Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 24

message: A newly created article related to this one, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I voted for speedy deletion because there is no analogy to apartheid on the basis that there are no ethnic tensions and this is no government's policy over there, to even make such allegations valid. The keyword is the "analogy". Think about it, Chris, and maybe you reconsider your stand in relation to the Israeli article. greg park avenue 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Chinese apartheid 

message: 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. 
My proposal is to find a suitable article to merge the content of this article, based on the same arguments. It could be merged into one of the articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I am placing similar proposals on all other articles in the "Allegations of XXXX apartheid" series. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not arguing for deletion. I am arguing about finding a better home for the material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have any specific suggestions to this end?  CJCurrie 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me respond with a question: Do we have an article in Wikipedia about Human rights in Israel? That would be an excellent home for this material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid I cannot agree, for a number of reasons: (i) the apartheid analogy is not limited to Israel proper, but also encompasses events in the occupied West Bank (as well as the unresolved situation in Gaza), (ii) there's simply too much relevant material on the AoIA page to fit comfortably on Human rights in Israel, (iii) on a more fundamental level, it have long been by position that the analogy reaches the level of encyclopedic inclusion on its own merits.  CJCurrie 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there an article on the occupation of these territories? Is so, that could be the place for this material. I do not think that the analogy has reached that level. It is a political term and as such it needs to be properly framed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether or not it's a political term is irrelevant.  What's important is that the analogy is widely used -- including by many within Israel.  CJCurrie 01:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me repeat my question again: Is there an article on the occupation of these territories? I would argue that if such article exist it will be a better home for the content in this article, as it can be read on context of the overal political discourse about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The article in its current state is a  and needs proper summarizing, and it can fit within existing articles on the subject once cleaned up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we're both aware that Wikipedia has an article on the occupation of these territories. We should also know that article size issues would prevent AoIA from being merged to such a location. CJCurrie 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I am not aware, could you please  tell me the title of the article? Once we are done with cleaning up this article, and summarizing the quotes, it will surely fit within other articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've noted elsewhere, I'm not certain there's a need to remove *all* of the block-quotes near the start (and particularly not the Carter/Tutu quotes, which are arguably the most notable in the article).  CJCurrie 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just found out that there is a 70 K article on Carter's book. We need to summarize and wikilink to that article. There is need for long quotes, it makes for tedious reading and breaks the flow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As I've said elsewhere, WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a viable solution to this matter.  CJCurrie 01:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we can safely assume that all contributors who've attempted to delete this article in the past will now endorse the proposed merger.  Hopefully, this will not be mistaken for consensus.  CJCurrie 01:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that many editors (see the AfD of the Chinese allegations) have made strong arguments about these types of articles. I would argue that a consensus is emerging about the lack of viability of stand-alone articles on these subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the consensus is in favour of deleting obvious WP:POINT violations, not applying a "one size fits all" approach to anything with "Allegations of [...] apartheid" in the title.  