Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 16

message: I've brought in two brief background paras, the first linking to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the second briefly explaining the history of South African Apartheid and the anti-Apartheid movement, all of which are relevant here. A third paragraph introduces more moderate views as suggested by Seeking Mandela. I only feel it is fair to introduce these views (which includes the perfectly fair view that the whole analogy is absurd) before mentioning radicals such as Syria and David Duke and other anti-Semetic groups (even Unions and college kids are somewhat fringe; I have no idea what people think of left-wing Knesset members). I still don't think David Duke should be the first person mentioned in the article -- I'm a little concerned the next section poisons the well for both left-leaning and right-leaning moderates, but I'll let this change digest for awhile. -- Kendrick7talk 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Not, mind you, that David Duke couldn't have been the first user of the term, since according to his wikipedia article, he apparently was able to travel back in time to 1866 in order to found the Klu Klux Klan, but I'm certain no one back then would have known what he was talking about. 
 ) -- Kendrick7talk 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bringing up background, moderate viewpoints 

message: As noted by Jayjg in this edit , Anthony Löwstedt added his book to the article. It's a decent book, but currently Anthony is only a lecturer (he recieved is doctorate in 1994) and the book seems to be self-published (no ISBN number as far as I can tell) see: "Apartheid - Ancient, Past, and Present: Systematic Gross Human Rights Violations in Graeco-Roman Egypt, South Africa, and Israel/Palestine". The book is useful though, I've read through a bit of it (and investigated Löwstedt background this evening), in that it contains a lot of references to relevant academic work. Löwstedt has published a number of peer reviewed journal papers though and that may be a better source than his self-published book. --Deodar 02:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthony Löwstedt's book 

message: Could people please not use citation templates, as they're making the article very hard to edit? It's just as easy to write a citation normally as it is to use a template; in fact, it's probably easier and it results in less text between the ref tags, which makes editing easier. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I prefer citation templates becasue it adds a level of standadization throughout the project. I find if you paste the vertical versions of the templates as opposed to the horizontal ones, you can see the pertinent information more clearly and it self-separates from the text. If the article is SO long that those excess carriage-returns get in the way, then it might be time for summary-style to kick in. -- Avi 04:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Take a look at the first citation now. See how much more information is available? ANd the vertical style separates the cite from the text. -- Avi 04:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates make the text almost impossible to edit for flow, and so we end up with bad writing, that's the problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation templates

message: There has been a serious misuse of source material here, which is worth pointing out.
Kendrick added Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley as sources in the sandbox. They are good sources, working in relevant disciplines in mainstream universities. They said three things that are very important for our article: (1) that the majority of commentators on this issue deplore the use of the term "Israeli apartheid"; (2) that the proponents are mostly Palestinians, Third World academics, and some Jewish post-Zionists; and (3) that there are other commentators who see both similarities and differences.
That was the order in which the sources listed the commentators, and that was therefore the order in which we had to list them.
First, Kendrick added this in the correct order, but omitted the most important point, namely that "the majority" of commentators deplore the use of the term. He simply added that opponents deplore its use.
Then, Kiyosaki switched the order so that the first thing we claimed the sources said was that proponents of the term say X, and opponents say Y, as though they were both equal and the order didn't matter (and if it didn't matter, why switch it?). 
Proponents come before the Critics, unless you have the POV that supports critics, it would make sense then that you support putting the "critics" before the horse itself. Please show some good faith, Slim.Kiyosaki 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was attempting to adhere to WP:AWW in my paraphrase, and I put the reference citation immediately prior to the list, which I believed to be a valid style of referencing. (Were you not quoting, the referencing style you are using seems to apply to only the third element). I also had a fourth element, from the source, which mentioned its political use which was removed, but I had thought to be appropriate.-- Kendrick7talk 04:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. You egregiously abused your source and WP:NPOV, both by omitting who holds which viewpoint, and by omitting what the majority view is. This was deliberate, and gave the paragraph a clearly different meaning than the authors intended. You also abused your source by failing to attribute to them. This was also deliberate, since you removed their names when they were added. Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kendrick, two questions: First, how were you avoiding weasel words by not properly representing what the sources said? And secondly, given that NPOV tells us we must identify the majority view, and given that these apparently authoritative academic sources (thank you for finding them) told us that the majority view is to deplore the use of the term, why did you leave that part out? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an error in judgement. I will be more careful next time. -- Kendrick7talk 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fair enough. Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of sources

