And I'm not trying to rename the article; rather, others are suggesting it be renamed, and it just so happens that those people are also those who approve of the article in the first place. Solutions that satisfy only people on one side of this issue aren't really solutions. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC) so you want it deleted pure and simple? am I understanding correctly?--Victor falk 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Please review the false dilemma. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Ah. Quite nice. If I ask for a "yes" or "no", I'm guilty of false dilemma, and if I ask for elaboration, it's the fallacy of many questions[9].--Victor falk 02:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC) If you stop trying to put words in my mouth you won't have to keep reading articles on logical fallacies. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I've heard of "false dilemma" and "logical fallacy" before, but I believe it's good etiquette to check the sources one is referred to.--Victor falk 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC) The first thing in the article is to define "allegations" as an analogy. The whole lead then discusses the analogy. Adam and Moodley also use the word "analogy". In fact, the article in general refers to "the analogy" and "comparisons" much more than to actual allegations that the situation in Israel or Palestine is apartheid. —Ashley Y 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, some sources describe it as an "analogy". How does that "neutralize" the term "apartheid"? Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC) A better question is, should "apartheid" be used as an epithet that needs to be "neutralized"? "Israeli apartheid analogy" means as analogy between Israeli policy and the original apartheid in South Africa: the word "apartheid" is not being used as an epithet. —Ashley Y 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Obviously some people feel the term does indeed need to be neutralized in some way, as they have expressed quite eloquently on many different AfDs. That is also why the articles have the word "Allegations" the title. Rather than trying to ignore that reality, you should accept it and search for compromises that will be acceptable to all sides, not just your own. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I'm not disagreeing with them, "allegations" might be necessary if "apartheid" is going to be used as an epithet. Instead I propose using it to refer to the original. And I have no interest in "compromise" between "sides": I am looking for consensus based on appeal to policy. —Ashley Y 02:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC) The various sides have very different views of what policy demands here, and consensus will require compromise between the sides, so you should probably be interested in that. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC) If I can step in, "Analogy" neutralizes the title in a few ways.   Primarily it clarifies that the article is about an analogy that some have drawn, not a phenomenon of "Israeli Apartheid."  I think that is the primary problem with "Israeli Apartheid," that it is unclear where this is a phrase or an agreed-upon reality.  It also suggests, like the current title, that these are primarily direct allegations, as opposed to the more abstract comparisons it often is in practice.  That may be less vital, but I think the first point is important.  Mackan79 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Well put. Since it is specific to that article, I have summarised the arguments on Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. —Ashley Y 03:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC) This is the place to solve the systemic problem, not specific article pages. That's what it's for. As I pointed out there, if you insist on "analogy" in the title, then Apartheid analogy (Israel) makes more sense. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I'm not addressing the systemic problem here, nor am I here making any particular recommendations about renaming other articles. —Ashley Y 03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Piecemeal attempts to resolve these issues in the past have inevitably failed, and this is the page for addressing the systemic issues. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC) would you accept to delete/redirect all the other articles if a satisfactory name is found for the israel article?--Victor falk 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) My personal view is that systemic solutions should be proposed. I haven't pre-judged what those solutions should be. Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Fair enough.--Victor falk 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)One of the unfortunate aspects of the creation of all the other "allegations" articles is the damage it does to the rest of the encyclopaedia. People have created articles about allegations of apartheid without (I assume) any particular interest or knowledge in these other countries, and regardless of the existing set of articles about their social issues. I'm glad to see that at least the Northern Ireland article was moved to a more sensible name, perhaps others might follow suit with input from editors familiar with these countries. —Ashley Y 05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)  There has been no "damage" to the encyclopedia, and these continuing bad faith appeals to motive and proofs by assertion are disruptive; please desist. Regarding AFDs or RFPMs, there are proper venues for that. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)WP:AGF. Thanks. —Ashley Y 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Exactly. WP:AGF. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Exactly. —Ashley Y 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC) There have been, well, allegations of damage to wikipedia, that's why we're having this very debate...--Victor falk 01:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC) User:Jayjg has made an interesting suggestion at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid.  During the course of a discussion on a proposed rename to "Israeli Apartheid Analogy", he suggested that "Apartheid analogy (Israel)" would be a more sensible choice.  (It is not clear if Jayjg actually supports this proposal himself.) I think this suggestion is worth considering, as seems to resolve two of the three problems associated with this troubled page: (i) it removes the dubious phrase "Allegations of" from the article title, and replaces it with something neutral, and (ii) it would (presumably) bring to a close the ongoing efforts to delete the page, if Jayjg and his allies are willing to accept the rename. The only problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't address the recent proliferation of unencyclopedic articles purporting to examine comparisons between other nations and apartheid-era South Africa.  That said, it doesn't make matters any worse and would be a marked improvement over the present situation in other respects. What do other editors think?  CJCurrie 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)  Your description of the problem is spot on. I do not oppose an article on the israeli apartheid debate with "apartheid" in the title. I have proposed titles without it to satisfy those that find "israel" and "apartheid" in the same title  provocative. Jayg's proposal of integrating with "Human rights in the West Bank and Gaza" is acceptable to me. Personally, I don't mind it having it since, well, it's what it's about. I find Israel apartheid analogy, which has been floated upthread and supported by several editors, viable. Regarding "apartheid analogy (Israel)", my worry is that it invites to having Apartheid analogy (X) articles, and that we would then be back to square one.--Victor falk 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)CJ, You're starting another war of names, what I think all this mess concerning Israel is about. If Israelis back in 1948 wouldn't named that land Israel when seceding from Great Britain, but somehow more neutral like "The Sovereign State of Palestine", then Jihad would probably never happened. The name "Israel" offended Arabs, while "Palestine" was completely neutral meaning the territory, the name of land, not religion. Now change the "Israeli Apartheid Analogy" of yours into "Palestine Apartheid Analogy" and see how stupid it will look. "Palestine" and "Analogy" are the neutral words, while the word "apartheid" is not - in this context it will state that there is an apartheid in Palestine. Let try this, replace the name "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" by "Allegations of Palestinian apartheid" and see how it looks now, it even doesn't make any sense. And you know why? Because "allegations" and "Israeli" or "allegations" and "apartheid" are two loaded words, but these neutralize each other when used in combination, just like "-" and "-" give "+" meaning exactly this: there may not be necessarily an apartheid in Israel as defined in the World Book Encyclopedia (see above) but there are many allegations that there is. greg park avenue 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)(edit conflict) I share your (Victor Falk) concern with the Apartheid analogy (X) model. I think Israeli apartheid analogy is a very fine compromise that avoids the "allegations" weasal word and avoids being a formula that encourages (fill-in-the-blank) article creation. I would point out that "Israeli apartheid" as a term between quotes garners 174,000 hits, whereas "French apartheid" get about 225 hits. I believe the hits for other similarly named apartheid articles would be around the same. The term "Israeli apartheid" in other words, is notable in itself and should be part of the title of the article, with analogy tagged onto the end to put to rest the fears of those who feel that it standing alone is too much of an assertion of fact. Tiamat 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)It's certainly a possible way forward, but I suspect it will not be accepted. As far as I can see, the editors involved in this discussion hold a number of mutually incompatible views towards the AoIa article:1. The subject is notable and deserves an article, and the current article title is OK. 2. The subject is notable and deserves an article, but the current article title needs to be changed. 3. The subject is notable but should be treated as a subsection of an existing article so that Israel doesn't get greater attention than all the other cases. 4. The subject is illegitimate and should not be discussed at all in any article.The third argument is based on a basic misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE and doesn't have any reliable basis in Wikipedia's policies. The fourth argument is, of course, based entirely on personal political sentiment and has no policy basis at all, but it seems to be a major factor in the arguments here. I note that many of the people involved in the AfDs on AoIa - including Jayjg - have voted to delete the article in its entirety, rather than merging it somewhere else; this suggests that they incline towards argument 4, disregarding all evidence of notability. I expect that these people are likely to object to any solution that doesn't result in the article being purged from Wikipedia. I hope I'm wrong in saying that, but past experience suggests otherwise. -- ChrisO 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)I like the term "standing alone". It fits here. That's because Jews proclaiming independence back in 1948 went it all alone, killing the stereotype once and forever that they're the wisest folks on Earth. I only hope I didn't allienate anybody by this comment. Sorry if someone feels this way, it wasn't meant to. greg park avenue 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Greg, I hope I'm not being overly rude in saying that I find many of your comments completely incomprehensible and (as in this one above) bordering on trollish. If you don't have anything useful to contribute, please don't clutter up the discussion. -- ChrisO 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC) ChrisO, I would agree with you about Greg's comments, but I have to say that I don't think your comments in this section are helping to achieve a solution either.  Both Jayjg and I, and others, have discussed possible new names for the "Israel" article either on this page, the article's talk page, or related AfD pages.  Has anyone said that only a deletion would be acceptable?  6SJ7 17:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Sorry for being "completely incomprehensible", Chris (and 6SJ7), but Jimbo likes it bold, not overcautious (see this), but the word "trolling" according to Wikipedia is a synonym of Sock puppetry which I think hardly applies here. greg park avenue 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I would second Tiamat in at least hoping that we don't need to put parentheses/quotes into the title. Ultimately I'd probably prefer either to the present, though punctuation would make me slightly more ambivalent. Also, I don't know about canvassing, but a straw poll on AoIa might be one option, which is probably how a name change would need to happen anyway. I believe the question here remains whether either of these options would allow for individualized treatment of the rest of the articles; this may indeed be a reason to avoid the parenthetical title, or there might be other options. Mackan79 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Why you guys never say I second Tiamat but always I would second or I wouldn't? Like those weathermen in England saying that the weather not necessarily would be fair, meaning anything from blizzard to sea calm. And I think you missed the point. She didn't mention any parentheses or quotes, just the fact that the idiom in question about Israel has got more hits (ratio about 1000:1) on internet than about France, and as a matter of fact, is more notable this way, which sounds pretty logical to me. Now I even guess why. However, I must credit you for what you have tried to do, at least to address the challenge, not the person who wrote it. greg park avenue 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)I second tiamat. And mackan too.--Victor falk 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)There you talk like a man. Now we can go places in London if you show me around and maybe steal horses? greg park avenue 21:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Moving the information in all of the 'allegation' articles to more encyclopaedic locations is an option - but deleting them, while keeping one after a slight name change, is not. Labeling "Israeli apartheid" as analogy and not as mere allegation is even less NPOV. Essentially, making encyclopaedic topics of things popular in google, like say, fuck Bush, is not the way to go. Than again, may be I shouldn't have suggested that. btw:   fuck Bush: 544,000 hits Israeli apartheid: 175,000I'm somewhat relieved. Anyway, there's some serious trouble for some shitty little country. I wonder why - will the Protocols tell? I didn't bother so far, except for some summaries who, um, allege forgery. How about Systemic bias against Israel for a new topic? --tickle me 22:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)  The problem here is a painfully obvious double standard on the part of a number of editors who believe that "consensus" means "majority rule", and who, simultaneously, believe WP:ILIKEIT is synonymous with WP:NPOV.  There is, and always has been, room for an article on Israeli apartheid:  specifically, it should discuss the usage of the term as a false analogy, a politicized appeal to emotion, and so on.  Instead, the article is used as a soapbox for a group of editors who happen to think this false analogy is a matter of fact...thereby twisting Wikipedia into yet another tool to forward the vile rhetoric that Israel is a "shitty little country" which is "the source of all the problems in the Middle East" (if not the entire world).  Wikipedia policy, neutrality, and respectability continue to be held hostage by this pedantry.  There is no encyclopedic value whatsoever to a collection of articles about "allegèd this" or "allegèd that".  The move of Israeli apartheid, however, to Allegations of Israeli apartheid was supposèdly done precisely to make the title "more encyclopedic".  It has not; all it's accomplished is to make obvious that the article contains nothing of encyclopedic value whatsoëver.  It is, in fact, at best, of little more worth than the World Weekly News or the National Enquirer, and a Wikipedia foothold for stormfront at worst.  In any case, the timing of this discussion is interesting.  Like so many other similar discussions, I can't help but notice that it's begun on the eve of the Sabbath.  This trend is beginning to look less and less like mere coïncidence...  Tomertalk 23:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I think you didn't get the drift of a bit of sarcasm used by Tickle and got too serious on the subject of the "shitty little country" which happens to be home for more than one nation, and now play Columbo on that assumption. Better back off until there's still time before you get too deep in mud. Uncle the Good Advise greg park avenue 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)And there are only 928 hits on bloody Bush, that's amazing how those polite British lads love us or US (US + UK = League of Nations or what?). At least they don't smell fish behind every bush. So who is behind that awful rest (~500,000)? greg park avenue 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)OT: Tomer, while I concur with the soapbox issue, you're going over the top with that Sabbath conspiration theory. Pro Israel Wikipedians are rather suspected to be Zionists than Haredim by their foes. --tickle me 01:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Tomer: since according to you I and other editors who defend the encyclopedic need and notability of the Israeli apartheid article are either tabloid falsifiers, or nazis, I think we don't have much to talk.  Please read WP:NPA. And of course, Godwin's Law (and no, your analogy is not valid). And of course, books like Adam and Moodley's "Seeking Mandela" (both of which according to your criteria surely are either tabloid mythologists or nazis) establish without a doubt the notability and encyclopedic value of the analogy between South Africa's apartheid and the current situation in Israel.  Nevermind they prove that the analogy is problematic, misguided, and unempathetic with the plight of the European and Mediterranean Jews that founded Israel: By even looking at the allegations in a serious fashion, they are "in fact, at best, of little more worth than the World Weekly News or the National Enquirer, and a Wikipedia foothold for stormfront at worst".  And then you dwelve in the worse of the worse of the conspiranoia: there is a surge of debate near the sabbath.  Well, I have a rather different take: There has been a surge because in the last two months about 4 articles have been added to the series (including one that was deleted).  So it neither began on the eve of the Sabbath, nor is it new.  However, I do have an explanation for the seeming weekly coincidence: in all English speaking countries, the Sabbath coincides with Saturday, normally considered the first of two rest days after a five day work week. Some of us do have irregular hours or sacrifice sleep, but the bulk of us either study or work on other days, and hence have less time to edit wikipedia. Of course, as the rests days approach, there is more time. Nothing sinister, its just that the eve Sabbath and the eve of the first rest day of us tabloid journo/nazi goyim are exactlly the same!... We are all smart people here, regardless of POV, and hence I think that the only thing that really gets to me is how casually we insult each other's intelligence by using sophism, conspiranoia, and strawmen to prop our own POVs. I try to avoid it at all costs, and I suggests others do the same. Not because it is policy, but because it is the right thing to do. Thanks! --Cerejota 04:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)  A Google search for "Apartheid analogy" Israel reports 510 hits and lists 225 real hits.  Most are references to Jimmy Carter's book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, and there are a few hits related to Israeli Apartheid Week.  "Israel Apartheid" searched as a quoted phrase reports 173,000 hits and returns 75 pages of hits, a Google limit.  Those hits cover a much broader range of topics related to the subject.  A search for "Israeli apartheid" allegations reports 19,500 hits (the first one is Wikipedia) and maxes out at 75 pages. So "Israel Apartheid" is the phrase in wide use, adding "allegations" still gets a substantial number of hits, but "Apartheid analogy" is a niche phrase.  --John Nagle 07:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)I think you hit the jackpot, John, with that Jimmy Carter's book. Now we can switch to Tiamut's version of "apartheid analogy" concerning Israel, which wasn't contested much anyway, but not before adding this book to the article as the principal reference with proper citations, and then we can proceed to the closing. This title is now notable, though for the Israeli article only. greg park avenue 12:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Two articles with Carter's book as principal reference?? While Palestine Peace Not Apartheid might be a fat cow in regards to factual errors, double encyclopaedic milking should deem a proper exercise to jackpot seekers only. --tickle me 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Actually, Carter's book is simply a notable that in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article serves two puposes:Decry the use of the analogy for referring to Israel proper. Make some allegations regarding the separation wall as a form of aparheid.It is not a secondary source, and it is not by far the principal reference in Allegations of Israeli apartheid. In any case, Adam and Moodley are the principal source. Please read things before talking about them. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Cerejota is exactly right that Carter is a primary source not a secondary one; I am pleased to see the distinction finding a stable place in this discussion.  It should be pointed out, however, that the notability of Carter's book is established by the flood of secondary-source commentary on his use of the analogy. --G-Dett 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)This page really needs to be a page for new and innovative solutions, not a place where people attempt to get results they have been unable to achieve by other means. For a long time now supporters of the "Israeli apartheid" epithet have been trying to a) get the word "Allegations" out of the title of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, and more recently b) to get the other "Allegations of apartheid" articles deleted. They have generally failed at both, except in the case of poorly written "Allegations of apartheid" articles. This is not the place to re-hash the same arguments they made in trying to achieve those aims, or re-propose actions intended to achieve those same results. Instead, please propose systemic solutions that are not attempts to win already lost battles via other means. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)  So, Jay, do you actually support your own suggestion to move Allegations of Israeli Apartheid to Apartheid Analogy (Israel)?  (Please note that I'm not ignoring your stated concerns regarding individualized vs systemic solutions.  I suspect, however, that a viable resolution for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid will make our task much simpler elsewhere.)  CJCurrie 04:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC), amended 05:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I did not suggest the article should be moved there, I pointed out that "Apartheid analogy (Israel)" would be a better name if one insisted on have the term "analogy" in the title. I've also commented elsewhere that "analogy" was inaccurate, as not all sources use the term as an "analogy". The only suggestion I've made is that solutions be systemic. My personal view is that renaming eight or so articles to some new convention isn't really much of a "solution". Do others think that moving the articles to "Apartheid analogy (Brazil)", "Apartheid analogy (China)", "Apartheid analogy (Cuba)", "Apartheid analogy (France)", "Apartheid analogy (Israel)" etc. will prove to be a long-term solution? Jayjg (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I wrote above, "The only problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't address the recent proliferation of unencyclopedic articles purporting to examine comparisons between other nations and apartheid-era South Africa."  So, no, I don't believe it will be a long-term solution to that particular concern.  I also wrote, "That said, it doesn't make matters any worse and would be a marked improvement over the present situation in other respects."  CJCurrie 07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC) CJCurrie, in my view the least "encyclopedic" of the current crop of "articles purporting to examine comparisons between other nations and apartheid-era South Africa" is the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article. As you have seen from the comments above, others feel the same way. By contrast, the Brazilian, Cuban, and French apartheid articles in particular are quite tidy little articles that bring interesting and important views to light in an encyclopedic and well-written way. The others could use a little work, but they aren't bad - certainly not as bad as the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article. That said, it's not really helpful to re-hash arguments that failed to win over editors in AfDs. You have your opinion, others have theirs. Let's leave it at that and move on to solutions. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, Jayjg, I'm quite aware that you and your allies have never accepted the validity of the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article in any form.  It's precisely for that reason that we're in our current predicament.  CJCurrie 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC) CJCurrie, I request that you try to adopt a more civil tone here; statements about "you and your allies" are not conducive to harmonious dialog. I also request that you avoid this kind of blaming; one could as easily state that it was the creation and nurturing of that non-encyclopedic proganda-fest of an article that is the reason we are in our current predicament - indeed, that would be, in my view, the accurate view. Regardless, please try to focus on solutions, not re-hashing old events and views, and pointing fingers. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Jay, will you clarify two things?  1) Can you elaborate on your suggestion that "solutions be systemic"?  I think everyone here wants a systemic solution, which is why they're participating in a centralized discussion, but there seems to be disagreement over what "systemic" should mean.  My idea of a good systemic solution is one which rearticulates and reaffirms, in maximally explicit terms, how core policies and guidelines (especially those regarding sourcing and notability) would apply to any existing or proposed article about "allegations of apartheid."  My idea of a bad systemic solution is one in which the legitimacy of one article is pegged to that of another solely on the basis of superficialities of structure and phraseology.  2) When you say this page should not be "a place where people attempt to get results they have been unable to achieve by other means," does this mean you won't be asking for the Israel article to be deleted or merged, and think such a request should be off the table?--G-Dett 14:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 1) A good systemic solution would be applied to all articles at the same time, and would be a compromise, rather than an attempt to achieve previously stated goals via other means (see comment below). 2) In my view, and that of many others, the only real solution for the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" POV-monstrosity is outright deletion, salt the earth, etc. The article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, a political propaganda-fest that a good encyclopedia (like Britannica) would never put up with. However, in the interests of trying to find a compromise here, I am willing to explore other options for that useless material that damages Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I think a systemic solution would be to merge all of the useful information in each of the articles to Human rights in X articles. If this were a vote, that's how I'd cast my ballot. IronDuke 01:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I think merging to "Human rights in X" is the only encyclopedic and NPOV option. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)  Thanks for expressing your views, Iron Duke and Briangotts. The thing that concerns me about the current trend in the discussion is that supporters of the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article have, before this discussion, been openly trying to achieve two goals; a) get the word "Allegations" out of the title of the article, and b) get all the other "Allegations of apartheid" articles deleted. For some reason they seem to think that this is the place where they can achieve the exact same ends they were unable to achieve via other means and processes. In my view this is not really taking this venue seriously. Systemic solutions will be required here, and they will have to be compromises acceptable to all parties. Insisting on a solution that is exactly what you have tried to achieve (and failed at) before is not a compromise. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Jayjg's capacity for irony never ceases to amaze me.  Those coming to this discussion late should note that he and his allies have tried to have the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid deleted several times, without success.  The Human Rights in (x) suggestion strikes me as nothing more than the latest in a series of efforts toward that end; I imagine that it will meet with the same fate as previous efforts.  (Btw, should I assume that Jayjg is opposed to any solution under which "Allegations of" will be removed from the article title?)  CJCurrie 02:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Moving material to a different article/articles is hardly deleting it, though the latter would clearly be a much better outcome for Wikipedia in the case of the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" material. Please try to work towards compromises. Also, it would be best not to assume; for example, I certainly haven't ruled out the solution proposed by Iron Duke and seconded by Briangotts, which would, of course, also remove "Allegations of" from the titles of all of these articles. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Jay, if I can contest your impression, the only reason I've suggested alternative names for the Israel article is in the hope that we can improve it to some point where its current critics will be comfortable letting the articles on each country be treated independently.  I have no interest in changing the name against anyone's will.  As G-Dett explained, I think pretty much the only thing many of us are hoping for here is to find an idea that will allow some grudging return to the status quo, where articles are dealt with based on their own merits.  "Israel apartheid debate," "Israel apartheid analogy," "Apartheid debate (Israel)" and the rest were all intended as suggestions in this direction.  Of course, I do think those articles would be improvements, in that they would be more encyclopedic than the "allegations" title, and in my view are less pointed than the current title.  If others don't, however, then the question simply remains what we can do to unravel the current situation.As far as Human Rights, we already have that article for Israel, which doesn't seem capable of covering this debate.  Again, we're then back to asking whether all articles on accusatory debates or theories should be merged into other articles.  Even then, "Human Rights" clearly isn't the right article for every country, while nobody here even has a hope of knowing the specific details for every country.  These and other reasons are why I've suggested we need to be able to address the Israel article in some independent way to alleviate some of its issues so that the same approach can then be applied elsewhere. Mackan79 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)As far as Human Rights, we already have that article for Israel, which doesn't seem capable of covering this debate.Indeed.  The Israeli Apartheid Analogy is a distinct subject which has been addressed by several academics and politicians -- most recently by Joseph Paritzky, a former cabinet minister in Ariel Sharon's government who believes the term is entirely appropriate for describing Israel's land laws.  Hiding the analogy away on Human rights in Israel is not a viable option.  CJCurrie 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I see no reason why the subject matter, where relevant, can't be folded into Human Rights articles, and for all the apartheid articles. I suppose you could argue, "Yes, Israel has an apartheid system; no, that does not impinge on the rights of Palestinians in any way," but you'd need to do a good deal of convincing. At the moment, the attempt to prove the material in question doesn't belong under Human Rights has been merely a matter of assertion. I look forward to counter-arguments, if there are any. IronDuke 03:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Actually, I'm arguing that the "Israeli Apartheid" analogy is a sufficiently notable subject in its own right, and is worthy of being addressed on a separate page.  I would also draw attention to the fact that several individuals (including yourself and Jayjg) have tried a variety of methods to have the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid page removed in the last year; this latest suggestion, as such, seems like another "back door" attempt at deletion.  CJCurrie 03:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC) CjCurrie, as has been explained, moving material to a different article is not deleting it, though in truth deletion would be a much better outcome for Wikipedia. It seems clear that by "compromise" you so far mean "I will get my way on the title of the article, and I will get my way on deleting the other articles". That is not "compromise", that is insisting on getting your way on all items. Please try to work with other editors to achieve a middle ground. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC) There have been a few explanations in more detail.  See the second comment on the thread here, which gets the main points.  Basically, the issues here are substantial enough where trying to put this in another article doesn't seem justified.  If you ctrl f for "Carter's book" I discussed another angle, which is the extensive response to these allegations as well as the surrounding debate.  Tiamat also explained the "not censored" aspect here.  I think those cover the main problems. Mackan79 04:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC) In Wikipedia debates such as this, the word "censored" is usually just an epithet thrown around to scare people out of making sensible editorial decisions. The proper response is Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Regarding your other point, there's no reason even issues you consider to be "substantial" could not be included in more encyclopedic articles; considering the fact that a large number of people think the material has no encyclopedic value at all, it seems a middle ground. Keep in mind, Britannica does not have an article on "Israeli apartheid", and never, ever will. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Nor does Britannica have articles on Pallywood, New antisemitism, Islam and antisemitism, Arabs and antisemitism, or any of the other exotic varietals you nurture in your editorial greenhouse.--G-Dett 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC) First off, let me say I agree that the IA is quite possibly the worst of a bad lot of articles. I would almost vote to keep it as an example of a dog’s breakfast of poorly-written, quote-farming POV OR, but that might violate WP:Point. Other articles in the genre are actually substantially better, on all fronts, than I’d guess about 80% of the articles we have.Mackan: thanks for those links, as to the first, I will go on record as saying I don’t give a foetid pair of dingo’s kidneys whether the Adam and Moodley material is included somewhere on Wikipedia. We don’t have an encyclopedia article about every book ever published (though there seem to be some who wish we did), and if we must, that info could included there. This argument goes on to recapitulate the debate, which says “Lots of people are using this analogy,” therefore it’s worthy of an encyclopedia article. Myself, I’m hard-pressed to think of any “analogy” that merits an article. Even if there were, an oft-repeated slur surely would not merit such. Tiamut’s argument seems to be “Look, I have to put up with shit I hate, so you all can put up with shit 'you' hate.” Understandable, but not ultimately compelling. We’ve been over all this before, in any case.CJ: is there a way to ask you to stop poisoning the well that you will listen to? I understand that your attempts to assume bad faith about me aren’t meant to make me angry, but rather to influence others who may engage in this debate. I do, however, respectfully request that you keep your insinuations to yourself. I, for example, assume good faith regarding your own actions: that you supported [10] an antisemitic sockpuppet farmer does not nullify your arguments. Myself, I chalk that up to a bit of willful naivete on your part, but in any case, I intend to give your views a fair and respectful hearing. I urge you to do likewise. IronDuke 04:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Readers should note I accepted a barnstar from User:Kiyosaki (who was later revealed to be the "Disruptive Apartheid Editor") before his identity was discovered, and at a time when he was keeping his prejudices hidden.  I was skeptical about the star at the time (hence the terseness of my response), but didn't have any reason to decline it.  My "thanks" notice was an act of politeness, nothing more. If you're going to mention this matter, you should also be so good as to inform readers that I removed the star after Kiyosaki revealed himself to be an anti-Semite, and that I added a note explaining my decision on my user page.  Your interpretation of my actions as "supporting an antisemitic sockpuppet farmer" is at best reckless, at worst a smear.  That you've chosen to make this point while lecturing me on "assuming good faith" suggests that you share User:Jayjg's sublime sense of irony.  CJCurrie 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Incidentally, it might be worth noting that User:Kiyosaki wasn't banned until after I posted these notices on Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid: [11], [12].  As I've mentioned elsewhere, I can probably claim an assist in revealing his identity.  CJCurrie 05:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Well, CJ, I think the first line of your post is the best indicator of your missing a step here, or at least missing my point. “Readers should note I…” No, they shouldn’t, they shouldn’t note anything about you. They should read your arguments and accept, reject, or modify them. I’m not sure how to take your assertion that you deserve an assist for noting the antisemitic troll’s post on Jimbo’s own talk page. I think the credit here would pretty clearly go to Jay (and maybe SlimVirgin as well) for keeping such close tabs on this guy through his many annoying, hateful, and sub-literate iterations.I should say, in contradiction to your insinuation, that while I respect Jay’s contributions, he possesses nothing like the sublimity of my own rich sense of irony, (though I might add your having confined your entire last post to a self-justification of your own actions and an attack on mine, while ignoring the substance of what I wrote, is certainly giving me a run for my money in the irony department). IronDuke 14:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC) IronDuke, welcome to the "centralized discussion," the smoke-filled backroom where the horsetrading goes down with only the thinnest veneer of decorousness and deference to policy.  With respect, your posts thus far have done little to refine or advance the discussion.  While strawman arguments are pretty common fare around here, your misrepresentation of the logic for retaining the I/P article as “'Lots of people are using this analogy',” therefore it’s worthy of an encyclopedia article" deserves special delectation.  That is not only not the argument we've been making; it is exactly the empty argument that the other side has been making for their metastasizing series of hoax articles.  It's their only argument, and one we've been patiently dismantling, thank you very much, only to find it endlessly re-erected in all its insulting flimsiness.  The script goes more or less like this: Apartheid prankster:See, five people said the word "apartheid" about these five different things having to do with France; therefore, we need an "allegations of French apartheid" article. G-Dett (with customary sweetness of tone): And what, dear heart, is the evidence that these five uses of the term apartheid are, ahem, notable? Apartheid prankster: Wikipedia has decided that all references to apartheid outside of South Africa are intrinsically notable.  We don't like that decision, but until it's changed, this article is by definition notable.  Now, if you'd kindly reconsider the Israel article, we might be persuaded to take a more reasonable approach to pol– G-Dett: My, my.  I didn't think WP had decided that the use of the word "apartheid" was intrinsically notable.  Can you point me to that decision?  I thought it had decided that a prominent international controversy involving notable scholars, statesmen, and Nobel laureates hotly debating the Israel-South Africa comparison was notable.  