CJCurrie 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were no WP:POINT violations. All these articles have useful material. The discussion is about how to move forward, not about how to perpetuate a dispute, and I hope you can help me and others in finding a suitable solution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm quite prepared to move forward and find a suitable solution, but this doesn't require wilfull blindness about past events. CJCurrie 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The difficulty with this proposal is that Allegiations of Israeli apartheid and Allegations of Chinese apartheid are entirely different articles, with entirely different histories. CJCurrie 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The history of an article  is not relevant to this discussion. MPerel: your proposal does not work unless we change the title of that article to Human rights in Israel and the occupied territories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid that history is entirely relevant to this particular article.  CJCurrie 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See the proposed merger tags in the different sections. It is doable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be doable, or it may not.  It certainly isn't desirable: the Israeli apartheid analogy is worthy of its own article.  CJCurrie 05:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia Article Size suggests > 40 KB - May eventually need to be divided > 60 KB - Probably should be divided. It's difficult to see how this article could be merged with anything. PalestineRemembered 13:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: At the risk of repeating myself, "I think we can safely assume that all contributors who've attempted to delete this article in the past will now endorse the proposed merger. Hopefully, this will not be mistaken for consensus."  CJCurrie 05:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CJ, given that you are one of the most partisan and vitriolic editors on this subject, would would it be fair to ask that editors ignore your comments wherever possible? No? Then please stop. You are not helping. IronDuke 01:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not certain when have my interventions been "vitriolic", or for that matter partisan.  It's a simple fact that some editors have never accepted the validity of the AoIa article, and have made several attempts to remove it.  Many of these editors are now supporting Jossi's proposal.  I doubt this is coincidental.  CJCurrie 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain when your "interventions" haven't been vitriolic, and they've been as partisan as contributions get on WP. Also, it has been pointed out to you again and again and again that editors' prior support for option A does not mean that they are to be ignored when suggesting Option B, any more than you ought to be ignored because of your previous, relentless support for an article most Wikipedians seem to think is garbage. IronDuke 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most Wikipedians are staying as far away from this discussion as possible.  CJCurrie 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is about Israeli internal affairs, not about a conflict and history of the clashes between Israel and its neighbors. If there is no article to merge it into, create one. greg park avenue 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: There have been a number of plausible proposals that merit discussion, including Jossi's above. However, it will be hard to find consensus unless folks can agree on the underlying grounds or principles for moving forward. I suggest working off of the core policies of Wikipedia. Here are two draft statements, which reflect what I've learned from  various sides of this dispute. 
* (G1) On Notability. There are reliable sources showing that there is a notable debate about the similarities and differences between Israeli policies toward Palestinians and South African apartheid. As a result, it would be reasonable for all parties to agree that the debate (the discourse itself) is Content that deserves at least an article subsection and, arguably, a main article.
* (G2) On Neutrality. It would be highly desirable, perhaps necessary, to find a more neutral wording than "allegations" and "Israeli apartheid" for an Article Name (or an article subheading, if merged). People on all sides have made good faith efforts to find alternative language. A better name will guide future efforts to edit the content so as to comply with various WP policies. As a result, it would be reasonable for all parties to agree that the debate, the notable content mentioned in (G1), must be placed under a more neutral subheading or Article Name.        (Italics shows site of possible amendment)
:::* Proposed amendment: strike and "Israeli apartheid" or otherwise retain 'apartheid' in Title
I believe that if consensus forms around these two statements, then we have a sufficient basis for either renaming or merging the article. So, which, if any, of these statements (G1, G2) are approximately acceptable to you? Can you suggest friendly amendments that would make these statements more acceptable to all parties? Thanks very much for hearing me out. HG | Talk 11:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drafting of Key Grounds or Principles for Renaming 

