Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 25

message: Sefringle: first you stated that you wanted to work on the title before focusing on content.
However, your current slo-mo edit war on the article goes against this. Have you changed your mind? Thanks! --Cerejota 06:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Order shouldn't matter. POV issues in the current version will still be there within the content, even if the title is more neutral. --SefringleTalk 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument there, however, it goes against a position you previously argued for. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't have it both ways...

message: Dear Gentlemen,
I think what has happened on the article these last 24h can be considered as an "edit war".
I don't have any solution for the neutralisation of this article (starting by its title) that would be consensual among us but this remains an "edit war".
There should nevertheless be an agreement that there is a disagreement on the title (accuracy and/or neutrality) and the content (relation with the title and/or neutrality). And if there is no consensus to change/move this, there is no consensus to keep it neither.
For these reasons, I added the PoV flag. Alithien 10:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV is probably good idea. Now this article looks really like a piece a propaganda and justifies "allegations" title, but one which doesn't belong to Wikipedia. I'm totally confused about replacing statetements done by notable politicians by indoctrinization brought to us by the advocacy organizations as this one: StandWithUs, an anonymous propaganda outfit, operating out of the Post Office Box. All these recent edits seem to me like scavenging the article for just one reason - to discredit its content. Undo it all and keep the page protected until the dispute is resolved. See also StandWithUs with the only other reference which supposed to be an independent source (but IRS didn't publish it), and  as the only third hit on Google for the supposed legal name of the outfit - "Israel Emergency Alliance". greg park avenue 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV flag 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Apartheid analogy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Jossi's first idea, most likely to reach consensus, see here. It's the third and last part of the packet:
Allegations of apartheid → Apartheid (alternate meanings),
History of South Africa in the Apartheid era → Apartheid. All packet is logically consistent and I hope the middle ground. greg park avenue 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edward Said also rejected Oslo Accords and see where they are now. Back to square one. So are we. Besides, analogy is a very good compromise, but if you want it all, allegations are here to stay forever until the Judgement Day, or whatever it means. greg park avenue 01:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: +1. I think what Cerejota has just written is extremely wise and is a good synthesis of the different PoV among us and the heart of the matter we face. Alithien 11:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: -1. I think the main disagreement is with the word "analogy" this time. Someone just doesn't want to allow this article to be cleaned from useless allegations like these supplied for example by StandWithUs - an article which does not have any single independent reference, just links to its sister sites. This tactic is very transparent. If you cannot delete an unwanted article, you litter it as much as possible. Don't you see it? greg park avenue 11:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Your housekeeping motion is invalid, John, since ArbCom has already ruled (7 required votes) on not interfering with this article, see here. greg park avenue 11:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitration is still in progress, and discussion and voting by arbitrators is still open.  You're reading the "Proposed decisions" page.  --John Nagle 16:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This status quo will probably remain, and sometimes it's better to do things voluntarily than be coerced into action by arbitrary means later. That's the motto of bankers in America. Besides, do you need a nanny, John? greg park avenue 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That I concur, but why not for sake of Wikipedia take it step by step? Switch to analogy, clean up the article, and then try the better name. greg park avenue 11:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the word "analogy" improves the title.  In fact, I will add that to the reasons for my "oppose":  I don't think this proposed title is an improvement over the current one.  6SJ7 04:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try some polling. What about "debate"? greg park avenue 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good idea to have a poll in the middle of an "official" move discussion.  I also have some other issues with this whole process, and parts of this discussion in particular, but I will keep them to myself for right now.  6SJ7 18:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Because if this version doesn't make it, "Israeli apartheid analogy" will never see daylight, not with its section "Opposing views". It must be cleaned first. You're trying to kill two birds with one stone. Hamas is not the best choice for government and we don't know how they treat ethnic minorities in Palestinian Autonomy. What if someone finds a valid analogy inside PA? greg park avenue 12:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greg please. Arguing that this title is appropriate because one day Hamas might decide to persecute ethnic minorities in a way that constitutes apartheid is really stretching it. If that day comes (and God help us if it does) we'll deal with that by writing an article entitled Hamasian apartheid. Until then however, we are dealing with this article and the subject it