After all, the notability of something like the Lewinsky scandal derives from the political reverberations it set forth, not from the intrinsic notability of every act of fellatio in the White House.  Don't you need secondary sources establishing the notability of the allegations themselves? Apartheid prankster: Secondary sources, bah!  You just want to single out Israel.  Exploding whale has no secondary sources, so we don't need 'em either.  Now, if you'd kindly reconsider the Israel article, we could be persuaded to...Etc. etc. etc.  Ironduke, you've taken your place on this maddening merry-go-round of inanity, and you're welcome to it.  You are not welcome, however, to any more stupid smears about CJ or anyone else.--G-Dett 15:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)G-Dett, to take your most vituperative comment first, I don’t believe I have “smeared” anyone. CJ was supportive of an antisemitic troll. Yes, his most hateful speech was after CJ had accepted a barnstar from him, and yet, the group of editors opposing the Kiyosaki sockpuppet (whom CJ continues to mutter darkly about) twigged to the fact that this editor was disruptive and unhelpful, and was indeed masking horrifying bigotry with pseudo-arguments a bit before CJ did, (eg almost right away—here is one of Kiyosaki’s earlier bon mots “I thought the interview with Jimmy Carter, in his own words, is a better source than the Forward which is a Jewish newspaper.” A comment like that is a big red flag for people who are used to encountering antisemites on WP. Not picking up on this doesn’t make CJ a bad person, or someone not worth listening to—indeed, this has been my entire point all along: content, not contributor.Finally, although I understand you meant your having “customary sweetness of tone” to be ironic, your actual tone, and CJ’s as well, are often poisonous, and do little to further the debate.Whew. Now that we’ve got all that out of the way, any chance of our returning to the discussion already in progress? IronDuke 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)In fact, I'd never seen that particular comment before now.  This may come as a surprise to some people, but I didn't read everything "Kiyosaki" wrote during his time on Wikipedia (especially given that most of his interventions came off as amateurish, sub-literate, and, as you say, unhelpful).  I did repeatedly ask SlimVirgin to provide me with a page diff demonstrating his "earlier bon mots", but she never responded. In any event, I was sufficiently skeptical of Kiyosaki's editing skills to keep him at a distance, but wasn't aware of his bigotry until after the barnstar situation.  I didn't "help" him except insofar as I sent off a perfunctionary thank-you notice for his unsolicited gift of a barnstar.  For you to interpret this as evidence that I was "supportive of an antisemitic troll" is a smear, notwithstanding your denials.  CJCurrie 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)See above.  Calling someone "supportive of an antisemitic troll" can't help but poison the tone of the debate, however much honey is mixed in.  CJCurrie 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)CJ, I’ve placed your comments all together. If you want to quote me, and respond within your own comment, that would be great. I hope that’s okay with you, but I don’t like comments cut apart with insertions (I used to, but I’ve come to believe that it makes things harder to follow).My recollection of your previous comments was that you maintained you could not have known that Kiyosaki was a creep. I believe that you could, but didn’t, and it’s no big deal in the final analysis, just maybe be a little more careful next time. It doesn’t help your cause… but I guess you know that. (See below for more on this.) IronDuke 23:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Indeed, perhaps I could have "known that Kiyosaki was a creep" ... had I decided to read every single one of his editorial interventions prior to accepting his unsolicited barnstar.  In any event, we went through all of this several months ago, and I can't imagine any reason for you to bring it up now except to conduct a smear campaign.  CJCurrie 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)To be more precise, you tried to smear CJ in the time-honored fashion – that is, while protecting yourself with the latex glove of plausible deniability: "I, for example, assume good faith regarding your own actions: that you supported an antisemitic sockpuppet farmer does not nullify your arguments. Myself, I chalk that up to a bit of willful naivete on your part, but in any case, I intend to give your views a fair and respectful hearing."  Cute, Ironduke.  Cute like I don't hold it against my opponent that his wife had a terrible drinking problem, that kind of cute. Even cuter was when you then admonished CJ for trying to provide a neutral antidote to your cheap well-poisoning: "Well, CJ, I think the first line of your post is the best indicator of your missing a step here, or at least missing my point. 'Readers should note I…' No, they shouldn’t, they shouldn’t note anything about you. They should read your arguments and accept, reject, or modify them."  Verrrry cute, Ironduke.  Slime your opponent with an insinuating ad hominem, then when he defends himself castigate him for focusing on a personal and hence irrelevant issue.With that late unpleasantness behind us, where we go from here is up to you.  We can talk about the policy issues only.  This would be ideal; nothing could make me happier.  Or you can toy around with discredited sophistries and strawman arguments, in which case expect a little thrust and parry, but no hard feelings.  Or you can continue with the smearing-followed-by-patronizing-'who me?'-denials, in which case the feelings will be very hard indeed, and the responses eviscerating.--G-Dett 22:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Well, G-Dett, first I’ll say that while I cannot agree with your approach, I appreciate discussing this issue with someone who is clearly smart and literate. (Even though you are, um, you know, being nasty. “Eviscerating?” Erm, not the gerund I would use.) I think we’re getting bogged down now in the CJCurrie/Kiyosaki thing. My only point in bringing it up was that precisely that it was an ad hominem attack, just like those that CJ was making, so could we leave it, please. (I don’t, by the way, see you screeching about CJ’s attacking other contributors). I still think that’s a reasonable request, though I’m not quite sure how we can get off this merry-go–round of--IronDuke: Can we please just focus on issues? G-Dett: Sure. As long as we leave it clear to everyone that you suck.--other than for me to say, okay, fine, you’re fully entitled to your opinions about me. Now, back to the issues:No one is going to get this issue resolved all their own way. I think it’s important for everyone to acknowledge this. To the best of my memory, a majority of Wikipedians do not think IA should exist as such, though opinions differ as to how to make it go away. I still don’t see how allegations of apartheid are not directly and inseparably entwined with allegations of human rights abuses against Israel, and that all relevant information should go there. Yes, notable people use the analogy, but notable people compare Israelis to Nazis, and we don’t have a separate article on that, for good reason. IronDuke 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC) An article on comparisons between Israelis and Nazis, no matter how prominent the accusers, would not meet my bar of notability, per the understanding of WP:N and WP:NOR I've advanced in detail here, because it would lack sufficient secondary-source material describing the allegations themselves and attesting to their prominence and notability.  It would, however, meet the bar of notability set by Jay, Urthogie, and others here who have insisted that articles about "allegations" need only cite primary sources where the allegations are made, not secondary sources where they are discussed.  I agree that such an article would be a ghastly mistake; you might want to take your question to those whose spin on basic policy would make such a monstrosity entirely permissible and ultimately quite likely.Either your memory is failing you or mine me, but what I remember is that a majority of Wikipedians want the Israel article to stay, as evidenced by its passing six AfDs and an Arbcom decision.  My take on it is that it should lean much more on its secondary sources than its primary ones, with its quote-farm tendencies radically curtailed and the content organized according to the various discourses in which the comparison has become a live and contentious issue.  Namely: the ethical discourse, the strategic discourse, the historical discourse, and the discourse of international peacemaking, peace and reconciliation commissions, etc.  The debates about the Israel-South Africa comparison are quite distinct within each of these, and the secondary-source materials available rich and vigorous in each case.I don't screech about garden-variety personal jabs, which bother me a lot less than sophistries, but I do screech about guilt-by-association, because I've seen it used in a very cynical fashion on WP to intimidate people.   Eviscerating was an adjective (a participial one), not a gerund.  Thank you for your playlet, which made me laugh out loud.--G-Dett 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Dammit! I was almost going to write "adjectival" and changed it to "gerund." I blame my liberal arts education. As to the !vote count, on the last one that wasn't speedied due to people being sick of hearing about it, I count about 28 keeps (leaving out one single-edit anon) versus 35 deletes. Not that it's majority rule around here (except when it is), but I feel that should end people saying, “Oh please respect the wishes of the majority of Wikipedians that IA should remain more or less as it is.”As to more substantive issues, I don't see why secondary sources should command here, but in any case, many exist for Israel as a Nazi state. I found [13], [14], [15] (see Google blurb), [16] after doing a very cursory Google Scholar search. It isn't hard to find people libeling each other, nor to find scholars discussing it. That doesn't mean we need to have an article on it. IronDuke 01:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Rather astonishingly, G-Dett seems dead set against the "Allegations of French apartheid" etc. articles because, supposedly, they quote "primary sources", but when those exact same sources are used in articles like "Urban apartheid" and "Social apartheid" they suddenly become palatable. Perhaps you can explain that inconsistency, it's beyond me. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[OUTDENT] Please see the new section below the one below this one with a new proposal. I put it there because it builds on what comes before it and we need a new break line anyway. Tiamat 23:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)  It's the exact same "compromise" that supporters of the "Israeli apartheid" analogy and article always make; delete the word "Allegations" from the title of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", and delete the other "Allegations of apartheid" articles. A "compromise" that merely re-states your maximal demands is not a "compromise". Please take this page more seriously, and work towards an actual compromise, not merely "I get everything I want, and you get nothing". Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Beside that they mean the same thing in Afrikaans and Hebrew, the article already adresses  comparisons with apartheid; just a matter of shoring it up a bit--Victor falk 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)  I'm not ready to assent to this suggestion yet, but I'd agree it's worth considering.  Should I assume that references to "Israeli Apartheid" will be permitted on the revamped page in situations wherein the original source material does not specifically use the word "Hafrada"?  CJCurrie 22:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I suppose so, it's about the phenomenon, not the word.--Victor falk 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I'm a tad concerned that some hypothetical editor could delete references to the Israeli Apartheid Analogy from our revamped Hafrada page, using such justifications as "it's not about `Hafrada'", "the source doesn't mention 'Hafrada'", etc.  If we can receive assurances (by which I mean real assurances) that this won't be the case, your proposed redirect might be the best option for moving the discussion forward.  CJCurrie 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I have modified my proposal below to include these ideas. Take a look and let me know what you think. Tiamat 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)We now have Hafrada (Separation) as the main article, with Separation program (Israel) as a redirect to it.  That's probably OK, although there's an argument that the English term should be the main article, per WP:ENGLISH.  --John Nagle 23:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I would object to renaming Hafrada (Separation) to just Separation policy (Israel) since the sources used throughout the article use the term Hafrada. I think both terms side by side are fine. Hafrada has a certain currency in English as evidenced by the sources in that article (the vast majority use the term itself). That article has a long and contentious history itself so we should tread carefully with any renaming there as well. Tiamat 23:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Why does Hafrada redirect to Hafrada (Separation)?--Victor falk 23:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)No way.  The words may have similar literal meanings, but they do not have the same connotation.  Or perhaps I should say, the question of whether they have the same connotation is part of this whole stupid debate.  Wikipedia does not need any more of this garbage.  6SJ7 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)  Looking over all of the discussion at different articles in the "apartheid series", it struck me that most of the information could be integrated into articles like Social apartheid, Urban apartheid, and Sex segregation. In fact, they could be properly dealth with in these categories. The only exception seems to be Israeli apartheid. Now interestingly, social apartheid get a little over 20,000 g-hits and 317 google scholar hits, urban apartheid gets 11,000+ g-hits and 357 scholar hits while Israeli apartheid gets about 190,000 g-hits and about 89 google scholar hits. "Saudi apartheid" or "Saudi Arabian apartheid" gets less than 500 hits on google and none on google scholar. "Chinese apartheid" gets about 200 g-hits and one hit on google scholar. Etc., etc., for most of the series. So, my proposal is two-fold:  First, I propose we merge material in all of the articles related to Social apartheid, Urban apartheid, and Gender apartheid into those respective articles. Then, we can see what we are left with and make the appropriate evaluations.   I believe we will be left with the original which spawned this "series". This we can rename Israeli apartheid (describing the term and its use - with a section entitled "Controversy" to discuss the controversy) or alternatively we can merge the material into the article Hafrada, under a section entitled "Israeli apartheid controversy". What does everyone think? Tiamat 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)  I'd add Theocracy to that list, which covers many of the Islamic states, but other than that, it's a reasonable taxonomy. --John Nagle 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Tiamat, please specify exactly what articles you are proposing to merge into what articles.  As for Israeli apartheid, that's where we were more than a year ago.  There was a consensus to move it from that, and there is not going to be a consensus to move it back.  As for Hafrada, I don't really understand this supposed connection between "Hafrada" and apartheid.  It seems like total fiction to me.  Drawing conclusions from alleged comparisons between words in Hebrew and Afrikaans, and writing about it in English... it's just madness.  6SJ7 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)  Wow, Tiamat, what an astonishing suggestion for a "compromise"; delete the existing "Allegations of apartheid" articles, except for "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", which should be renamed "Israeli apartheid". Hmm, lesse, that's exactly what the supporters of the "Israeli apartheid" article have been trying unsuccessfully to do for a year now. Here's a suggestion for an even better compromise; delete the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article, delete "social apartheid", "urban apartheid" etc., and keep the other "Allegations of apartheid" articles. How does that sound? Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)  Sarcasm has its place Jayjg, but this was a genuine proposal.Read the articles in the series. You will find that most of them lack secondary sources which is why as one editor put it, there is no way to present opposing views (i.e. there is no material discussing apartheid as a phenomenon in these countries, as has been pointed out by editors at the French article).If we merge information from all of the articles (including the Israeli apartheid one) into articles entitled Social apartheid, Urban apartheid, Gender apartheid (and as John Nagle suggested Theocracy), we can then look at what remains and determine one by one which articles can stand on their own.It is my estimation that this process would eliminate most of the articles in the series, (including the main article Allegations of apartheid). This estimation and suggestion are not the result of my dislike of these articles or hope that they "disappear". It stems from the fact that these are non-notable apartheid analogies (see the google hit breakdown above).If the Israeli apartheid article is still standing alone at the end of it (which it likely will since much of the material there falls outside the purview of the articles outlined), I have proposed that we call it by its actual name, because as the google hits show "Israeli apartheid" enjoys some notability/notoreity in both popular and scholarly circles. Per our naming policies, we should call the subject by its actual name and not some strange euphemism that enjoys no notability.Alternatively, if people simply cannot accept the name "Israeli apartheid" or an article ont he subject alone, we could merge the material into the article Hafrada - which means separation, and where there are sources that explicitly make the link between Hafrada and apartheid - under a section entitled "Israeli apartheid debate". Tiamat 11:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)I hope you will reconsider. Tiamat 11:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Please explain how material that "lacks secondary sources" suddenly miraculously becomes full of "secondary sources" when transferred intact from an article called "Allegations of Brazilian apartheid" to "Social apartheid" or from "Allegations of French apartheid" to "urban apartheid". And please explain how deleting the existing articles, and renaming "Allegations of Israeli aparthied" to "Israeli apartheid", is in any way different from the exact demands that supporters of the "Israeli apartheid" article have been making for months now. Re-packaging the exact same demands under a different name is not a "breaking the deadlock and being real", it's the same old, same old. Please come up with new ideas that involve compromises on both sides. Jayjg (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC) How does a primary source become a secondary source when the topic changes – was this a serious question, Jay?  You explained the matter as crisply as anyone just three months ago: [W]hether or not something is a primary or secondary source depends on how it is used. For example, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a primary source as discussed in that article; that is, it is a primary source which has been subjected to a great deal of secondary analysis. If someone were to take a number of academic papers, and use them to draw a novel conclusion, then they would be using the papers as primary sources. The topic of these "allegations" articles is in each case a certain class of verbal statement – to be precise, statements in which the word "apartheid" appears, in something other than its historical South African context.  Let's call this class of statement Apartheidus Jayjgus Urthogieus, in honor of the original researchers who first discovered, defined, and classified it, and published their findings on Wikipedia.  The texts containing those statements are primary sources.  Texts discussing individual Apartheidus Jayjgus Urthogieus specimens, on the other hand, or describing the origins and significance of the class as a whole, would be secondary sources.  I say "would be" because for the most part these sources don't exist; the Wikipedia articles are in almost every case the only secondary source.  