message: :I pretty much completely agree with this view, and have proposed a course of action in this regards. 
:We have a wonderful, respected, highly academic secondary source, Adam and Moodley's "Seeking Mandela", which provides an excellent, compelling, and structured approach to study the debate. While I neither suggest that this be the sole source, nor that the narrative they provide is the best, it is at least a much more serious approach to the question than a quote farm. Since I have proposed the structrure they give both here and in WP:APARTHEID, I won't repeat it, but this I think is the way to move forward.
:As I suggested over a year ago, a variation on the theme Debate on Israel and Apartheid is a much better, encyclopedic title than "Allegations", however, Israeli apartheid would be a good title too. "Allegations" is a stupid title, but it is the consensus.
:I disagree with using titles to resolve POV issues, as does for that matter wikipedia policy. 
:If we change the title only to resolve POV differences, then New antisemitism, Pallywood and other articles should surely change their title. 
:When exposing debates and ideas rather than hard facts (as New antisemitism and Pallywood do), it is inevitable that titles will have POV issues, what matters then is that the actual contents obey policy and present information in an unbiased, sourced, NPOV. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cerejota's viewpoint 

message: ::Nice to see you here too HG. I would second Cerejota here. The names of articles dealing with controversial issues will often be controversial when they are named to accurately describe the phenomenon they cover. This does not mean that we should engage in "newspeak" or "doublespeak". The notability of the Israel apartheid debate has been established. I do not believe that we can cover that debate properly when we do not name the word that is at the heart of the controversy itself: "apartheid". "Allegations" is however, unacceptable, as it is a weasel word and it detracts from the neutrality of the article. The article could be named simply Israeli apartheid or Israel and apartheid. If this is too broad and/or simply unpalatable for die-hard opponents : Israeli apartheid analogy, Israeli apartheid debate, or Debate on Israel and apartheid will do, though I'm sure there are other possible variations as well. Perhaps keeping it simple and direct while stringently abiding by NPOV in the article's contents might be best? Tiamat 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiamut -- You have some concerns, yet I also hear you voicing significant points of agreement with both G1 and G2 statements. To clarify: On G1, you say notability has been established. So, you're fine with the wording of G1? On G2, you agree that "allegations" detracts from neutrality and should be changed. But you have reservations about "apartheid", which you would like to somehow retain in the Article Name, though you acknowledge that it's a controversial term. Is that right? (This suggests that you might accept G2 if we simply struck out and "Israeli apartheid". I'm willing to entertain that as a friendly amendment, see above, but perhaps other solutions will arise.) Thanks for your patience. HG | Talk 14:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi HG. G1 is basically fine. G2 remains problematic to me. Neutrality in titles does not mean omitting the word at the center of the controversy from the title. Neither does it mean adding words so as to cast doubt as to the applicability of the word in this case. Nor does it mean using euphemisms so as to avoid offending people who find the very idea of a concept offensive. Neutrality is determined by article content and a simple descriptive title that does not point the reader in one direction or another. Israeli apartheid debate, Israeli apartheid analogy, Israel and apartheid or even Israeli apartheid are all NPOV in that they describe the subject being discussed without taking sides. Tiamat 14:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Tiamut, you are being quite clear. On G1, check. On G2: You would like a "simple descriptive title that does not point the reader in one direction or another" (nice), and still be able to put 'apartheid' (not a euphemism) in the Title. Let me also note that you are comfortable with a formulation such as Israel and apartheid, in which the noun phrase is split. You also use such terms as controversy, debate and analogy (all improvements on "allegations"). I consider all this potentially very constructive.HG | Talk 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Tiamut hi. I'm wondering if it might be helpful were you to express your flexibility/constraints regarding certain wording options. Building from Israel and apartheid, for instance, would you approve, or at least not oppose, modifying 'Israel' with such terms as policy, government, or programs? (As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to introduce any such terms yourself, esp if contested.) Likewise, would you approve /not oppose modifying 'apartheid' with such terms as policy, South Africa, or concept? Without my prejudging the outcome in any way, since such terms may not be needed, do you have a way to rank (esp w/WP policy criteria) the utility of such terms as: Controversy, Debate, Discussion, or Discourse. Also, I'd like to share my thinking about the word comparison. Sometimes it means (a) similarities & distinctions, (b) sometimes to resemblance. IMO analogy shares this characteristic. I'm inclined to think the (b) meaning may be POV problematic, so a descriptive title that uses such a term may be longer (though still simple, per your quote above). Thanks, hope I'm not taxing your patience esp because you may have already explained all this to other folks. Finally, I am preparing a set of further questions, esp regarding process. Would you prefer that I ask the q's when I'm ready, or wait? It's a pleasure doing this exchange with you. HG | Talk 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * In the comments on Jossi's proposal above, G-Dett provides a series of scholarly sources, G-Dett also argues that the sources refer to certain points of comparison that are not matters of policy (and, I might add, perhaps not of human agency and intent), such as the demographics situation. As a result, there may be reliable grounds for a higher-level heading unrelated to policy (and used by scholars), such as: "Comparison of South Africa and Israel." With such phrasing, perhaps the word 'apartheid' could be injected this way: "Comparison of apartheid-era South Africa and Israel". (But this would not cover studies that extend to post-apartheid South Africa.) For this reason, and taking into account the very pejorative connotations -- I'm wondering if you might consider dropping 'apartheid' from a higher order heading? What if you were confident that other headings could incorporate the term? Hmmm. Too many q's. To sum up: Given the scope of reliable sources, might you be able to live with 'South Africa' in lieu of 'apartheid', though it's not your first choice? Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiamut's viewpoint 