message: Kendrick7, we're trying to keep the article in a manageable state, not turn each tiny little clause in one sentence into its own paragraph. The point is that groups from the far left to the far right on the spectrum use the phrase, and this is notable, since there is little else they agree on. Please stop trying to obscure that actually interesting fact by removing the statement which notes this, and separating all the different users of the term, adding all sorts of useless verbiage solely for the purpose of segregating the far-right users from everyone else. Your abuse of the Adam and Moodley source was bad enough, and your removal of the attribution of their opinions was even worse, but this attempt to re-format the page into uselessness solely to make some sort of political statement is becoming disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A listing of leftists and anti-Semites does not a proper overview of the political spectrum. -- Kendrick7talk 05:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is as accurate as saying "diverse colors from across the visible spectrum, such as red and violet" which is true on its face, but misleading if this is trying to represent the full spectrum. It's not all that terrible, though, in the proper context. I do believe the view that the allegations are anti-Semetic should have a prominent place in the article, I'm not sure if half the notables in this early paragraph should be people/groups clearly holding such a view (Syria, a neo-Nazi, a Klansmember, and Jew Watch). What do you think? -- Kendrick7talk 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, don't worry. I'll figure it out. -- Kendrick7talk 03:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've moved the anti-semites down the page to where their examples, as anti-Semites who use the term, are relevant. Without context, citing them is a violation of WP:RS: Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources. -- Kendrick7talk 22:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of formatting 

message: I'm going to reorganize the article based on the three bulleted views of Mr. and Mrs. Adam. (It's a trap!!). ::sigh:: No really, I believe this makes sense to present the majority view first. -- Kendrick7talk
:Good idea :) Kla'quot 09:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  majority view that term is without merit 

message: Whenever I see an article where the intro is dominated by views of the subject's critics, my reaction is that this is no longer an encyclopedia article, but a soapbox. There is a place for criticism, but not in the intro. --ManEatingDonut 15:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Lead section, which suggests that criticism should also be included in the lead section. Also, please read the section below regarding the specific contents of the insertion. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at Wikipedia:Lead section, and I find that criticism is indeed fifth on the list of things to be included. The problem I have with this article's intro, as it stands, is that the other four items on the list have been excluded, leaving only the criticism. --ManEatingDonut 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why, then, did you do the opposite, adding even more POV, and making it worse? Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro 

message: I pulled this line
:"Various other political actors also use the South-African analogy self-servingly in their exhortations and rationalizations."
because in the text Adam is referring to Sharon and Barak's use of the possibility of an international backlash against Israel comparable to the anti-apartheid struggle. Neither is relevant here. If someone wants to describe the other actors in this paragraph as self-serving, it wouldn't be by using this quote. It also would be blantant POV.--Carwil 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kendrik7 insisted on inserting that; if you want it out, you should get agreement from him. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want the quote to stay, it is probably best to introduce the quote accurately both who is saying that and who they are referring to. Then it isn't POV, but an accurate depiction of a (notable / expert / reliable source) person's opinion. --Deodar 17:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam quote fragment out of context 

message: I've removed this insertion from the intro again:
 In particular, patterns of residential segregation, restricted movement based on status, dispossesion of land are described as constituting a pattern of apartheid which is criminal under international law.
It appears to consist of original reasarch, and to be promulgating a minority view at best, as few of the sources who use the term "apartheid" in relation to Israel actually refer to "Crime of apartheid". Yes, I know there are a very small number of sources that refer to the "Crime of apartheid", but they seem to be few and far between. Let's talk about the proposed insertion. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trick is to use direct quotes from reputable sources in the body for this point. Paraphrasing positions is always a challenge and can create disagreements as to what is an appropriate paraphrase. --Deodar 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, let's not get caught up on the lead, it can serve as a distraction from creating a solid article. Usually with articles and with essays, its best to write the summarizing lead last once you have completed the body of the work. --Deodar 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the substance without reference to apartheid's criminality (see above for my thoughts on this) because, as was recently noted, the summary ought to describe the topic. The phrases involved: 'residential segregation, restricted movement based on status, dispossesion of land' are mapped from the subheads describing the argument (though condensed slightly).--Carwil 17:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro should summarize main aspects of the actual allegations, not state a formal definition that almost nobody applies systematically. Of the four aspects in your summary,  patterns of residential segregation, restricted movement and employment based on status, dispossesion of land only the second and fourth are a substantial aspect of most Israeli apartheid allegations. Kla'quot 17:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry about the intro until the section that deals with this topic is addressed otherwise it just complicates things. Patience and consensus building is key on these types of contentious articles. --Deodar 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until this article is turned into something readable and encyclopedic, the introduction should be kept as simple as possible, so that it at least accurately reflects the basics of the topic in a neutral way. Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kla'quot, Deodar, and Jayjg. Work out the content in the body first, then the intro can be made to better reflect what the article says in summary. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In what way is the intro "dominated"? WP:LEAD says the lead should contain criticism. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at Wikipedia:Lead_section#Writing_about_concepts, and I find that criticism is indeed fifth on the list of things to be included. The problem I have with this article's intro, as it stands, is that the other four items on the list have been excluded, leaving only the criticism. --ManEatingDonut 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In what way is the intro "dominated"? As has been explained above, the contents of the article are in flux, so we can't go into detail yet, but we understand the basics of the accusation, and the response. Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to the intro 