Which has created some big fat notability and original research problems for all these pet articles, problems you seem keen to avoid by affecting suddenly not to understand the distinction between primary and secondary sources.If you change the topic of a given article from a class of verbal statement to a concept, then voilá, primary sources do become secondary.  To use your example, if an article about the Walt/Mearsheimer paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is changed to an article about the Israel lobby itself, then the Walt/Mearsheimer paper "suddenly miraculously" goes from being a primary source to a secondary one.  You understand this all so well on May 1; what's happened?--G-Dett 14:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Ah, well, thank you for this. I was very confusing after my work on the French article. I thought, reading the en WP:rules that they were barely the same as the French ones. There were so many things down here that would not happen on the Fr wiki, and yet, Jay would use one or another rule to justify his claims. Thank you again. I was lost. NicDumZ ~ 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)I not advocating that material be transferred "intact" and your question is a red herring anyway. The lack of secondary sources makes it inappropriate for an article to be built around those primary sources. Moving those primary sources into articles that have secondary sources is not against WP policy in any way. Your second question (also a red herring) glosses over important differences between my proposal and previous ones. There is a choice being offered here to opponents of the title Israeli apartheid, which is to merge the information into Hafrada under a section entitled Israeli apartheid debate. As I have said, if you review the sources in Hafrada you will see why this is feasible. As to what material should be merged, I have begun noting such suggestions at the talk pages for individual apartheid articles. I think it should be acknowledged that there are little to no scholarly sources supporting the creation of apartheid articles in the allegations series with the exception of the original article on Israel. We all know these other articles were created for WP:POINT after editors failed to get the Israel article deleted. Social apartheid, Urban apartheid and Sex segregation are all small articles that require expansion anyway. The topics are scholarly, legitimate and easy to source with primary and secondary sources. Israeli apartheid or Hafrada are similarly worthy of coverage due to the scholarly debate. If it turns out that there is significant material that does not fit into these articles from the existing apartheid series, that will be clear by our engagement of the process and we can choose to keep singular articles that meet notability requirements per policy and decide how they should be named on a case-by-case basis. Tiamat 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)From what I've seen the suggestions have all been about transferring the material intact, including suggestions you yourself have made. The merge to Hafrada seems quite OR-ish, as does the Hafrada article itself. The Hafrada article is a mish-mash of different things all joined by the Hebrew word hafrada, and actually consisting almost entirely of "primary sources" - and these are real primary sources, not the fake ones bandied about in relation to the "Apartheid" articles. It seems astonishing to me that you would be arguing for even more of the same. I'm certainly open to exploring this idea further, and in particular understanding what the structure and content of such an article would look like, but I have to admit I'm initially quite dubious. Insisting that people "acknowledge" that your views are correct doesn't seem a fruitful pursuit. Nor does claiming that "We all know these other articles were created for WP:POINT"; as far as I can tell, the only "apartheid" articles created for WP:POINT are the Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and the "Tourist apartheid", "Social apartheid" and "Urban apartheid" articles. It would be best if you just acknowledged that there is a vast gulf between the way "Israeli apartheid" supporters and opposers view this situation, rather than constantly insisting that the actions of all the "Israeli apartheid" supporters are in good faith, and those of the opposers are in bad faith. These kinds of mindless, circular, bad faith, and ultimately unprovable accusations get us nowhere, except to build even more bad blood. There are two editors in particular who have engaged in them, despite repeated requests that they stop, and it just wastes time and energy; please don't become a third. Please keep in mind that any suggestion that involves removing the word "Allegations" from the title of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", while simultaneously deleting the other "Allegations of apartheid" articles (either outright, or by breaking up and moving the material to other articles), is exactly what the supporters of the "Israeli apartheid" article have been agitating for for months now. As such, these are not "compromises", but "Same Old, Same Old". From now on I'll probably just tag any such suggestions as an "SOSO suggestion" and leave it at that. The opposers of the "Israeli apartheid" article want the godawful, unencyclopedic, Wikipedia damaging, propaganda material contained therein to be deleted, plain and simple. However, they have at least been open to other, systemic suggestions, even those that don't involve deleting that material outright. Please ensure that suggestions in the future do not involve SOSO suggestions of any type - solutions must involve compromise on both sides, not just acquiescence on one side. Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Jay, I don't think you have valid argument here, you just speculate about alleged motivation of the other people. Besides, arguing that removing the word "allegation" from the Israeli apartheid article cannot happen, because someone wants to do it, means to me, that someone wants to do it, simple as that, and that you will stall any effort to get out from this hopeless gridlock just for that reason. Tiamat, your new proposal has some merit but is poorly documented. That "analogy" version had already primary and secondary references and I even had the feeling that we were close to consensus, now we must start all over again. I think it's an overkill. greg park avenue 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Greg, I haven't talked about motivations at all, I've talked about the clearly expressed desires of various groups of people interested in the outcome of the discussions here. While not everyone here falls neatly into two camps, the divisions in general are pretty clear; one side simply wants the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" material deleted, the other wants to remove the word "Allegations" from the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article and get rid of all the other "Allegations of country X apartheid" articles. Each has provided copious and lengthy commentary as to why they think their preferred outcome is the correct one. There's no point in repeating those debates, nor in proposing something that will satisfy only one side. I'm not trying to "stall" anything, I'm appealing to the supporters of the "Israeli apartheid" article to actually proposed compromises, not just repeat their arguments and stand fast in their position; it is that which is "stalling" progress. Finally, I can't imagine what "consensus" you think we were "close" to; can you explain that? Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC) I can't, I just had a feeling and now I see I was wrong. Anyway, I don't see a reason to stay on this page much longer if you're right about this stalemate. I already gave my opinion and there is a note, not to do it twice. Now I only addressed Tiamat's new proposal, and I'm definitely not going into that "Kiyoso affair" thing. greg park avenue 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)I'm not going to address Jayjg's post since it is his SOSO and internally contradictory. Greg, if my proposal derailed an emerging consensus elsewhere, I'm sorry. That's not how it was intended. By all means let's return to discussion of Israeli apartheid analogy or Apartheid analogy X, if that is where consensus can be found. Tiamat 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Tiamut, if you don't engage with the people on the "other side" of this debate, how do you imagine you will come up with a compromise that is palatable to them? Also, please be specific, what do you mean by "internally contradictory"? Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Good idea, and don't be sorry. There wasn't much consensus there. Only Cerejota and one creep. All Israeli Palestinian society was here. greg park avenue 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)I agree that Jay's proposal doesn't merit much discussion but it does raise an important issue, however inadvertently.  We need to think rigorously about what compromise will mean here.  Jay has said that in his view, "and that of many others, the only real solution for the 'Allegations of Israeli apartheid' POV-monstrosity is outright deletion, salt the earth, etc. The article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, a political propaganda-fest," etc.  And in the above post he summarizes the situation as follows: "one side simply wants the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" material deleted, the other wants to remove the word "Allegations" from the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article and get rid of all the other "Allegations of country X apartheid" articles. Each has provided copious and lengthy commentary as to why they think their preferred outcome is the correct one. There's no point in repeating those debates, nor in proposing something that will satisfy only one side."  What concerns me here is framing compromise as a bartering/negotiation process beginning with statements of maximalist demands.  This debased conception of compromise will a) produce a result that has nothing to do with WP policy and everything to do with strategic politicking and negotiating savvy; and b) encourage both sides to harden and exaggerate their opening positions, in the hopes of thereby influencing the eventual "compromise" position; hence the wild rhetoric of "salt the earth," "propaganda-fest", and so on.  We are not horsetrading or haggling over prices here; we're deciding how policy will apply to articles of this kind.   The only proposals that should be given any consideration whatsoever are those explicitly rooted in policy; poker-faced leveraged demands are irrelevant.--G-Dett 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)  And I agree that SOSO proposals don't merit much discussion, but your statement about "Jay's proposal" is puzzling, since I don't recall making any specific proposal. Regarding "deciding how policy will apply to articles of this kind", both sides have wildly divergent views of exactly what policy demands here; pretending that your claims are "explicitly rooted in policy", while those of "the other side" are not, is not going to lead anywhere. Ultimately, in Wikipedia, decisions about what policy is, and what it demands, are decided by consensus. That's what will have to happen here too. You can denigrate this as "horse trading", but in reality every single article on Wikipedia is built via this "horse trading" - it's what others call "collaborative editing" and "consensus building". Also, if you're concerned about rhetoric, I would encourage you to ratchet it down; phrases like "debased conception of compromise" etc. aren't helpful. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC) What you've proposed is that we negotiate based on demands rather than policy ("Each has provided copious and lengthy commentary as to why they think their preferred outcome is the correct one. There's no point in repeating those debates").  Meanwhile you've ratcheted up your demands as high as they'll go, for all the world like a merchant setting an exorbitant initial price in the hopes that subsequent haggling will draw to a close at a sum still advantageous to him.  I disagree with you that consensus is horse-trading of this crass kind.  Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, I am not going into this with the hopes of eliminating all "allegations" articles except the Israel one, and I'm not the slightest bit interested in a negotiating process built around such absurd goals or their equivalents on the opposing side.  I am not here to negotiate "results" of this kind at all.  The only thing I'm interested in negotiating is a working principle or set of working principles regarding "allegations"-type articles (whatever comes of this should apply, for example, to the "allegations of state terrorism" series as well).  If you're going to write an article about "allegations," what should the naming conventions be?  An "allegation" is a certain class of verbal act; is it self-evident that any use of a given word with negative connotations is an "allegation," or is this original research?  Do sources have to have actually talked about the allegations for it to be a notable subject, or is it enough that they make them?  How high should the bar of notability be?  Is it OK to have a template linking these articles, if the link itself isn't supported by reliable sources and is hotly contested by many editors?  With regards to my penultimate question, I have suggested that we follow WP:N and WP:NOR, which except in "rare" cases require secondary sources to establish notability.  No one has offered a different interpretation, except to claim, mistakenly, that Exploding whale has no secondary sources.  Meaningful negotiation will happen when someone offers a different take on these policies, and explains in detail – as I have explained in detail – how their interpretation will determine the fate of not only current "allegations" articles but potential future ones ("Allegations that Israelis are Nazis," "Allegations that Bush is an idiot," etc.).  This is what compromise, consensus, and a "comprehensive solution" mean to me.  Not some sort of middle point between arbitrary and maximalist demands that have no plausible basis in policy.--G-Dett 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC) No, G-Dett, I'm proposing that we negotiate based on our own understanding of what policy demands, while recognizing that others have different views, and attempting to achieve a compromise. Perhaps it would help if you stopped telling me what you think I am doing, and instead focussed on proposed solutions. There are currently seven "Allegations of apartheid" articles, six country specific, and one general. What should be done with them? Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC) You want me to go through them one by one and say what I think should be done with them?  I don't have an opinion about every last one.  In fact, with a couple of them I am as ignorant of their topics as you are.  With the exception of the Israel article, they do appear to have certain obvious problems in common, namely to do with sourcing, notability, and original research.  But I can't say decisively that they should all be deleted, because perhaps a couple of them could be seriously improved if they were helped along by editors not so insouciantly ignorant of the relevant subject matter, who'd actually read some of the material instead of data-mining it.   For example, the Brazil article does have one source, added by you when you created that article, that's actually a secondary source (!).  It says: "The rift between the two worlds of rich and poor is as deep as the one found in South Africa before it started dismantling the apartheid system. For this reason, the phrase "social apartheid" was coined."  Bravo, Jay, bravo!  Too bad it's an online tourist guidebook: "Since 1971, travelers have relied on Insight Guides, world leaders in visual travel guides and maps. With more than 500 titles to nearly 300 U.S. and international travel destinations, there is a full-color Insight Guide for every type of traveler and budget."  Boooo, Jay, booooo.  BUT: if an editor with zero knowledge or interest in Brazil, armed only with search engines and a driving purpose to prove his point, can find a casual reference to the nominal topic of the article – on a travelers' website, of all things – then perhaps, just perhaps, some secondary sources do exist and are waiting to be found by an editor who knows what the hell he's talking about and actually wants to improve the encyclopedia.  Encore, encore!Do you get the point?  Why would I or any other serious editor presume to decide once and for all which article or articles with the word "apartheid" in them should be allowed to exist?  It makes no sense.  Let's say we decide to keep Brazil and Israel as notable, and then next year a group of Cuban exiles organizes an academic conference about "tourist apartheid," and the phrase is picked up and hotly debated by media figures, Congressman, and so on, becoming a fulcrum of controversy in itself, and gets bound up with Florida politics in an election year.  And then what – Wikipedians can't write an article about it?  Because of the decision we made here?  We are not omniscient about what reliable sources exist now, nor which ones will arise in the future.  Let's just discuss, in a direct and candid fashion, how existing WP policies should apply to articles about "allegations."    In the meantime, we can continue working with the wider community to decide, through the appropriate channels and on a case by case basis, whether individual articles in the "series" seriously violate policy should therefore be deleted forthwith.--G-Dett 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC) G-Dett, would it be possible for you to re-word your comments so that they only discuss article content, and avoid derogatory statements about me? That way I'll be able to read them through and respond. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Jay, if you're looking for something to respond to that's entirely free of derision, there are and have been many such opportunities.  Why not start with this ?--G-Dett 04:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure what makes you imagine that a comment referring more than once to Apartheidus Jayjgus Urthogieus isn't both derogatory and personal. I'm don't know how I can be more clear, though, other than to repeat what I have said before; please comment on article content and policy, and not on other editors. Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I thought it was funny, and forgot that I said it twice.--G-Dett 05:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Jay, apologies - we seem to have had an editing conflict there. -- ChrisO 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC) No problem, that happens sometimes. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)WP:N seems to be the key issue here. Jayjg argues above that AoIa is "godawful, unencyclopedic, Wikipedia damaging, propaganda material" - does that mean that he believes that the topic itself doesn't meet the requirements of WP:N, namely that "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? If so, why? -- ChrisO 19:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)  Sorry, once again i disagree with you Jay :one side simply wants the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" material deleted, the other wants to remove the word "Allegations" from the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article and get rid of all the other "Allegations of country X apartheid" articles. I'm not in one of these camps. I do think that trying to regroup all the Allegations of X articles (by giving them close names, and a common template) was a bitter mistake. And that it is still an error to try to find a common answer for ALL the allegations of X articles. Every article has its specificities, you all recognized it, and can not really be linked.   I'm working to try to find an independent consensus about what to do here : Talk:Allegations of French apartheid. Independent, since referring to the Israeli article as an argument to decide for what to do on the French article is, you'll agree... nonsensical. (Apparently, we will go for a renaming leading to an expand overthere.) And sorry, but that's the only issue I'm interested in. For the others, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, and a bit of WP:IDONTCARE. However : I do suggest that all articles should suffer a case to case specific treatment. They are different, don't put all the eggs in one basket. Do you realize that this Centralized discussion/Apartheid is mostly only about what to do with the Israeli article ? Trying to have a wider discussion, including the debates on the other Allegation of X articles, is, to me, only a try to find some new arguments in a conflict that is going around in circles... Do you agree ? I mean, I don't have any interests in the Israeli article, and from the outside, it seems obvious. :sNicDumZ ~ 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Let me respectfully disagree. The allegations are very similar and I don't see how sources in AoFA are any worse than in AoIA. The question is, does any of this namecalling belong in an encyclopedia? I think not. Try to imagine it in Britannica. Oh, and your post somehow reminded me that poem, First they came.... ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)  Thank you for the personal attack with First they came... Please, read again my comment. Did i ever say that sources in AoIA were worse than sources on AoFA ? NO ! So why are you again answer with that old debate ? Are you trying to add constructive comment, or are you just trying to block the discussion ? NicDumZ ~ 06:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)The sources in AoFA are worse than those for AoIA because they consist almost entirely of primary sources where someone uses the word apartheid.  There is no discussion of the allegation itself as a topic, except for the thing about the mayor, and there are no secondary sources giving any background about the allegation (who makes it, who rejects it, what its political significance is, what its history is), or supporting the article's synthesizing narrative, or even establishing the notability of the topic in the first place.  AoIA is chock-a-block with such secondary sources.  Hope that helps – but then, I've said it about a hundred times, and you're still asking.--G-Dett 23:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Allegations of Israeli apartheid is mainly primary sources.  Most of the long articles either make the case for the allegation or against it, but only a few actually discuss the allegations themselves as the main subject.  The allegations of Israeli apartheid article would be deleted by AFD it were based solely on those few sources.--Urthogie 00:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)It needs to be reiterated that while the Israel article, whatever its condition, is the work of many people over many years, while the rest are almost all the work of a handful of people, and in obvious response to the Israel article. We need to deal with them seperately.--Cúchullain t/c 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)On the contrary, the Israeli article is essentially the work of 5 or 6 editors, not that it makes any difference to the discussion here. And again, discuss suggested systemic solutions for the articles please, not your theories about other peoples motivations. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)No. No systemic solutions. I can stop trying to theorize about your motivations, if you want. But please seriously consider my suggestion to deal with the articles separately. The more articles we have, the more difficult it is, since the more conflicts between editors are. Did you ever answered my suggestion ? 'd like you to. NicDumZ ~ 06:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)I agree that "systemic solutions", in the way that Jayjg wants, are impossible when you consider the simple fact that there is no "system" of articles. There is one Israel article with its own problems, and then a series of articles that are mostly the work of Urthogie and Jayjg, created in obvious response to the Israel article. They need to be dealt with seperately. Perhaps the Israel article should be deleted (I certainly think so), but it's an entirely seperate issue from the string of articles created in response to it.--Cúchullain t/c 07:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)> a series of articles that are mostly the work of Urthogie and Jayjg, > created in obvious response to the Israel article Which means we're assuming some faith. Whether good or bad: that's no way on talk pages, much less basis for an article's assessment. --tickle me 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)I wasn't assessing any articles, or even assuming faith, only suggesting they be dealt with as two units, the Israel article, and then the string of articles written by Urthogie and Jayjg. --Cúchullain t/c 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 99% of the Israeli apartheid allegations article deals with the West Bank.  If we moved or split it to Allegations of West Bank apartheid, perhaps we could follow this logic on Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, by merging that article to something like social apartheid.  Same with the France article. We could consider deleting the template after that. Basically, what I'm saying, is that we could perhaps eliminate all of these disputes by practicing specificity.  Instead of calling all of these countries South Africa, we could highlight individual allegations by having more specific titles, e.g Social apartheid in Brazil or in the caser of Israel Allegations of West Bank apartheid.  We could compromise on whether or not to delete the old israel article or to keep it, but split out the west bank stuff into a seperate article.  I think I'm inclined to support a compromise in this realm.  Just an idea... any thoughts?--Urthogie 00:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)  Yes, yes!  Specificity!--G-Dett 01:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Was just trying to help reach a compromise.  Do you oppose this idea?--Urthogie 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) No, no!--G-Dett 01:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I can't tell if you're being extremely enthusiastic or extremely sarcastic.  Be sincere, as there is no way of reading emotion from text.--Urthogie 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Well you got the "extremely" part right, and that was the important thing.  Nice to know that adverbial states, if nothing else, are communicable in text.  I was both sincere and ironic, in a giddy, sleep-deprived – "is that a light at the end of the tunnel?  Hooray!  Whoopeee!  Who cares!" – sort of way.  Most of all I was extremely.  I think specificity is a great idea.  Exactly the right idea.  The a priori assumption that all of these articles address commensurable phenomena has always seemed to me the core sophistry, sophistry #1.  Sophistry #2, if you're interested, is the assumption that all instances of the word apartheid used in its generic political sense are "allegations," and the corollary assumption that all such instances are intrinsically notable.--G-Dett 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I have and issue here, which is that Allegations of West Bank apartheid ignores both Gaza and Israel proper. Adam and Moodley talk of all three, and other primary sources specifically speak of Israel proper. In other words, it would be a POV fork. Lastly, the legal status of the PA is precisely part of some of the allegations, where an analogy is made with Bantustans and the formerly-occupied territories. I do not think we can throw away what sources say to fit POV. We use partisan sources like the Hudson Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, so what is wrong to use Carter's book?Lastly, JayJG mentioned some objectionable propaganda, but since the only relevant example I see in the article is the short David Duke quote (which he and I both defended), I do ask that he and other  editors concerned with specifics sources and wording, specify what sources and wording they consider propaganda and propose edits for discussion rather than blanket, non-specific criticism. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Gaza is no longer occupied. We could keep the Israel stuff in the article, I'm not suggesting it needs to dissapear.  Compromise. Adam and Moodley could be mentioned in both the Israel article and the West Bank article. It would not be a POV fork, because the allegations regarding the west bank are a seperate subject from those made against israel. I don't think it's wrong to use a notable source like Carter.  I'm suggesting he be used in a more specific article.--Urthogie 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Gaza is effectively still occupied, in that Israel (or proxies) control all its borders and block almost any form of economic activity. Heard on the radio this morning, there are 8,000 Palestinians (including some 1,400 children) dying in the sun at Rafah, where they've been blocked since 8th June(?). Do you need references and want me to edit them into the article? PalestineRemembered 10:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Do you have RS that state that Gaza is still effectively occupied? Your rationale is persuasive, but we wouldn't want a taint of OR, and, of course, a "blockade" and an "occupation" are not the same thing, as any bored besieging medieval army would agree! --Dweller 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I believe I've seen such RS ..... oh, look, the Jewish News Weekly[17] "Palestinian Cabinet Minister Mohammed Dahlan sharply disagreed. “Israel is deluding itself if it believes that its occupation over the Gaza Strip has now ended,” he said." I'm not trying to turn this into a debate, but a statement was made about the situation in Gaza, which should have been labelled "my opinion" and not presented as fact. PalestineRemembered 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I actually liked your argument in the French article, but I interpreted it a bit differently than here. I admit I need further convincing (although Carter as a source makes a compelling argument) on separating by geography, as sources rarely are that clean cut and clear - you have people who describe harsh discirmination but no apartheid, along with Carter, etc etc etc.I am more keen on the Adam & Moodley model, as I have suggested before in the Talk page. This model  has one obvious, immediate advantage: since it is from a source considered secondary, reliable, verifiable, and to a certain extent NPOV by pretty much everyone, it allows us to bulletproof against claims of original research by doing geographic forking.Their model is simple:The propagandist/polemical views and criticism. The absolutist anti-zionist views and criticism. The "seeking-a-south-african" solution views and criticism.I would add, because other sources do make the difference, a general section on differentiating Israel from Gaza and West Bank.I would also add a History section for allegations that are not relevant to the present: 1967 was forty years ago (duh!).As to Gaza not being occupied, as I mentioned part of the allegations include the description of Gaza and West Banks as Bantustans (Carter is mild in his presentation, but this is really the heart of his argument): a continued example of an apartheid policy. This might have merit or not have it, but cannot be ignored.That said, I think this moves forward the discussion and I was impressed by your comment on the French apartheid talk page. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I think this "primary" vs. "secondary" source thing is a false distinction, but in any event is it the case that the only work those promoting the "secondary" source notion consider to actually be "secondary" is Adam & Moodley? Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)First the concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources has its origin in academic research and is a content policy in wikipedia: WP:OR -which you list in you talk page as the most important-. If you think it is a false distinction, this is definitely not the place to raise your objections, WT:NOR perhaps is, or some more centralized discussion.I think there are other secondary sources (in fact, the claim of uniqueness is never made by me: even Carter is at times a secondary source), but they are not as verifiable, or as all encompassing, or as directly relevant as Adam and Moodley. For example there are press reports etc, but they are episodic and to a certain extent, anecdotal. Adam and Moodley are a unique source in that they actually talk in depth about analogies between South Africa/apartheid and Israel using a wide variety of primary sources, and with a clear narrative structure, which is why I think we should use them. If its there, why not?And please do not group me with others, as should be obvious by now, I do not hold the view that only secondary sources make something not OR. It simply raises quality, in wikiproject parlance, it goes from B to GA. The difference is clear... Thanks!--Cerejota 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)I recognize that there is a difference between primary and secondary sources, I just think it is being misapplied in this case. And I haven't grouped you "with others", I'm not sure why you would mention that. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)I agree with User:Urthogie's suggestion that Allegations of Brazilian apartheid be renamed as Social apartheid in Brazil.  From what I've seen, the "social apartheid" analogy in Brazil is entirely relevant and encyclopedic; I'd have no objection to moving the page, accordingly.  CJCurrie 02:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)  I think Urthogie's call for specificity is an excellent proposal for moving forward. These are very different articles about very different concepts and a one size fits all solution won't work. Each article should be considered on its own merits. I think a few of them like French apartheid and Brazilian apartheid have potential and just need to be renamed to something more specific so I echo Urthogie's call for "Social apartheid in Brazil", for instance. The idea of creating separate articles for Israeli apartheid within Israel and what has been described as an apartheid system in the Occupied Territories should be explored. Let's move forward where we can get agreement and that may be renaming the Brazilian article "Social apartheid in Brazil". Lothar of the Hill People 05:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC) There is an article Race in Brazil that existed long before this sad "we-must-have-apartheid-in-as-many-article-titles-as-possible" mess appeared. This is the proper place to treat the subject--Victor falk 11:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)I agree with Urthogie, most of the debate is about policies in the occupied territories. Though "west bank" can't work, as the claim that they make Gaza a Bantustan is at the very heart of the allegations. I'd also like to avoid "allegations", per WP:WTA. But first, is everbody OK with ... in the Palestinian Territories?--Victor falk 12:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)  I think Social apartheid in Brazil is a fine name for that article. If other editors believe there is sufficient information warranting an article on social apartheid in Brazil that is separate from the Social apartheid article in general, I will not stand in anyone's way. It's not my area of expertise. Similarly, I think Israeli apartheid is a fine name for the the Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I don't agree in confining the discussion to the West Bank and Gaza. Many of the sources cite examples of apartheid-like policies and practices inside Israel itself. I'm glad to see that people are opening up to the idea of calling a spade a spade. Let's see how consistent the application of this new trend can be. Tiamat 12:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC) The "social apartheid" (which is just a more emotional, and thus less encyclopedic, way of saying "segregation") is a secondary subject to the primary one of racial relations in Brazil.--Victor falk 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Urthogie, I am unclear on what you are proposing.  Can you list the complete set of articles that would remain, and what they would be called?  16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (By 6SJ7, apparently I was a tilde short the first time.)  In case any here are unaware, both the China article and the Saudi Arabia article are currently up for deletion.--G-Dett 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)  And what a sorry mess has been made out of this whole subject by all these separate nominations, the diverse results that I suspect nobody is completely happy with, not to mention the corrupt way in which one of the nominations was closed.  The whole point of re-starting this page was to try to achieve consistent standards all in one discussison.  If you (meaning the nominators collectively) really wanted to resolve this, the idea of article deletions should have been proposed here first.  You have defeated the purpose of this page, and it is clear from the discussion that there will be no resolution, just endless controversy.  I hope you're proud of yourself.  6SJ7 20:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC) The point of the centralized discussion is to collectively articulate how core policies and guidelines will apply to "allegations" articles, both those currently existing and any future ones.  As we reach consensus on basic criteria regarding notability, primary vs. secondary sources, synthesis/original research etc., that will help to guide and inform discussion on talk pages, deletion debates, and so on regarding the individual articles.  The centralized discussion also provides a forum for creative solutions to the larger impasse we find ourselves in; Tiamut and Urthogie have both shown initiative in that regard.  I don't share your grim forecast for endless controversy.  I think we're making progress, and if we continue on the path we're on – bringing in more voices from the community, discussing innovative approaches here, dealing with the disruption head-on, and listing problem articles for deletion on a case-by-case basis with respect to their violations of policy – we'll get somewhere.--G-Dett 21:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) All of these stupid Allegations of apartheid articles share the same two problems.Not every violation of human rights is apartheid. Only a system of racial separations is apatheid. It´s  not enceclopedic to use wrong terms and definitions. Any violation of human rights is a terrible thing. Does everything have to be apartheid? Perhaps they are not apartheid, because they are even worse. If you have sources about any violations of human rights, or if you want apartheid or the sexuality of elephants, write an artice about it, but if there are no sources, then we all should leave it. In middle age, when the pest arrived in Europe, they said, the Jews are poisenign the wells. Nobody had a proof, because, as we know today, nobody poisened the wells, the people simply had to much garbidge and dirt in their houses and towns. Nobody had any proof for the poisening, but everyone could prove, that someone had said so. In the end, they had murered thhousands of innocent people. Don´t we learn anything of history. As I said, if you can prove violations of apartheid, write as many articles as you want, but do not use the chicken´s way out to wirte an article about the proved allegations of the unproven existence of apartheid.  --Thw1309 11:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)1) is not true as per the dictionary definition of "apartheid". 2) is an irrelevant rant: all of these articles are reliably, verifiably sourced. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC) If you are searching for definitions, there is an excellent webpage called wikipedia. There you can find an article History of South Africa in the apartheid era There you can find a definition of apartheid: Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans, cognate to English apart and -hood) was a system of ethnic separation in South Africa from 1948, and was dismantled in a series of negotiations from 1990 to 1993, culminating in democratic elections in 1994. The rules of Apartheid meant that people were legally classified into a racial group — the main ones being Black, White, Coloured and Indian — and were separated from each other on the basis of the legal classification. These articles show reliably, verifiably sourced allegations about not verified facts.--Thw1309 12:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Man, El_C closed before I could argue for keep on the Saudi article, corretcly and per obvious consensus. Unlike ChrisO's blatantly illegal deletion of the USA article. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)  Various editors made comments regarding that Allegations of Israeli apartheid was the "worse of the bunch", "full of propaganda" etc etc etc. I take issue with this views. The israeli article is actually the higher quality of the bunch, including an exposition of sourced material pro- con- and in between, with a very strong secondary source, some additional secondary source, and a narrative that is far from original research.Almost every other word is sourced, and its source list is one of the longest in wikipedia. It can be cleaned up, it has quotefarm issues, but it is a workable encyclopedic article. The other articles for the most part lack this, and still have quality issues themselves. However, lets hear the specifics of the criticism, I prefer in the talk page of the article but it can be here. This general denouciation is not helpful at all, and I have proposed specific changes to the content which have not met any direct answer. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid Added myself as interested party. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)  (The Arbcom case will run its course, and my prediction is that it'll be dismissed. Accusations against individual editors (or alleged groups of editors) have a very weak basis, and I think the Arbcom will - correctly - conclude this is a content dispute and not a conduct problem). A few points:  I think that G-Dett is correct in her initial assessment that these are articles about allegations, i.e., about speech rather than "facts on the ground." As such, these are articles are about interpretations of real events and the rhetoric used to express those interpretations. The real events are not within the scope of the articles, except to illustrate and contextualize the allegations, nor is it within the editors' right to determine whether the allegations have any merit The number of citations can not be a meaningful yardstick for notability in this regard - the Arab-Israeli conflict attracts more press coverage than virtually any other conflict and way out of proportion to the number of people directly affected. If we were to use this measure to determine notability, we could throw out articles on discrimination against any number of groups. Instead, we should look at the reliability of sources. And we have guidelines for this. I categorically :-) reject the premise that precedence is irrelevant at Wikipedia. Editors can not apply one set of principles for one article and another for other articles and not be held accountable for their double standard. The issue, as I see it, is whether specific instances of political rhetoric are notable topics for Wikipedia. I don't think they should, for two reasons: It is impossible to even conceive of any meaningful taxonomy in which to organize this content. Someone might start an article on Allegations of Israeli bantustans and make a case that this is a distinct topic from the apartheid article. It distracts from the real and important topics that underly the allegations. There should be articles on Humanitarian conditions for Palestinian refugees and Political rights for Palestinian refugees that all honest editors could collaborate on; but instead we're stuck in this argument.--Leifern 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)  I think this is a fair summary, though I disagree on points for a few reasons.  First, I agree that precedent is worth considering on Wikipedia.  The problem here is that the arguments in support of the Israel article are being ignored and misconstrued as blanket support for any article on any propagandistic statement.  This ignores the fundamental issue with the Israel article, that this isn't just a statement, but a very substantial debate, involving commentary at the highest level of multiple governments, newspapers, academia, etc.  I was actually interested to look back at the early discussions on Israeli Apartheid today, and see an exchange between the creator and another editor still working on the page.[18]  The creator noted the WP article on Evil Empire, to which the other rebutted that, well, that had been used several times by a president, thus clearly placing it into the realm of notability.  Of course, this was all before Jimmy Carter's book, the extremely extensive response, and much more.  Still, this doesn't amount to any notable issue?   I've tried to reconcile this idea many times, but it simply doesn't work when we already have articles like Pallywood, Arabs and antisemitism, etc.  There are many articles on Wikipedia documenting totally disputed ideas that many people think shouldn't exist.  In terms of never writing about political rhetoric, then, I can't agree.  Clearly we do, unless we're purging a whole lot of material.  I think Tiamat's comment above was of particular relevance: perhaps people just need to get used to the idea that Wikipedia is going to write articles about shitty ideas, if enough people talk about them.  It's Wikipedia; we write about almost everything This brings me back to where we agree, then, that the articles need to be evaluated on their own merits.  What that means, however, is articles like Pallywood, Evil Empire, American Empire, New Antisemitism, and Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, not Chinawood, Finnish Empire, New Islamophobia or Allegations of French apartheid.  The precedent for these latter types simply doesn't exist, and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.  While some may disagree with the former group, they're clearly of a different type.  A recent other example I came across was Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.  Whether the article is good or not, can we agree that it should not be turned into a series?  I would hope.  These are problems with Wikipedia, and they're real problems, but ones that need to be dealt with sensibly. That said, I think it's worth asking at this point if anybody sees a great way to resolve this.  As I've said before, I can see modest attempts to refocus the Israel article on the analogy or debate or something slightly different.  I don't see consensus moving much further than that.  On the other hand, the problem with the other articles seems only to be escalating, without shedding any light on the original.  I don't want to say we're getting further from a solution, because really the same solutions are here that have been here all along, so we can take one now as much as we could before.  I simply don't think it will involve the complete merger or deletion of the Israel article.  The question then is if anything presents itself, or if the next step is elsewhere.  Pardon the length; any thoughts appreciated. Mackan79 18:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)  I think we have to draw very careful distinctions to resolve these problems. The problem with "apartheid" is that it's a very specific: a) crime and b) historical phenomenon, much like the Spanish Inquisition. By contrast, Pallywood is a new term for a specific (alleged) phenomenon, as is New Antisemitism. And there are further distinctions: New Antisemitism doesn't, by virtue of the phrase, accuse someone specifically of antisemitism (whereas something like Allegations of antisemitism among European socialists would be problematic. There are and should be plenty of articles related to Israeli, Chinese, French, Saudi, etc., policies and practices, but "apartheid" implies a very specific interpretation of what those policies amount to. It's further complicated by the fact that the term apartheid, much like fascism, is often invoked for purposes of making a point by overstating it.  In my mind, the only way out of this is for reasonable editors who have honest political differences to agree on certain principles that should apply to all articles. If it's okay with an article about alleged Israeli apartheid, then why wouldn't it be okay for an article about alleged French, or Norwegian apartheid? This is the question that must be answered. I'm completely unconvinced by the article that one comparison is made more often than the other, but I think the quality of the sources should matter. I also think that articles focusing on allegations should never seek to resolve whether the allegations are fair or accurate, as per NPOV. --Leifern 19:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)  I'm not sure why you're unconvinced the phrase is used more often in Israel.  Of course I can't measure usage; what has been pointed out is the enormous number of secondary sources discussing the apartheid analogy with Israel, compared to virtually none anywhere else.  In France there was an off-the-cuff comment from the mayor of Montpellier; in China, one article says "Some people call it China's apartheid."  My point is that neither of these create issues that could not be discussed in the context of those actual topics, Hukou and Social situation in the French suburbs.  The debate in Israel, on the other hand, clearly goes well beyond any one issue, be it human rights or Israeli policy in the territories.  It also has extremely notable refs, including Carter, Tutu and the rest.  In any case: if you're saying we should evaluate this individually based on notability, I think we agree on approach even if we disagree on results.  Many here have taken issue with this entire approach, however, which is the problem that I think most needs to be resolved. Mackan79 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Oh, I'm certainly convinced that the allegation is made more often about Israel than any other country. In fact, I'd expect that an analysis would show that through history the allegation has been made more often about Israel than about the Republic of South Africa. What I'm saying is that I'm unconvinced by the argument that comparing the sheer volume makes allegations of one country notable and about another non-notable. Virtually every country involved in any conflict is subject to accusations, some fair, some not, mostly to advance a partisan agenda. --Leifern 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC) The accusations against Israel may or may not be baseless, but the proper way to address it is not cobbling together over a dozen articles of baseless accusations against other countries. This is what I find profoundly offensive about this whole sorry mess. Twelve wrongs do not make a right--Victor falk 20:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC) No, it's like this: If there is a consensus on Wikipedia (which there appears to be) that "allegations of apartheid against xx" is not disqualified as a notable topic on its face, then there is absolutely no reason why articles can be limited to only one country. If you accept this premise, then the next question is what criteria should be applied to differentiate between notable allegations and non-notable allegations. I'm sure if I looked long enough, I'd find somebody somewhere who said that Norway does something reminiscent of apartheid. The issue, remember, isn't whether the accusations or allegations have any merit. The issue is whether there are reliable sources that make them. G-Dett seems to think that the distinction is so straightforward that any reasonable person should see that such allegations only are notable if applied to Israel. Others have found plenty of sources that make such allegations about other countries. One thing that is clear in Wikipedia is that just as each editor can not delete articles that they find non-notable, the corollary must be that an editor can not be held accountable for the consensus opinion. Let me put it this way: if an editor thinks that WP should follow SPOV rather than NPOV (the established policy), this editor is of course free to follow NPOV rather than SPOV. Same goes here: I may find the whole "allegations of apartheid" principle a bad basis to write articles, but given that there's a consensus to allow them, of course I can apply that basis myself. And as it turns out, some pretty interesting articles have resulted (to my surprise). --Leifern 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Leifern, you seem to be in a frame of mind to be looking for solutions, and I applaud that.  I don't want to fight you, but I really wish you hadn't written, "G-Dett seems to think that the distinction is so straightforward that any reasonable person should see that such allegations only are notable if applied to Israel."  I have on multiple occasions – most recently here, in response to a question from you – clarified that I think any article on any topic that meets notability standards is fine.  There are several others in the "apartheid" series that may have the potential to be notable, and I've never weighed in on them for that reason.  Your statement was true in one respect: I do think Wikipedia policies and guidelines make these questions a no-brainer.I do not understand your position that volume of sources has nothing to do with notability.  Simply put, it does.I am also puzzled by the complicated set of distinctions you invoke while weighing the legitimacy of Pallywood, New antisemitism, New antisemitism, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, etc.  I have never understood the path of your logic with regards to questions of that kind, yet somehow I always know the conclusion it will lead you to.This is, frankly, a source of frustration for me.  I think Pallywood, Arabs and antisemitism, and Allegations of Israeli apartheid are legitimate, though each is an extremely controversial concept; and I think Jew York Times, Jews and Islamophobia, and Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid are illegitimate.  And it's very easy for me to say why: all of those in the former category have occasioned substantial secondary-source commentary, while those in the latter category – though they've been invoked by plenty of primary sources – have not occasioned much or any secondary-source commentary.I have strong views that Wikipedia should conform to consistent policies, and I have strong views about the world, but these aren't the same.  If someone compared Lebanon's treatment of its Palestinian refugees to "apartheid" (they are barred from all but menial jobs, they can't buy property or vote, and are largely confined to "camps") I'd applaud it.  If a Lebanese journalist or intellectual said it, I'd applaud louder.  If a Lebanese politician said it, I'd stand up on a box and bark like a seal of approval.  But if I wake up tomorrow and Urthogie and Jay have created Allegations of Lebanese apartheid based on five quotes they've data-mined, and you're there justifying it, I'll file an AfD the scorn and rhetorical fury of which you have yet to see the likes.  We're not here to right the world; we're here to write articles on notable topics.Now if you'll permit me to say it, I occasionally feel that you, and 6SJ7, and Jayjg, and a handful of other editors with remarkable group discipline, do not sufficiently separate your world views from your vision of Wikipedia.  Perhaps no one can fully separate these things, but I think a greater effort can be made than you've made so far. --G-Dett 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)G-Dett, it always intrigues me that you take exception to criticism directed at you in the beginning of your entry and conclude with a personal attack against me and an imagined cabal of single-issue, pro-Israeli editors. I can't be bothered to respond to these baseless accusations. But returning to the substance of what you're writing, I'll say this: as an official member of the inclusionist club, I tend to favor articles of dubious notability. I generally tend to support deletions of articles that beg a question, create ambiguity where there should be precision, and/or stoke more controversy. My opposition to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article was based on the fact that it has problems on all these counts, just as "American state terrorism" does and for that matter Islamofascism. In all cases, my view has been overruled. Both you and I have to live with this principle until and unless it is overturned by some other event, such as "words to avoid." Given this, the other "allegations of apartheid" articles must therefore be judged by some other criteria. In your view, the cited sources don't establish notability. I disagree with that view because I see lots of articles in Wikipedia established on a much slimmer basis, but I think you have a legitimate perspective. But it's not a slam dunk, and I simply don't see the evidence that anyone has written articles for the purpose of having them deleted in some grand sweep of things. The worst I can think of the editors who have written the other "Allegations of.." article is to enrich the topic by including other countries that have been subject to the same political rhetoric. That, in my mind, is legitimate. We're not here to second-guess and analyze the motives of editors, we're here to help each other write better articles. --Leifern 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)"Stand up on a box and bark like a seal of approval"... nice writing.  It almost makes up for some of the nonsense you write... almost but not quite.  "Remarkable group discipline"?  What about you and the other people who share your opinions?  And you can say that you are just following Wikipedia policies, but I don't have to believe it, when by remarkable coincidence the only country that deserves its own "apartheid" article, according to you, is Israel.  It reminds me a lot of the creator of what was originally entitled Israeli apartheid, who at a later time renamed another article "Apartheid outside South Africa and Israel."  He is gone (if he is really gone) but the same anti-Israel political agenda lives on.  It is true, G-Dett, that I do not know what you actually think about Israel, but I do see how you edit, the vitriolic and vicious way that you attack those who disagree with you, and the way you twist Wikipedia policies to advance your agenda.  6SJ7 00:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC) "Agenda". Everything is about israel in your mind. For or against. What a sad little war mentality. I suppose I too have been stamped with having an "anti-Israeli agenda"? Why not cut the chase and call me a jew-hater just because I want this series of bullshit propaganda articles deleted? Because it is impossible to believe that some wikipedians would be more concerned for caring about articles meeting some minimi quality standards than having the maximum propaganda effect for or against some party in a conflict, isn't it?--Victor falk 11:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Victor, I have not called you anything, and I think it is uncivil and wrong for you to attribute such a thought to me.  You have no idea what I am thinking, other than what I actually write.  As for everything being about Israel in my mind, that is hardly the case.  But it's a bit difficult to avoid a discussion of the accusations against Israel on this page, which was created more than a year ago as a result of the controversy that erupted over the article now known as Allegations of Israeli apartheid.  It was the creation of that article, and the tactics used to keep it, that resulted in this whole mess.  Assuming hypothetically that there was a centralized discussion of articles discussing, say, Communism, I suspect you'd probably find some discussion of articles about the Soviet Union.  That wouldn't mean that someone who mentions the Soviet Union thinks about nothing else.  6SJ7 04:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)The problem with that is that now, rather than dealing with one Israel article, we have to deal with a manufactured series which is mostly the work of two editors.--Cúchullain t/c 06:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC) I've discovered something interesting.   Most contributors to this page will be aware of a recent afd on Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid.  The closing administrator was of the view that the "Allegations of ..." afds were inappropriate in light of the ongoing discussions on this page; I believe that his decision was misinformed, and that the vote should have been allowed to continue.  However, this is beside the point of my current intervention. Readers might be interested to view the page as it was originally created by User:Jayjg, on 6 April 2007: [19].  It was quite obviously a quote-farm, and unsuitable for the project. Now, please consider the status of Sex segregation on 22 March 2007, with particular reference to the heading "Saudi Arabia": [20].  Consider also the current status of Sex segregation in Islam (a title that may be somewhat problematic, though I'll leave that aside for the moment).  A stunning coincidence, as I think you'll agree. Given that "Saudi apartheid" was created with material cut-and-pasted from other Wikipedia entries, perhaps it won't be too unreasonable to suggest that the content should be re-merged into the relevant entries.   I'll refrain from suggesting that Jayjg's initial cut/paste job was a brazen WP:POINT violation, conducted for transparent political ends.  CJCurrie 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)  What's stunning is that you think you are making some kind of meaningful point here.  I think new articles are born from old articles all the time on Wikipedia.  6SJ7 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 6SJ9: WP:CFORK. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Not necessarily.  (And that's a 7, not a 9.)  6SJ7 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)If Jayjg had created a spin-off article named Sex segregation in Saudi Arabia after the source article then you'd have a point but since he named it Allegations of apartheid... in spite of what the source article is called it's clear that it was a WP:POINT violation. Lothar of the Hill People 07:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Except the material in the "Sex segregation" article was actually a copy of the material in the Allegations of Apartheid article. Here's what the Saudi Arabia section looked like on July 12, 2006: [21] In fact, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the material in Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid was spun out of the original article, Allegations of apartheid. This is a bogus claim and I wish people would stop repeating it. <<-armon->> 00:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)This doesn't explain why, given the existence of Sex segregation in Islam, Jayjg felt it necessary to name a new article "Allegations of apartheid in Saudi Arabia" rather than "Sex segregation in Saudi Arabia"? Lothar of the Hill People 15:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC) User:67.98.206.2 and User:146.115.58.152 have edited {{Allegations of apartheid}} to remove the link to this discussion. As this template is a result of consensus after the AfD, I have restored both edits. (User:146.115.58.152 actually did a helpful one in shortening the text a bit.) Both used the argument that it "violates" WP:ASR (it doesn't) but that is a MoS not a policy or guideline. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)  Good catch, Cerejota.  There may be an issue of whether the link to the centralized discussion belongs on the article page or the talk page; on the other hand, there is a tab for the talk page on the article page, and the centralized discussion is really just a different kind of talk page, so there shouldn't be a problem putting it on the article page.  6SJ7 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC) It's crossing the name-space, which breaks mirrors; see WP:ASR. I've also brought this to the attention of people who monitor that guideline at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_self-references#Template:Allegations_of_apartheid. -- 67.98.206.2 20:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I've gone thru all the Allegations of X talk pages and added a mention at the top of thie centralized discussion. This should accomplish roughly the same thing as advertising it in the template. -- 67.98.206.2 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)I have restored as per consensus. Your arguments Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_self-references#Template:Allegations_of_apartheid are irrelevant, and certainly fit the POV of some around here, which undoes your argument around WP:ASR. This centralized discussion was ruled for by ArbCom. Please do not edit again or you will get banned form editing the template. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, you've made no good argument as to why this should be on the list of exceptions to WP:ASR. What else am I to assume other than this is part of the WP:POINT problem being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_apartheid? Threats aside, if you can add this temple to the list of exceptions and it sticks, I will stop trying to make this template conform to WP:Guidelines. -- 67.98.206.2 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC) BTW, the MoS pages are actually guidelines despite your opening remarks above. See Template:style-guideline. This may be the source of your confusion. -- 67.98.206.2 23:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)I have resolved the WP:ASR allegation by including the etxt and links in question under {{selfref}}. If you have content issues, feel free to raise them, but policy-wise, this template is much more compliant than, say, a bunch of cleanup templates out there. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)  This whole discussion about allegations about something base in one central problem: Can statements of a person be content of wikipedia. We need general rules, how to take care of them. I do not think that every nonsense, any public person had said, should be content of wikipedia.  What should be the criteria to embrace statements?  Notability of the person? I believe, we all do not wish articles about George W Bush´s allegations about the quality of yesterday´s dinner. Notability of the object of the statement? How about the ten milionth statement, that national socialism was a crime against humanity? The results of the statement. I personally think, this is the only way to construct a clean borderline. If someone says something, just because there is a microphone or a journalist and a newspaper does really print it, because there is no other news and the newspaper has to be filled and nobody cares about it, then this should not appear in wikipedia too, because we know how to fill our servers. There is a different situation, if this statement causes any results, reactions or even a remakable public discussion. For excample the former German federal minister of justice Herta Däubler-Gmelin made a statement about George W Bush and said, his actions were comparable to those of Adolf Hitler. The usual stupid blah blah of a politician. Definitely not notable. In this case there was a storm of protest and Mrs Däubler-Gmelin had to resign her position as a minister. This makes her talk a notable content.To come back to the actual problem of allegations of apartheid anywhere. I am a usual person with high interrest of politics. Therefore I heard or read about many of the problems of human rights violations, mentioned in these articles but I have to confess, I did not know that anyone called them apartheid. Perhaps I even saw Desmond Tutu say so in television, but it simply did not interrest me, what he had to say, as long as he did not reviel any new facts. As long as he (as did twelve million people before him) only told us his absolutely unimportant opignion about the situation, I simply was not interrested. The Palestinians may have been thankfull and the Israeli angry, but how many of them still know, that Tutu even said something, but noone reacted It was the worthless talk of a politician viewing a microphone. It´s the same about the Dalai Lama and China. As long as he does not reviel any new facts or his statements cause any reaction, nobody really cares about what he says. Then we should not care too.--Thw1309 07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)  I second that. I already posted on "Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid" the message - Delete all or rename "allegations" to "analogy". The word "allegations" should be banned from Wikipedia in the titles of the articles for the sole reason you have mentioned above. The term "analogy" is maybe not so politically correct, but first, we're not babysitters of Israel, second, the author of such article must prove then that the analogy to South African style apartheid is valid, which means: 1. that there is a segregation regarding race and ethnic origin ONLY, 2. that it's a current government's policy. greg park avenue 19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)I tend to second this view, however I do take issue with the incorrect statement "1" that there is a segregation regarding race and ethnic origin ONLY. As has been mentioned repeatedly. Oxford and other language sources in English clearly state that "apartheid", when used as analogy, can extend beyond race and ethnic origin. All linguistic sources agree it does refer to a State policy (see my comments on the AfD for Allegations of Islamic apartheid. Which brings me to your point "2", which is strange referring to an encyclopedia, who in my opinion should look more to the past than the present: why should we limit ourselves to current events. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Maybe there is apartheid in Israel or China or somewhere else. I can´t tell you. I´m no expert about this, and I have to confess, I´m not interrested weather any existing or not existing violation of human rights can be called apartheid because any violation of human rights is despicable, regardless, weather it´s apartheid or not. If there is apartheid anywhere, then do not discredit the true content of the subject by calling it allegations of; then call the article, discribing this [[Apartheid in coutry xy]] and show the facts, why there is apartheid or there was apartheid. If this apartheid has been in the past, then the first sentence has to be "Apartheid in xy was a system from date xy to date xy, which...", but it has to be based on facts not unimportant statements of politicains, nobody cares about. --Thw1309 07:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Regarding the keyword "allegations" I thought we look to the present. Otherwise, the keyword in the title shall be "apartheid-era" as in the South African article. greg park avenue 18:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC) What do people think of that one?--Victor falk 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)  It's not a terrible idea, but I think much of what is in the article now would then need go, e.g., some random famous person using the apartheid analogy. Indeed, such an article would/should focus on things that are actually happening, rather than rhetoric and hyperbole. IronDuke 15:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Yeah, you're right, why would people be more interested in reading about what's actually happening than in the hyperboles of random famous persons?Sarcasm aside, I think it is the only hope for having an article of good quality: stick to the facts. Generally, it seems to me the article on the Israelo-Palestinian are of good quality and neutral, probably since both sides keep tabs on each other. I think a big part of this mess is due to putting the cart before the horses. Before I make up my mind if it's a duck or not, I like to know if it walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck.--Victor falk 12:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)  I think this misses the point. The article isn't about Israeli policies or Palestinian hardship, it's about what a certain number of people say about them. There are other articles about Israeli policies and actions and their effect on Palestinians. --Leifern 12:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)To quote Mackensen from the ArbCom: "Allegation of X" has forfeited its claim to neutrality from the outset, and that any content therein could be discussed more usefully in an article which has a wider contextual foundation.'--Victor falk 14:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)'Though just joining in, the last few comments are salient. First, types of discourse make for perfectly fine articles. Discussions of apartheid may be suitable for discourse or for gov't policy articles, I can't predict when such the term might be needed. Some of the articles center on discourse, some on policy. Second, NPOV policy means that we need the best possible NPOV language in article titles. Does anybody here dispute that? If not, then the problem can be narrowed:  Besides South Africa, who thinks that "apartheid" is our best possible NPOV descriptor? (What evidence supports its neutrality?) If "apartheid" itself is POV, who thinks that "alleged apartheid" is NPOV for a title? Before you answer, ask yourself, will your POV "opponents" find this term acceptable and neutral? With such a framework (#1-2), I think a process of testing out descriptors will get us somewhere.I could go on. But is this helpful? Thanks. HG | Talk 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC) It's tough to evaluate this proposed article without seeing it.  But if you are going to make a dummy article, please put this one in your user space, and write it in English, not Latin.  :)  6SJ7 19:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Abusus non tollit usum! (:--Victor falk 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)  We have Separation program (Israel), which is a redirect to Hafrada. So we actually have such an article already.   That's a reasonably good and stable article.  --John Nagle 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Stable, maybe, I didn't check.  Good, no.  It is mostly original synthesis and is part of the campaign to smear Israel.  6SJ7 21:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC) The astonishing thing is that the hafrada article actually is everything that detractors claim the various "Allegations of apartheid" articles are. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Man, JayJG, you *are* good. Why not merge into Hafrada and make that article better? Or is it that *all* criticism of Israel/Zionism/Judaism is to be expunged from Wikipedia, no matter how well sourced? However, I do continue to insist on my defense of Allegations of apartheid articles on the principle that more is better and verifiability not truth. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)"hafrada" might be a crap article, but that's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing Allegations of Israeli apartheid and the "series" of articles created in its wake mostly by Urthogie and Jayjg.--Cúchullain t/c 06:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)hafrada is exactly the problem. Instead of telling us, how the system works, which impact it has on people and which are the reasons for creating such a system, the article shows us statements of Ha’aretz journalist Gideon Levy or whoever this guy is. I don´t want to say anything against this guy, he only does not interrest anyone and so does his statement. The hafrada kind of articles is the only even worse than the allegations articles. It´s the same style, a collections of statements instead of facts, but in addition to the nonsense of the allegations of or statements of articles it even uses camouflage. The article on hafrada should be rewritten, it should show a detailed enceclopedic explaination of this hafrada stuff and then, in a last section, as a small part of this article, statements about hafrada. It´s the same with china. If somebody thinks, the world can not survive without the stupid statement of the Dalai Lama, write a section, "statements" within the fact based article on the situation of Tibet.--Thw1309 08:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)I should disclose that I am one of the main contributors to the Hafrada article and perhaps explain why it looks the way it does. Hafrada began as Separation policy (Israel). After I finished writing up the page, I came across the Hafrada article. I asked editors at that page if we should merge the two and received positive feedback, so I merged the material. Urthogie (talk · contribs) and Jayjg (talk · contribs) then appeared and began deleting material, claiming that Hafrada was 1) not notable, 2) not a government policy and, 3) not synonymous with separation. Re-writes and the inclusion of more material established a) the notability of the term, 2) it's relationship to policy, 3) how it was used as a synonym not only for separation, but also for unilateral disengagement. Hafrada is an article about the term itself, its meaning, its use, and its relationship to ongoing policies and practices in Israel. This is partially the result of the edit wars between Urthogie and Jayjg on one side and myself on the other. After trying to delete everything, Urthogie had suddenly switched gears and began copy pasting material as is into the article from articles like  Israel's unilateral disengagement plan among others. My feeling was that he was trying to get the article deleted by claiming it was a POV fork, and I resisted these inclusions. Ground rules we established to put an end to the war were to use sources that discussed Hafrada itself, and not separation and its various manifestations in general.Tiamat 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC) (I'm not going to include names of editors here, for reasons that will become plain)  An article is created called Israeli apartheid. First round of editing dispute about whether any article with such a title can be NPOV An accord of sorts is reached with the title Allegations of Israeli apartheid Article is repeatedly nominated for deletion for being a POV fork with no additional information beyond other articles After these AFDs are not sustained, it appears that a principle has been made whereby "allegations of apartheid" articles are not inherently POV but must (of course) live up to other standards, e.g., NOR, RS, etc., in addition to NPOV New articles are created about other countries for which there are allegations of apartheid These articles are nominated for deletion on the basis that they were created in violation of WP:POINT. In addition, there are complaints about "cherry-picking" quotes, WP:NOR, etc.So, here's my editorial comment, and I'm just going to be candid: The accusations against the creators of the non-Israeli "allegations of apartheid" articles boils down to suspicions of motivation. Some editors have concluded that there is a pro-Israeli cabal here that is trying to get the article about Israel deleted by creating other articles about similar allegations that have been made against other countries. This has been taken to the Arbitration Committee, where various editors have called for other editors to be "punished" for disruption, etc. A couple of comments:  If we establish the principle that it's okay to create an article titled "allegations of apartheid" by one country, then that principle must apply to all countries Each article must then survive or be deleted on some other basis than whether the "allegations of" premise is any good It must therefore follow that each article should be evaluated on its own merits of NPOV, OR, RS, etc., consistent with community standards for all other articles Once we've determined this, suspicions about editors' motivations are irrelevant. It really doesn't matter why editors create articles; what matters is whether these articles are any good. And to wit, some "allegations of apartheid" articles survive AFDs, others haven't. It's as it should be.--Leifern 19:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)  Liefern, it's a false premise to argue that "If we establish the principle that it's okay to create an article titled 'allegations of apartheid' by one country, then that principle must apply to all countries" since not all countries are the same or have the same conditions. There is quite a lot more literature examining the concept of an apartheid in Israel, France or Brazil than there is on whether or not there is an apartheid in Italy. That's why so many of these "allegations of" articles have restored to stringing together a few isolated quotes as opposed to refering to academic studies. The debate on whether or not there is an "apartheid" in this country or that is completely different for each country so it is simply not possible to treat them in the same way. Your premise argues for 157 odd "allegations of apartheid in country x" articles but there simply is not enough credible material even for the "allegations of" articles that exist at present which is why so many of them have failed AFDs. What we should focus on is getting rid of the weak articles and giving the remaining articles particular names that reflect their particular situations. The "allegations of" prefix is absurd, unencyclopedic and completely weasely and has to be dropped. If your goal here is to find sensible names for the remainig articles then we might make some progress but if your only goal is to eliminate all of the articles or to eliminate the word "apartheid" where its use is extensive and well documented then there can be no "centralized" solution and we'll have to continue dealing with each article individually. Lothar of the Hill People 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)It would, of course, help the discussion along if you actually read my whole argument rather than cherrypicking the one that was easiest to disagree with.  I did also write that "It must therefore follow that each article should be evaluated on its own merits of NPOV, OR, RS, etc., consistent with community standards for all other articles." You want to try again? --Leifern 01:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)There is one big mistake: We did not establish the principle that it's okay to create an article titled "allegations of apartheid". Please see: Wikipedia:Words to avoid. There you can see, that we did establish the principle not to use the word allegations. In case of the Israel article, some editors were unable to find a solution of their stupid political edit war. Therefore they used the chicken´s way out to call  their article allegation of, instead of finding an enceclopedic solution. Leifern is right about one thing. It´s the same with all these allegation articles and the "principle must apply to all countries". They all are the same dirt and should be all removed.--Thw1309 06:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)  The verifiable material from the recently deleted article Allegations of Chinese apartheid have been merged into Human rights in the People's Republic of China based on the AfD closing statement.  See proposals to address similar application at:  Talk:Allegations of tourist apartheid_in_Cuba#Proposal; Talk:Allegations of Brazilian apartheid#Proposal; Talk:Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid#Proposal; Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Proposal; and Talk:Allegations of French apartheid#Proposal≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)  I think you are getting ahead of yourself. The deletion of Allegations of Chinese apartheid was way out of order. --Leifern 01:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Sour grapes on your part; just accept it and move on. I applaud Jossi for taking a positive and constructive approach - this is exactly the sort of attitude we need. -- ChrisO 06:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)It's not sour grapes to keep the record straight. The deletion of Allegations of Chinese apartheid was, AGF, bad judgement, and the actual content of the article was only tangentially relevant to Human rights in the People's Republic of China and will, presumably, actually reappear in Allegations of apartheid instead when the latter is unprotected. Andyvphil 09:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Jossi, I already gave "go ahead" on two of them (one support, one neutral - the ones I commented on before), but I give you my blessing on all of them if there is a full packet, otherwise rename allegations to analogy. greg park avenue 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Hi. I've seen some excellent thinking and great proposals put on the table. Some for an across-the-board approach, some specifically for Israel. I see us shifting from one plausible idea to another. But I'm not sure where this is all leading. What I don't see is a process to get us toward consensus. Through what steps can this discussion result in a decision or a recommendation? Let me float the idea of formulating a discussion agenda. I'm not wedded to these items or the order, just trying to get feedback on whether and how to organize this discussion.   