message: ::::::::HG, just to clarify, when I point out that the use of the analogy often pivots on issues (such as demographics but I listed others on your user talk page) that would not easily fit into a human-rights article, I am not arguing that these issues "are not matters of policy," much less that they are somehow beyond the realm of "human agency and intent" (!).   The demographics  of Israel-Palestine are absolutely a matter of policy, human agency, and intent.  My point was that the "apartheid" meme arises not only in discourse about Palestinian human rights premised on an appeal to ethics, but also in strategic discourse about the future of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state – a discourse premised on an appeal to demography.  Perhaps two juxtaposed quotes will further clarify the distinction.  Both are mainstream journalists/columnists for the New York Times, Anthony Lewis and Thomas Friedman, the former moderately pro-Palestinian, the latter moderately pro-Israel.  Both have invoked the "apartheid" meme on multiple occasions (Friedman has used it regularly since the second intifada broke out), but their emphasis is very different.  Here's Lewis in a 1988 NYT piece called "Toward South Africa": 
::::::::That's the human-rights discourse in a nutshell.  Now here's Friedman in 2001: 
::::::::That's the demographic discourse.  Finally, just to give a sense of how wide-ranging the meme's relevance can be, I'll give an example of what might be called the strategic-political discourse.  Here's Flora Lewis in the New York Times in 1983:   
::::::::Sorry for the length; I hope the distinctions I was drawing are clearer now.  There are several other such issues in addition to demography, which don't fit comfortably into a human-rights paradigm.--G-Dett 17:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you, thank you! You've made a helpful clarification. Without belaboring my own misunderstanding, you are saying that "human rights" is not an adequate umbrella term. However, "policy" would work, at least for those who accept your knowledge of the sources. ("The demographics  of Israel-Palestine are absolutely a matter of policy..."). Thanks, stay in touch. HG | Talk 23:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   When we say "Israeli Apartheid" we are framing the debate as if asserting that there is such a thing.  Political debate about Israel and apartheid-like practices may be a better attempt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about Axis of evil? Should that be renamed Allegations of an Axis of evil? Lothar of the Hill People 17:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That article carries  a POV tag, and for good reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even better, would be to have subsections with similar titles at Human rights in Israel and Israeli-occupied territories, where the debate can be contextualized for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Briefly, your point on subheadings is terrific! This may put the Merge and Rename procedural mechanisms on an roughly equivalent basis, vis a vis this exploration. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't work, the Human Rights in Israel article is too long and too broad as it is. Also, "apartheid" in Israel has enough credible and high-level sources to be a notable topic in its own right. Lothar of the Hill People 17:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not? The proposal is to merge specific material into that article, not the whole article. Namely apartheid-like practices within Israel material. The material related to such practices within  the occupied territories, can be had under their own section at Israeli-occupied territories. These sections can carry the term "apartheid" in them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opposition to this (beyond the objections raised by Lothar and CJ, which I second) is that some of the most interesting material on the Israel-South Africa comparison does not focus exclusively or even predominantly on comparisons of state guilt or on how to fairly characterize human-rights violations.--G-Dett 20:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Discussion flowing from Tiamut's comments) 

message: I agree with the G1 and G2 statements (though G2 is a little ambiguously worded), and I concur with the responses posted by Tiamut and Cerejota.  I am not terribly bothered about titles; my chief concern is that an average Wikipedia user who has heard about the Israel-South Africa analogy can find a detailed, interesting, and thorough article about it.  My objection to the word "allegations" in the title has always been that it's the wrong word, not that it's unfair; the average reader (i.e. one not idiomatically conditioned by disputes internal to Wikipedia) would think an article called Allegations of Israeli apartheid detailed formal charges, not contentious descriptions and comparisons.   
As I've pointed out directly above as well as in the "proposal" section, some of the best material on the Israel-South Africa analogy – including the Adam/Moodley book – is not centrally concerned with documenting human-rights abuses or with evaluating and comparing state guilt in same, so merging into a new or existing "human-rights" article seems ill-advised.  The only thing I'd add to this is that I think we've misconstrued the Adam & Moodley book as somehow sui generis, when in fact it's very much representative of a significant body of similar work.  I think the strong web bias of Wikipedia sourcing has played a role in our perceptions here; after all, the entire introductory chapter of Seeking Mandela is available online, so most editors here have become aware of its authors.  There are many others, a few of which  I've listed in my longer comment in the "Proposals" section above.--G-Dett 20:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: G-Dett, thanks for your clear response and support (G1, G2). I'd be happy to hear suggestions for less ambiguous wording for G2 which you think would be amenable to all interested parties. HG | Talk 21:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (Removed procedural ideas that did not generate discussion)HG | Talk 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G-Dett's viewpoint 