message: I believe there is too much POV in the article (maybe purposefully, perhaps unintentional) to hide or bury discussion of the allegations themselves, which is the topic of the article. I have never before read something that is so upside-down/backwards in tone and content. An explanation of Israeli apartheid should be provided first. What is it? What are the allegation? Who said them? Then cover the criticism. Thanks.Kiyosaki 23:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reason to exclude antisemites from the list of "Who said them?" in the intro. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The quotes section really belongs at the bottom. I wouldn't mind a few of these, like Tutu I suppose, where there is a list of some groups/individuals who use the term (currently the only individuals mentioned are a neo-nazi and a klansmember, but everyone else seems to think that isn't POV). -- Kendrick7talk 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean in the intro, I mean in the term section where it mentions David Duke, et al. None of those quotes are arguments, they are just people using the term. Which from me gets a big "so-what" especially since they are a minority POV to those who critize the term. -- Kendrick7talk 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a section of the Talk: page discussing "right-wing Jews and Zionists" below. I take it you added the phrase as a WP:POINT because you don't like the reference to anti-Semites? Jayjg (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism before the Allegations?

message: Kiyosaki, can you please find a source for that claim? Which of the listed critics are "right-wing Jews and Zionists", and why would that be relevant? Adam and Moodley state "The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals." They weren't talking about "right-wing Jews and Zionists". Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just did yesterday, and you promptly removed him as "non-reliable". In any event, it's not up to me to disprove your contention, (though I already have, with the Adam and Moodley source), but rather up to you to prove your original research. Please find a reliable source that states that those who oppose the analogy are "right-wing Jews and Zionists". Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, Adam and Moodley state "The majority' is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals." Not "the Right-wing Jews and Zionists". The majority. And, again, if you make a claim, which you have, then you must find reliable sources for it. Find them please. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "critics, including [[right wing]] [[Jews]] and [[Zionists]]," 