Step 1. Agree on an agenda. (This is an example.) Step 2. Figure out some groundrules or strategies to help us finish with each agenda item before moving on to the next! Step 3. Clarify our understanding of WP policies and guidelines, as they would apply to the Articles under consideration. For instance: What do naming conventions on self-identification tell us about apartheid? What does NPOV tell us about the the word "allegations" in titles? Step 4. Using this understanding, make a list of potential criteria to apply to any proposal. Agree on criteria. For instance, perhaps we can agree on the criterion that any proposal should aim to avoid or improve on the word "allegations." Decide which criteria are necessary, sufficient, or desirable. Step 5:  List the plausible proposals (e.g., Israeli Separation, Jossi's). Take straw poll on the order of our review. Apply the criteria to our various proposals. Etc.Anyway, my suggestion is to start with an agenda. Who sees some merit in this idea? I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming....  Thanks. HG | Talk 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)  HG asked on my talk page for some input on naming issues. Having posted this to another talk page earlier, I thought it might be useful to repost it here as well. I recently renamed and rewrote "Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid" as Segregation in Northern Ireland, with three policy considerations in mind: 1) Whether or not "apartheid" is a word to avoid (currently it isn't), "allegations" certainly is - see WP:WTA#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported. Note in particular the following: "These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable."  2) Policy requires that article titles comply with NPOV. See WP:NCON#Descriptive names (which, I should mention, I wrote a couple of years ago). This is more complicated than it may seem - the East Sea/Sea of Japan controversy is a case in point - but the core principle, as set out in WP:NCON, is that article titles should "not carry POV implications". The political term "apartheid" carries enormous POV implications; the sociological term "segregation" does not. When faced with a choice between a POV title and an NPOV one, we must choose the latter. This implies that we have to replace the term "apartheid" with something more neutral. 3) There is nothing in policy - or for that matter in common sense - to support the proposition that fixing one unsatisfactory article has to wait on fixing a separate article. If article A is bad, and article B is bad, the obvious answer is to fix both articles at the first opportunity. The rate of progress may vary between articles, but that's to be expected, because there are different editors and issues involved. I hope this answers HG's questions about my view of the neutrality of the article name. He also asks: "does the idea of a self-identifying name imply that such self-identification be verifiable?" Yes it does - it would have to be based on a reliable source. However, I don't think this particular debate really touches on the issue of self-identifying names. Such names are, by definition, confined to human entities such as cities, countries, organisations and so on. Non-human entities (animals, geographical features etc) don't have their own names for themselves (obviously). Concepts such as "apartheid" or "segregation" likewise can't be "self-identifying" because they are merely abstract ideas based on a particular interpretation of social affairs and events - there is no "self" to identify. -- ChrisO 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)  ChrisO, thanks for your detailed and helpful response (which speaks to a step 3 in the agenda proposal). Among the various q's I could ask: In the Chinese AfD, I did suggest that "The Chinese government people do not identify themselves, their actions, or their beliefs with the term "apartheid." In South Africa, the people's leaders, political groups, policies etc were affirmatively self-identified as apartheid. China is different, apartheid isn't used to describe people and their beliefs. Although a concept can't be self-identifying, has there been a policy determination that a noun phrase that incorporates people, like "Chinese apartheid", is not self-identifying? Thanks again. HG | Talk 01:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC) PS Any comment on the general need for an agenda?I must disagree with #1. Allegation is the perfect word in the context of the crime of apartheid. The word doesn't imply the charges aren't "factual" only unproven. -- 67.98.206.2 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)This is irrelevant:Linguistically, it would be "accusation" not "allegation" if what the article where about was the facts or lack thereof of the guilt or innocence of Israel with regards of the crime of apartheid. This hypothetical situation is not happening, as the UN Security Council has not ruled, nor has under its consideration, any formal accusation against Israel. This formal accusation would be the only way that Israel, who has not signed the Rome Statute, can be accused of the crime of apartheid. SO the article cannot possibly be about Acusations of Israeli apartheid. The article has never been about if Israel is guilty or not of this crime of apartheid - althought some have pushed this as original research. Not a single reliable source says or explores this with any seriousness. It has rather been about two distinct things: a) a quotefarm of quotes that have "Israel" and "apartheid" in the same paragraph or sentence - which I oppose b) an exploration of a highly notable, highly controversial, debates on analogies with Apartheid-era South Africa and Israel proper and Gaza, West Bank and its relationship with the Palestinian Authority - which I support. This debate is notable, and engages figures including ex-Presidents of the United States, ex-Prime ministers of Israel, Knesset members, respected academics like Benny Morris, and assorted political, academic, and journalistic commentators whose notability with regards to issues around Israel is beyond question.This arguments pops up from time to time (along with the incorrect statement that crime of apartheid is not international law) and is about attempts at clumsy WP:SYNTH of a concept that is not as simple as people think.Lastly, "Allegation" in a title is a word to avoid. We cannot willfully violate policy and guidelines because they are contrary to the POV of many. In fact, in controversial articles is precisely where we should follow WP:WTA. However, as long as it is consensus, I have no problem alleging that it is OK to have on the title. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)If we have to take "allegations" out of the title, a more direct heading might simply be Israeli apartheid, which currently redirects. Compare Islamofascism, which now explores usages of that controversial term. BYT 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)  I'm totally withyou that encyclopedic titles should be as matter-of-fact as possible, but that's the problem: the article was first called "israeli apartheid", then it was renamed "allegations of israeli apartheid", a compromise name that still hurt the delicate sensibilities of some editors--Victor falk 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)I'd like to suggest a different perspective: BYT's comment raises an interesting point. When does another existing article serve as a precedent for other articles? I think, relying too on Wikipedia guidelines, an article which violates policy should not be defended by citing similar articles that violate policy. In my view, the Islamofascism violates the a neutrality-protecting Naming guideline: "When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use." The self-description guideline is related to the fundamental justice of self-determination. Islam refers to a group of people and they do not identify as themselves by this term, so the article is unjustifiable. Perhaps some of the article content can be placed within a more neutral article about Islam, though this epithet should not be given Undue weight. It's important that we function through our basic policy principles, even if this means re-assessing existing articles. What do you think of my explanation? Thanks.  HG | Talk 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)I believe that precisely this point was made, by various editors, at the now-nearly-legendary epoch of the Great Debates about Islamofascism.At that time, those who held to this view, or similar views, concerning the inappropriateness, per policy, ofIslamofascism, were lectured solemnly about the evils of censorship, and reminded that President Bush had used the term.That former President Carter has since ignited a worldwide debate about Israeli apartheid, in a comparably prominent way, seems to be a topic that the editors who so ardently pressed for Islamofascism now would prefer not to address.At any rate, the policy you cite seems to me to be relevant in both cases, and if it is applied to one, it should be applied to the other. If, however, we ignore the policy in the one case, we should not be surprised if there are those who feel it should be ignored in the other case. BYT 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I don't think the Carter and Bush examples are actually strictly equivalent. Carter used the phrase as a metaphor to provoke debate on the human rights situation in Israel, (at least according to an interview I saw with him) whereas I think that Bush asserts that "Islamic fascism" actually exists. Also, we have the problem that "Islamofascism" has made it into at least one dictionary. Perhaps one way of dealing with these types of articles is to name them "X (epithet)" (i.e. Islamofascism (epithet), Israeli apartheid (epithet)). I'm just floating an idea here, and I'm not sure how viable it is. We may just end up back to square one because evidence for the notability of other "apartheids" can easily be presented. <<-armon->> 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)The title of Carter's book is Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.He is quoted on Amazon.com as saying, "Forced segregation in the West Bank and terrible oppression of the Palestinians create a situation accurately described by the word (apartheid)." Doesn't sound very metaphorical to me. BYT 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Sense 2 of the word is metaphorical, just as it is with "fascism". This is a big part of the problem. <<-armon->> 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Metaphor: "All the world's a stage..."  NOT metaphor: "2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups". The problem is semantics, not poetics. Andyvphil 08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Andyvphil, if I understand Armon, he's saying that definition (2) is only properly used when a policy is LIKE or SIMILAR to the "real thing" of official South African apartheid (= definition 1). By properly used, I refer to proper language usage based on a meaning (aka semantics). Def 1 always denotes the official policy. Whereas Def 2 requires a comparative judgment -- sometimes segregating people may be LIKE apartheid (e.g., Jim Crow laws) and sometimes a "practice of separating" people is UNLIKE apartheid, though technically fitting the definition (e.g., separating customers into cash and credit queues at the grocers). Also, definition 2 requires a intensity judgment -- is 'apartheid' the right intensity with which a transgendered activist might define the policy of separating people into Men's and Women's rooms? While denotationally correct by def 2, perhaps we can agree that the metaphor is blown out of proportion, even if both policies are wrong.  HG | Talk 11:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)We are, for some reason, fast-forwarding over the key point. What matters is that a) Carter did not use the phrase metaphorically, and b) his usage was manifestly notable, sparking global controversy. BYT 14:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Agreed, armon is wrong. Carter makes comparisons with ZA but he gives no indication that he is using the word "apartheid" itself as either a metaphor or an analogy. He seems, whether in good faith naievete or not, to be using the word as if it were identical to its secondary definition, or its definition in the Crime of apartheid documents(self-strike,Andyvphil 06:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)). But, when used as a metaphor, "apartheid" is not a "dead metaphor", and we should not pretend it is when choosing article titles. Andyvphil 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC) See here for a transcript of the interview I was talking about: JIMMY CARTER: The whole title, I wanted to provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States, but it's prevalent every day in Israel and in Europe. This is needed, I think, for our country to understand what's going on in the West Bank.And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel.Secondly, the emphasis is on peace.And the third thing is not apartheid. I don't want to see apartheid. And since now the entire peace process is completely dormant, there hasn't been one day for good faith substantive negotiations in the last six years to bring peace to Israel, I wanted to rejuvenate this process. -emphasis mine, see also: ...And let me get to the word "apartheid." Apartheid doesn't apply at all, as I made plain in my book, anything that relates to Israel to the nation. It doesn't imply anything as it relates to racism. This apartheid, which is prevalent throughout the occupied territories, the subjection of the Palestinians to horrible abuse, is caused by a minority of Israelis -- we're not talking about racism, but talking about their desire to acquire, to occupy, to confiscate, and then to colonize Palestinian land. So Carter is clearly using the word as a metaphor, is pointing towards a bad future state of affairs (as opposed to peace), and is explicitly NOT accusing Israel of the Crime of apartheid. This is the problem with focusing on a word or phrase, rather than the point that the speaker is making. I agree with Jossi's suggestions to merge the various "apartheid" allegations, metaphors, analogies and metonymy into the various articles which address the points being made. This is ultimately the most encyclopedic way of dealing with this material. BYT brings up Islamofascism which is out of scope for this discussion, even if it touches on similar issues. As I see it, Islamofascism is a neologism and an epithet for Islamism. However, as I said before, it has made it into the dictionary, so it would be better to have a short article explaining the term, rather than just a redirect to Islamism. <<-armon->> 01:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC) So Carter is clearly using the word as a metaphor, is pointing towards a bad future state of affairs... Uh, no. The transcription has problems (it misstates the title of the book, which does not include a colon -- see the publisher's website -- and then fails to supply quote marks where Carter is quoting his own title: It should read "It's 'Palestine' first of all... The third thing is 'Not Apartheid'. I don't want to see apartheid...") and Carter is not a model of extemporaneous lucidity here, but there is nothing to indicate Carter is speaking metaphorically. He says he doesn't want to see apartheid, but that doesn't mean he doesn't consider it to be the actual policy. He has said he does. (See "A system of apartheid...is the policy now being followed." in the online excerpt from the book.[22]) He says "Apartheid doesn't apply at all....anything that relates to Israel to the nation" which is confusing in that it doesn't even parse, but if you are familiar with his other statements this is recognizable as his stating his position that he is alleging apartheid only in the territories against Palestinians, not within Israel against Arab Israelis (but actual apartheid right now, not metaphorical and not future). And his denial that he was implying racism is exactly what I was referring to when I said he "seems, whether in good faith naievete or not, to be using the word as if it were identical to its secondary definition", i.e. Merriam-Webster's "2 : SEPARATION, SEGREGATION" (see above), which it is not by reason of semantics. In that he's being disingenuous, not metaphorical. Andyvphil 06:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Maybe he's being disingenuous, maybe not. However, the secondary definition of "apartheid" you're referring to IS a metaphor (check the article) -which was my point in the first place. <<-armon->> 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)I'm talking about a major public figure who used the word apartheid, directly and without precondition, to describe the condition of Palestinians, without employing any semantic niceties. And thus sparked a global debate. All language is, ultimately, metaphorical. Point, under (studiously ignored) policy is that Israelis wouldn't call their system of government "apartheid," and Muslims wouldn't call their religion "fascist." Period. Either we implement the policy, or we don't. Islamofascism (term) was around for a while, and was ultimately derided, and discarded, as somehow bad for Wikipedia's moral fibre. What are you proposing that we call, or do with, these two articles? BYT 09:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)As some of you know, there is also an  exploratory renaming discussion for "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" on the Talk page. There's been some discussion of "allegation" and "Israeli apartheid", further input welcome. Based on that discussion, I am also thinking about some plausible new names   on the mediation cabal talk page. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)  Just as a procedural note, I do not understand why you would start a discussion of this on yet another page.  Wouldn't it be better to invite some mediators here, rather than forking the discussion to there?  I think we are up to about 15 different pages now where various issues about titles, merges, deletions, reviews, etc. etc. are being discussed.  It's not your fault HG, but as the result of the aggregate actions of a number of different people, the discussion is going on in way, way too many different places.  6SJ7 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Hi. Well, I think that's a fair point. I guess I assumed that this conversation was more geared toward an overall, centralized approach and the Talk:AoIA would be for steps that might be taken there. But I could certainly be wrong about that! I'm not adverse to moving or even suspending the conversation there. HG | Talk 04:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Ok, thanks 6SJ7 for posing a good challenge. I've now fully spelled out three reasons why I think it's worthwhile to still explore non-centralized options on AoIA. I would greatly appreciate everyone's comments and,  maybe agreement, with  Procedural Principles Toward Consensus on AoIA itself, separate from the worthwhile search for centralized solutions here. Let me know what you think, thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 10:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC) People may be interested in this  proposed compromise on the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" Talk page. BYT 15:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)  The RfAr has been accepted. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid Thanks!--Cerejota 06:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)  Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 21#Template:Allegations of apartheid.  GRBerry 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)  Cross posting... Wikipedia:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid. -- 146.115.58.152 15:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)  Gee, thanks for letting us know.  I must have somehow missed this in the course of actually editing the encyclopedia.  And just when I thought this whole thing couldn't get any more idiotic...  6SJ7 01:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC) A proposal has been made to rename Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please weigh in at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy#Rename proposal - first steps. Thank you. Unomi (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)  The Rename proposal is no longer an active category on the above referenced talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)