message: Please read this with a charitable eye, as a draft listing. The idea would be to draw upon this list to construct the Article Name and, perhaps, recommended headings (or naming conventions). This listing is not designed, at all, to prejudge the relevance of other applicable Wikipedia policies. Such policies may determine whether the underlying content can justify the need for such headings, e.g., requiring verifiable sources, no undue weight, etc. I apologize if this seems premature; much of this discussed in prose form above, w/Tiamut.
I've arranged this list in the order of terms to replace "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" with significantly more neutral (NPOV) terms. HG | Talk 10:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, thanks, you raise several related good issues here. As now added to (I), I'm now sensing that we would need to Rename first, without prejudging subsequent decisions to edit, keep, delete, or merge the article content. It's fine if you disagree and want to pursue this here. How about a subsection, above Groundrules, entitled something like "Relationship between Renaming and Merging decisions" ?  Also, if you can support grounds I.G1-2, perhaps you like to add your viewpoint there? Many thanks for your insights here. HG | Talk 00:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toward a set of recommended terms and headings 

message: * Suggested groundrules. I am politely requesting for this exploratory section, which admittedly nobody owns, that comments outside the scope not be placed in the preceding subsections. This includes uncivil statements,  the motives of interested parties (including good faith and WP:POINT concerns), history of editing and AfD disputes, etc. I am addressing these ideas for those Users who may be amenable to revising the Article Name. If you are unconditionally opposed to revising the Name, I'd rather you comment elsewhere on this Talk page. If you believe that comments above might not fit these suggested groundrules, please notify that person via User Talk  (not here). If you come to realize you've said something outside the scope of the preceding subsections, please strike out your words and, if you choose, pursue your point elsewhere. I think this will benefit all parties! Thanks. HG | Talk 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of groundrules and other comments 

message: I must thank you for your approach, it is refreshing to see some civility for a change. The diffs for my proposal  and .
1) Policy relevant to titles not resolving POV:
WP:NPOV
A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.[5] The general restriction against POV forks applies to article names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth).[6] Even if a synthesis can be found, like Shape of the Earth, or Earth (Debated shapes), it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.
Which follows with specific guidelines on how to solve controversies vis-a-vis titles:
WP:NCON#How to make a choice among controversial names
Proper nouns
The three key principles are:
*The most common use of a name takes precedence;
*If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
*If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.''
A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:
* Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organizations)
* Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
* Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)
Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
* Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
* Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
* Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
* Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?
I think a large part of the conflicts in this and related articles would be solved if people followed policy, as it stands, instead of trying to meatpuppet each side of the POV into submission, tire the community with endless controversy, and/or willfully violate policy to try to get a successful AfD (this has been done all over the place by both sides of the POV)
2) I think "Allegations" is stupid in the title because of WP:WTA, which advices against "Allegation" in titles. It is a violation of policy imposed by consensus, in many case by editors who have voted for AfD based precisely on the title. Yes, the logic here is that circular. Some are trying to get "apartheid" (outside of South Africa) as a word to avoid, however we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
I do not want to sound controversial, but I am experienced enough to know that consensus is whatever keeps admins from pulling wheelies on each other ;) - if an admin can survive de-syoping by doing an action, s/he will do it even if it is not quite consensus. There was an almost-but-not-quite-wheel/move-war-to-which-ArbCom-said-we-really-don't-know-so-lets-give-amnesty-to-all-the-involved as part of the "debate" to rename this article from Israeli apartheid. Thats in a nutshell how the article ended up with the sorry excuse of a policy violation we have as a title.
I hope I have answered all of your questions, and by all means join in and try to help us move things forward, instead of in circles. Thanks! --Cerejota 06:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cerejota, I'm grateful for your detailed and clear response, and the info you provide in the diffs. G-Dett provides some related info above, so I may respond there and welcome your thoughts. In terms of consensus, as I've used in my section heading, I do not mean the admin decisions but rather a broad mutual agreement (or shared understanding), based on people's underlying interest (not nec. declared positions, which may be more ephemeral or expedient), and thereby what should be a more stable and cooperative kind of consensus. Thanks. HG | Talk 08:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to HG's comment on my talk page 

message: Cancelled. This straw poll was a well-intentioned idea but it's not ready for prime time. It needs more conversation and development. So I've removed the straw poll text, which you can find in this diff if you are interested. I've left up the initial responses from CJCurrie and Jossi. I still think it may be worth pursuing the   exploratory conversation(s) above, starting with basic principles with which to evaluate the Article Name and subheadings. Hope this wasn't too distracting. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you saying that the lead is wrong? It reads "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw an analogy between South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era and Israel's treatment of Arab citizens of Israel or Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to you both for your frank and civil responses. I've rescinded the poll as noted above. Take care. HG | Talk 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll: Requested Move for "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid"  