covers, which is Israeli apartheid. Let's try and keep on topic at least. Tiamat 14:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come, Tiamat, take a look how little support this title has in comparison with the "controversy" version; it means how bad it sounds for pro-Israeli oriented Wikipedians. And you still complain? In four days this RfM runs out, try then this "Israeli apartheid analogy" title and see how much support you get. I tell you, you gonna lose Sefringle and maybe Steve from NYC too. You must give these guys some leeway. Assuming that Israelis are the only guilty party, while Hamas is blameless and completely not responsible for the current apartheid-like state existing in the territories of Israel, is asking too much from them. Even most neutral Wikipedians stay away from this issue. "Analogy" version is still the best deal in town, since only the valid and notable analogies will be allowed into this article. The rest like unsourced StandWithUs quotes must go then. It's probably a one man outfit selling Israeli flags and running an indoctrination program in order to avoid paying taxes. And if there is no analogy concerning PA practices, why are you afraid? This angle will be removed in a while. greg park avenue 15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely with Greg park avenue. Thanks, Greg, for pursuing this matter so diligently. --Steve, Sm8900 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  hey wait a minute, I think Standwithus is one of the main activism/advocacy groups on the West Coast. I know they're not perfect, maybe a little bit rah-rah sometimes, but at least they're on the ball. We East Coasters would do well to try to take a page from their playbook, and to try to come up with community responses which get the grassroots communities on board with a unified response, instead of getting comtinually mired down in communal intra-politics, and arguments over appropriations by the UJA. --Steve, Sm8900 16:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Greg, I appreciate your efforts to build consensus. However, my opposition to this name stands. I'm not afraid of anything. This is about accuracy, avoiding newspeak and doublespeak, and describing things for what they are without using needlessly long-winded formulations. We have articles entitled Islamofascism, New anti-Semitism, Pallywood, Arabs and anti-Semitism, etc., etc. I don't see why we need to water down the phrase Israeli apartheid. Now, I willing to compromise and go with Israeli apartheid analogy or Israeli apartheid debate, but I am not willing to go with Apartheid analogy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's a totally unencyclopedic entry and doesn't even name the subject under discussion, i.e. Israeli apartheid. I'm all for compromise, but not at the expense of accuracy and NPOV. Tiamat 12:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So be it, or as Paul McCartney used to say, Let it be - Israeli apartheid debate as the best shot coming up next. This title invites academic discussion. Hope, pro-Israeli editors should not shy off at this one. greg park avenue 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So what do you propose for a change? greg park avenue 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are operating under the rather curious delusion that the article name must move at all. Tarc 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Tarc. Andyvphil 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am not the only one. Show me another "allegations" article in English Wikipedia save for the apartheid series. greg park avenue 01:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try putting "allegations" in the search box. Then click "search". Andyvphil 01:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did and I came up with something like "Allegations of state terrorism in the United States" or "Allegations of state terrorism in Russia". These are based mostly on conspiracy theories by Noam Chomsky and others. Also, the term Allegation is misused in English Wikipedia, referring only to its legal meaning. According to Webster's New World Dictionary (Second College Edition) this word has multiple meanings: Alleged - 1. so declared, but without proof or legal conviction /the alleged assasin/ 2. called by this term, but perhaps improperly so; so-called /his alleged friends/. greg park avenue 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: According to Webster's dictionary "allege" has two meanings: 1. to assert without proof, 2. to offer as a reason. I believe the second meaning is the one you had in mind, but not every Wikipedia reader thinks like a lawyer. However, it's an idea. Why not borrow a term used in the courtrooms - a precise term without any double meanings? Something like "probable cause of violating committing the crime of apartheid in Israel" or "Israel suspected of crime of apartheid". "Suspect" is neutral word and means "assumed innocent until proven guilty in the court of law". greg park avenue 02:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Second thought: Apartheid charge is not an issue here. We don't want to intimidate anybody, do we? greg park avenue 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't you mind to explain why? Otherwise your vote is invalid as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT guidelines. greg park avenue 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *And that's the main idea of moving the title - to refute all these irrelevant allegations if they don't draw an analogy; who needs them in Wikipedia anyway? To the second part. I'm not assuming Israel is the only one state with an apartheid like policy. It may be prejudice. greg park avenue 11:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move (archived) [2]

message: And so, we continue in circles, fighting our battles in Wikipedia, where we shouldn't, meanwhile, the encyclopedia doesn't get built... People: why is it so hard to understand that this topic deserves a better treatment? 