message: Kiyosaki, you've removed Ian Buruma from the article, claiming he's not a "reliable source". Given that he's the Luce Professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism at Bard College, New York, exactly why is he not reliable? What makes people like, say, Yakov Malik and Farid Esack reliable sources in this matter, but not Buruma? Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was his involvement in the United Democratic Front (South Africa)? His article makes a vague unsourced claim regarding it that doesn't really mean anything. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless, if the Guradian can be used all over the 2006 Israel/Lebanon articles, it can be used here, unless there is good reason to think otherwise. Kiyosaki, is there a reason why the Guardian's reliability is acceptable for Chris McGreal but not for Ian Buruma? -- Avi 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A professor of Democracy & Human Rights is clearly qualified to comment on allegations of Apartheid. Isarig 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You're welcome to that POV, but he meets every requirement stated by WP:RS and WP:V. It is self evident that an academic in the fiekld of human rights is a relevant expert on charges of apartheid. If you want to add sources that you feel are even more qualified, go right ahead, but please do not remove well sourced, relevant material. Isarig 18:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, he's a primary source, and the Guardian which quoted him is a  reliable secondary source. I have shown he is an academic, with relevant expertise in the field of human rights. You are making an extraordinary claim - that an academic in a relvant field is not reliable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - hop to it. Isarig 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And being a tertiary source is relevant how? He is a notable scholar on Human Rights issues. His opinion is therefore notable (I would see Desmond Tutu's opinion on the matter as notable as well). JoshuaZ 18:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: He was Luce Professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism at Bard College, New York. He is a perfect source to comment on allegations of Apartheid. Isarig
No, he isn't and you have yet to show exactly why. Perhaps his expertise is in human rights in China? You have no idea, and you have not shown why he is credible on the very subject of this article. Please do so. He is weak, and I am trying to help this article. I'm saying find a better source please.Kiyosaki 19:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, he is quoted as an expert by reliable source, and he himself is Luce Professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism at Bard College, New York, which makes him eminently qualified. Now, explain what makes Yakov Malik and Farid Esack qualified? Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, note that he has written extensively on the topic. For example, his most recent book Occidentalism is about precisely these issues. Other pieces by him on this and related topics have appeared in the New York Times magazine and the Chronicle of Higher Education. JoshuaZ 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep making that assertion regarding Buruma, but so far every other editor of this article has disagreed with you. Perhaps you should re-think this. As for Esak, what was his involvement in the United Democratic Front (South Africa)? His article makes a vague unsourced claim regarding it that doesn't really mean anything, and he seems mostly to be a liberal Muslim theologian. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Kiyosaki, I'm sorry but I don't quite understand your argument, "he is weak because his expertise might be in China"? That doesn't make any sense, even if we assume that his expertise is in any area other than what he is commenting on, it doesn't really matter as he is being represented as an expert by a reliable source. I'm sorry but it is simply and thankfully not up to you to decide what constitutes an acceptable source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I for one am not sure Esack isn't qualified. However, that would be open to discussion. An academic from a well-known university who has written a book on the subject is notable. Esack is notable only in the context of having dealt with South African apartheid. We have no evidence that Esack has looked in any detail into the Israeli situation. If you have evidence that he has said anything other than off-hand remarks then please present it. JoshuaZ 19:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Buruma is a Professor of Human Rights and Democracy. Now, can you explain what Esack's involvement in United Democratic Front (South Africa) consisted of? Or is it that you simply don't know yourself? Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you be more specific please? You appear to be hand-waving here; what specifically qualifies him? Or Yakov Malik, for that matter. What did Esack do for those organizations? I think I should remind you that joining an anti-Apartheid group doesn't really make you an expert in anything, just as joining the Democratic party doesn't make you an expert in politics. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Kiyosaki, you appear to be trolling now. Either explain which experience of Esack's and Malik's is relevant, or move on. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There was no personal attack, you do indeed appear to be trolling and there is nothing inappropriate about pointing this out.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think you are being harassed by all means start a thread on the AN/I or write up an RFA, but please do not try to use it as a threat.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Buruma is quite notable, reliable, credible, etc. on this topic, BTW. Surprised this is even an issue. Here is a partial list of articles he's contributed on related subjects, from NYTimes Magazine to The New Republic to the New Yorker to the Guardian. A lot of reputable news orgs are interested in his views.  IronDuke 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be hard to see how much more Buruma would need to do to inspire respect for his expertise on this subject. He has been published in many reputable journals. It's more than satisfactory. IronDuke 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, sorry you are wrong is not an argument in any meaningful sense of the word. He's an expert becuase he's quoted in reputable sources. If you want to go and remove all NYTimes references all over WP as being not up to WP:RS, be my guest. (And throw in The New Republic to the New Yorker to the Guardian as well.) IronDuke 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I absolutely disagree. "Extremely weak?" Hard to know how to respond to that kind of overstatment except to say, again, he has been published in very reputable, highly respected journals and newspapers that deal in controversial political issues all the time on this subject. Do you dispute that? IronDuke 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I see Jayjg, JoshuaZ, Isarig, Humus Sapiens, Moshe, Avraham and myself all disagree with you on this point. You're spitting in the face of overwhelming consensus by experienced editors here. Everyone's been very patient, but you really need to get the message pretty soon. IronDuke 04:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Buruma 

message: Sorry about that, Kendrick, I didn't mean to delete it. It must have gotten caught in the middle of my returning the Burama paragraph. -- Avi 02:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no prob -- Kendrick7talk 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Stomping” sections 