message: In the real world ... encyclopedias chase actual human experience. 
For a long time there was not a meaningful, mainstream debate about whether Israel's policies constituted apartheid. Then usage accelerated, positions shifted, and the debate made it into the mainstream. WP is usually on the cutting edge of these kinds of issues, which means we have interesting choices to make. 
And here we are again.
Now, the policy on naming reads: "When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use."
Yet, at the same time, global political dialogue has polarized, and there are catch-phrases floating about that deserve independent articles.
How to square this circle?
The way we have settled this in the past, if I may be blunt about it, is to focus on mainstream usage and things like whether there is a dictionary entry for a term, and to simply ignore the policy above. 
Witness Islamofascism, which is manifestly about Muslims and Islam -- yet no Muslim I've ever met has self-identified as a fascist. There may be Israelis who adamantly label their government's policies as apartheid, but I've never encountered any. Yet lots and lots of editors felt it was important to strike a blow against "censorship" by endorsing, and defending, the Islamofascism article title, and lots of editors in this dispute, as at Islamofascism, are fast-forwarding over the policy cited above, and reject the possibility of appendages like (term) and (epithet) in the article title.
So here's my proposal. If we are willing to apply the policy above even-handedly to all articles that describe "specific people or specific groups," we could ... 
* Move AoIA to Israeli "apartheid" controversy
* Move Islamofascism to "Islamofascism" controversy
Note that I am proposing, in this case, that we move in tandem on both articles simultaneously. It seems likely that other articles might benefit from such an approach in weeks and months to come. BYT 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a fair proposal.--Urthogie 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think shudder quotes are the answer, nor do I think bringing in other articles people have beefs with is going to resolve this any faster. In fact, it makes this process much more difficult. IronDuke 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The self-identification clause of the naming policy is a red herring here, because this article isn't about Israeli policies.  It's about a prominent and controversial analogy used in discussion of Israeli policies, the common term for which (among both Israelis and non-Israelis) is "(Israeli) apartheid analogy."  I agree with IronDuke that scare quotes and appeals to system-wide consistency (however conceived) are inappropriate, but in different measure.  The latter has caused enormous disruption already.  As for the former, I'm prepared to take an WP:IAR approach if it helps us out of this impasse.--G-Dett 19:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no reason for trading horses in a pissing contest. "Islamofascism" is the word in common use and that's why it deserves an entry into Wikipedia, regardless how bad it sounds. The term "Isareli apartheid" is not in common use, but the word "apartheid" is, and guess what; it doesn't even have an article on it in English Wikipedia, just a redirection to History of South Africa in the Apartheid era. Why not make it simple and create a new article titled the "Apartheid", explain in the introduction what does it mean, and then merge the South African article and the AoIA into it? The word apartheid is in common use in reference to Israel too (i.e. Apartheid wall, Piece not apartheid, etc), so it deserves a section in it, but not the whole separate article. It will take a lot of heat off, if this article would be deleted. And make the section titles simple too: Definition, South Africa, Israel, France, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, etc. Thank God, we are down to only four now. greg park avenue 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: BYT's proposed name looks OK to me, scare quotes notwithstanding.--G-Dett 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I support the essence of this proposal.  --Ideogram 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a very constructive suggestion. One question to ask yourselves, or the actual people: Would the Users who struggled to delete AoIA have their objections met by the title "Israeli "apartheid" controversy". I think not because they don't want the title to already be framed by a point of view or presupposition on the question. In other words, to really come up with something that both sides can live with, you'll need to find a title that satisfies both those willing to ignore the self-determination principle you've boldfaced above, and those who do not want to compromise this principle. However, I do notice this: Some "Keep" votes would accept "Israel and apartheid" and, by separating the two terms, may move closer to a title acceptable to the Delete voters (though not quite there yet). Plus, your idea of resolving multiple epithets together, which arguably violate self-determination for both side, is quite appealling. HG | Talk 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Dear 6SJ7, I'm wondering if you might be able to live with a title that uses apartheid but contextualizes it. For instance, "Similarities and differences between Israeli policies and South African apartheid". While maybe you rather such an article never existed, and this certainly isn't your preferred title, do you think you might be able to live with such a revised Title. Maybe you could accept it as an incremental improvement, from which you might be able to explore agreement on something closer to your ideal? HG | Talk 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Cerejota, it makes Wikipedia look stupid whether I say so or not, so I might as well say so.  I don't need you lecturing me.  I don't care about those other articles, I care about this article.  To HG, I have already compromised enough.  Under current AfD procedures, this article would have been deleted in June of 2006, so as far as I am concerned it is not legitimate, and from now on I am going to treat it that way.  This article is part of a political smear campaign against Israel, and I am finished discussing it as if it were a serious article.  6SJ7 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for compromise on MULTIPLE fronts 