The fact that there is a thermonuclear circular "debate" going on for a permanent basis, the record number of AfD requests, and the sheer brutal number of reliable secondary sources (the likes an article that shouldn't be more than a couple thousand words has never seen) is a measure of the incredible encyclopedic value of the topic. Editors who continue to insist it isn't are engaging in disruption. Get over it.
Likewise, editors who continue to insist in a WP:SYNTH narrative in which this topic is not part of the Israeli-Palestinian (or Arab-Israeli - to satisfy the anachronistic sensibilities of some) conflict, and should emphasize views that are sympathetic to describing Israel as an apartheid state etc are not being helpful at all.
I will like to see an encyclopedic entry that touches and glimpses the complex debate around this analogy, how it touches upon seeking a wider solution to the I-P/A-I conflict, how it is viewed by academic specialists, how it is responded on the part of the Zionist movement, what commentary is provided by notable figures, and what concrete facts-on-the-ground are part of the contentious use of the analogy.
In other words, I want to see an article that accurately portrays what the secondary sources talk about. 
I am not interested in the continued battles of ideology that many editors seem to want to engage in. There are places for that, and this isn't it.
Who is interested?
Thanks!--Cerejota 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am, so let's begin with NPOV title. As I stated above: This is about accuracy, avoiding newspeak and doublespeak, and describing things for what they are without using needlessly long-winded formulations. We have articles entitled Islamofascism, New anti-Semitism, Pallywood, Arabs and anti-Semitism, etc., etc. I don't see why we need to water down the phrase Israeli apartheid. Now, I willing to compromise and go with Israeli apartheid analogy or Israeli apartheid debate, but I am not willing to go with Apartheid analogy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's a totally unencyclopedic entry and doesn't even name the subject under discussion, i.e. Israeli apartheid. I'm all for compromise, but not at the expense of accuracy and NPOV. Tiamat 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the previous answer was a total aberration, a complete break with wp principles, and totally against the spirit of Cerejota's idea. you just said, "we all know that Israel is guilty, Guilty, guilty!!!!! so what's the use of pretending we care about objectivity and using a title which respects Israel? Let's admit what the whole world knows; Israel is guilty!" Sorry, i disagree with this approach, with all due respect. this just took cerejota's reasonable proposal and totally derailed it. but surprise, surprise, that does tend to happen here a lot. --Steve, Sm8900 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, a title like "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" implies that Israel has committed a crime, specifically the crime of apartheid, as "allegations" in law refers to allegations being made in legal pleadings. The individuals above who are defending the current title do so on a false premise, that it is neutral or somehow gets Israel off the hook - it doesn't, if anything it raises the idea that a crime has occured. Lothar of the Hill People 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry to tell you Steve that you have yourself to blame, as you have emboldened the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian POV pushers. Your kowtowing them, your involvement of mocking and derailing the WP process and openly endorsing the breakup of WP principles will make your work much harder. I have no sympathy at all. I am about to give up completely on WP; not because of Tiamut, who I don't expect any better; but because of people like you. Itzse 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well, all i can say about that other issue is that I support Tiamat 100%. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wide World of Sports