message: Kiyosaki has now inserted the phrase "South African anti-apartheid leaders, Nobel Peace Prize winners, a President of the United States" into a very long paragraph about those who have used the term. Are you sure this isn't double counting? After all, the Nobel peace prize winners consist of a South African anti-apartheid leader (Tutu) and a former President of the United States (Carter). Unless I've missed someone, we shouldn't be misleading the reader. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are double-counting them then? Please pick how you'd like them to be described. Jayjg (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how what you're saying relates to what I have said. You've listed some people twice; please decide which designations you wish to use, so as not to mislead the reader. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a minor point, just like the point I made below. --Deodar 22:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. The whole point was to puff him up; he's got a very flowery description elsewhere in the article as well. Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I changed it.Opiner 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "South African anti-apartheid leaders, Nobel Peace Prize winners, a President of the United States" 

message: I notice there is a lot of the use of "term" when really I think it is an "analogy" being made and rejected/criticized. It would help clarity to change this focus, but it is a minor point. --Deodar 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This terminology is used to allege the analogy. Seems clear to me. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the terminology descibed the analogy which is alledged? -- Kendrick7talk 02:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Analogy" is much more accurate. Many of the allegations do not use the term. Kla'quot 06:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Term" vs "Analogy" 

message: We have an undue weight problem with the first section and the subsections. The academics we open with (who appear to be authoritative and neutral so far as I know) say that most commentators on the use of the term/analogy deplore its use. Therefore, that has to be the position we stress in the article, according to NPOV.
Our current table of contents does the opposite. We have:
* 1.1 Use of the Term [pro]
* 1.2 Users of the Term [pro]
* 1.3 Criticism of the term [anti]
* 1.4 Viewed as an outcome of the two-state solution [mostly pro]
We should incorporate 1.2 and 1.4 into 1.1. Headers that don't affect the TOC can be used for clarity if needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it fair to stress the side of the debate that is itself the majority position? Otherwise, it looks like there's a 50/50 split which there isn't, right? IronDuke 01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is it "fair", but, in fact, it is what the WP:NPOV policy demands. Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what is the majority position? We needn't revamp the entire article to reflect the assertions in one (1) academic publication. CJCurrie 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The authors of that publication appear to be the most qualified to Talk: about this subject, and that particular work appears to be perhaps the only (and certainly the best) academic quality source on this specific subject. As such, the views expressed in it should be heavily weighted. And they make it quite clear what the majority's position is. Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, this proposal is based on an "appeal to authority" fallacy. It may be the only sustained academic +summary+ of the subject, but it's still only one (1) source. CJCurrie 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We always appeal to authority (that's what V is) and it isn't a fallacy. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, shouldn't we change or delete this article? CJCurrie 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is, there are almost no academic sources on the subject, because it's not a serious topic, it's just political grandstanding/demonizing. In reality this article should be one paragraph in a larger article, listing the opinions of the authors of the one academic work that deals with it. However, it's been promoted into a massive, messy article for the exact same reason that the allegation is made in the first place. Given the article's almost inevitable execrableness, we should at least try to mitigate the embarrassment to Wikipedia by heavily favoring the most intelligent and scholarly sources on the topic, as few as they are. Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... the Google Scholar search returns over 10,000 hits, and I could add sources from JSTOR to this article all day. But as long as we have very good web sources which cover the topic and are publically available to all editors, there's not much need. The article is more or less complete as is. For academic sources, though, my cup runneth over. -- Kendrick7talk 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking at the first page you link to, I count 4 of them referencing "Resisting Israel's apartheid (by noted Israel scholar Noam Chomsky) 2 from "Zed books" who, according to their website "publish a variety of student textbooks, polemics and original research." (emphasis added), one by (ugh) Norman Finkelstein, Tutu again, twice, and one book that puts the countries in the same sentence (but I can't tell what the author's thesis might be). 10K scholarly sources on IA? Hmmmm... IronDuke 03:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. It's all polemics and nonsense, virtually no scholarly sources on the topic at all. That's why the article is doomed to be a sorry mirror of the political propaganda that produced the term in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a word for willful ignorance? I thought there was, but then I couldn't find it on the first page of a google search. So, gee I guess not.  -- Kendrick7talk 04:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. There is little doubt that the other 9,990 pages each contain a scholarly reference of breath-taking impartiality and sober judgment (you needn't link to them, we can all agree to assume they are there). My bad. IronDuke 04:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The article cites a source talking about an apartheid regime in Israel in 1971. The concept thus predates disco, pro-life, video cassette recorder, punk rock, crack cocaine, and lap top, just off the top of my head. It's not a neologism. -- Kendrick7talk 06:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms "apartheid" and "Israel" have been around since the 1940s. When was the neologism "Israeli apartheid" first used? Jayjg (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Even this article EXIST stress one side of debate.Opiner 01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Section 1.1 really isn't "pro". 1.4 a widely held view, according to the source which calls 1.3 the majority view. The only problem here is 1.2. -- Kendrick7talk 01:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: Originally I had this under the previous heading, but didn't want to be accused of "hijacking the thread." Anyway: Has it occurred to anyone besides me that any efforts to make this a good article are futile? Almost every aspect of the perpetual debate over this article seems to go back to the fact that there is nothing to support an article here in the first place. I realize that this is a battle that has been fought and lost, although as I recently learned, there really never has been a valid AfD for this article. The first one was a fraud, the next one was over before anyone knew it, and the third one was defeated mainly because it was a "third AfD", which it really wasn't. I realize I am beating a dead horse here, but one of the reasons that I cannot bring myself to spend much time editing this article is that it seems like a massive waste of time. It's kind of like painting a pile of garbage in an effort to make it look nicer: All you end up with is a pile of garbage with paint on it. 6SJ7 01:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but how do you really feel? -- Kendrick7talk 02:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the sentiment behing what you are saying, but actually think we should have an article. IMO, the term is being bandied about all over the place by people who mostly don't know what they are talking about. The article is a place to set the record straight that the analogy doesn't hold water. I think we need to air that POV, and also let the people who think the Israelis/Jews are racists air their POV. Elizmr 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I agree with the sentiment you are expressing, Elizmr. The POV in question does need to have an outlet somewhere on Wikipedia. However, I think having a separate article on the subject is what causes too many problems. Maybe there can be an article that collects all of the ideas that are "bandied about all over the place by people who mostly don't know what they are talking about." Hey, catchy title, don't you think? :) 6SJ7 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make it part of Israel-Palestine conflict. Maybe one paragraph there.Opiner 02:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Strange as this may sound, not all proponents of the term believe "the Israelis/Jews are racists". If you're starting from this POV, or if you think we should only have the article to disprove the allegation, then it's not exactly a surprise that you'd disapprove of the current version. As to the title, well ... that's another matter entirely. CJCurrie 02:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't Apartheid = Racism? Don't about half the world's Jews live and VOTE in Israel? What part of the equation Israeli Apartheid = Israelis/Jews are racists doesn't follow from this? I'm sorry, but you can't call Israel an Apartheid state and deny that you are saying Israelis/Jews are racists at the same time. Elizmr 02:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's oversimplifying. U.S. citizens have paid people to kill half a million Iraqis. That doesn't mean the average American hates Iraqis. Crimes against humanity, like wars, are complex sociological phenomenon. -- Kendrick7talk 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Too many people on both sides of this discussion make the mistake of conflating "Israel, the state" with "Jews, the people". Criticism of "A" is not the same as criticism of "B". CJCurrie 03:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, Israeli Jews struggle under the iron boot of their liberal, parliamentary democracy. If only they could run their own country... but seriously: this article is less notable than Allegations of Jewish Naziism. Far, far more refs for Jews as Nazis. Do we have an article on that? Well, it is WP, so maybe. But I sure hope not. Most folks understand that calling Jews Nazis is classic antisemitism. That's why the antisemitism has gotten shrewder: Jews as Apartheid South Africans. Provides great cover for antisemites, while buffering renascent antisemitism for western lefties who can wax nostalgic about how they defeated apartheid the first time around. It's very, very depressing to have an article on this "topic" here. IronDuke 03:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. You've saved me the trouble of deflating your argument. CJCurrie 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deflating? Goodness! Please, please don't deflate my argument. It's so buoyant and pretty. Allons, ballon! IronDuke 04:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and the color of your balloon so nicely matches your herring. There were a few lines in the sandbox discussing the merits of this argument, though its a little too "meta" to bring in here, I think. -- Kendrick7talk 04:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! And people say these discussions are fruitless. You have inspired me to wave a smelly fish at the next Wikipedian foolish enough to offer me some kind of good-faith argument. Vive Villepin! IronDuke 04:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beating a dead horse