message: Just a quick comment-- shouldn't both words of the phrase be in quotes?  "Israeli apartheid" debate?  Or is there something lost by quoting the entire phrase?--User:Urthogie 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make it look like a fixed phrase, like "war on terror" or "axis of evil," when it fact there are many variations.--G-Dett 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or like "Who is not with us, is against us" greg park avenue 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Who says we're babysitters of Israel? Jimmy Carter didn't bother to protect Israel with parentheses quotation marks while using the word "apartheid". So why should we? And no one cares when the term "Brazilian apartheid" comes along. greg park avenue 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has higher standards than Jimmy Carter. BTW, there is no good title, but I would be ok with "Israeli apartheid" controversy (or "Apartheid Israel" controvery). Israeli apartheid does not work because, unlike Nigger, it is not universally admitted to be an epithet. Nigger (epithet) would be redundant. Israeli apartheid (epithet) is contested. E.g., Carter says apartheid is Israel's policy in the occupied territories -- he may only be pretending not to understand the semantic overload, but he is not admitting to either epithet or analogy. Andyvphil 20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already endorsed the 'controversy' and the 'similarities and differences' version, without restrictions. But inverted commas are not allowed in the titles of the articles. So what you gonna do about it? OK, I go along if these are used in subtitles, but you cannot single out Israel and leave the other countries in the cold. Everyone would laugh at that. greg park avenue 21:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's a software problem... Well, quotes are unusable in web page names too, so do the same kind of workaround: _Apartheid Israel_ controversy. And I have no objection to fixing all instances. Andyvphil 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got my blessing. Just make sure it includes the whole packet. The best deal in town (Wikiville?) I say. BTW, the big question remains - Does have anyone any idea how to get around this ... eh, a little software problem? I must confess, ain't got none at all. greg park avenue 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: To whom it may concern: If we could have it, to whom would "Israeli apartheid" Controversy be unacceptable? Please speak up. Andyvphil 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How's "Dirty Jew" controversy or "Dirty Gypsy" controversy? ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Irrelevant. Dirty Jew, like Nigger is unambiguously an epithet. Many of those who use "Israeli apartheid" or its cognates purport to be fairly describing reality. I already said this. Did you miss it? Andyvphil 09:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better example would be "Allegations of Israeli fascism" or "Nazi Israel" analogy. One could create a rather large article that has all sorts of interesting and notable people comparing Israelis to Nazis, Sharon to Hitler, etc. Now, such an article would most likely a) be a platform for expressing anti-Zionist and antisemtic views b) consist essentially of acres of quote farm and c) violate NOR and the all-important WP:SYNTH. But since the present article does all that in spades, I'm not sure where any objections would come from. IronDuke 21:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title: [["Israeli apartheid" Controversy]]? 

message: Why do anything? "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" isn't a great title, but most of the alternatives are worse.  --John Nagle 21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is not only a bad title. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it invites quotefarm, polemics, original research, POV forking, and all kinds of other bad stuff. Specificity in titles is a good idea, "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is not specific. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Apartheid" is a system imposed by a government that divides communities by IDs etc. That's what happens in Israel, and of course it applies much more in the Occupied Territories. The alternative descriptions fail to deal with the system as commonly described. PalestineRemembered 21:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. Now you will also argue that some immigrants in the US suffer form apartheid as well. Not really. Apartheid in this context is a political term, nothing less nothing more. It has nothing to do with white South Africa's government policies≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a comparison of the present-day practices of Israel to the practices fo apartheid-era South Africa.  How hard is that to understand?  Very hard, given how often this circular argument arrives at this same point every few months or so.  It is a valid article title for a valid and existing criticism of Israel. Tarc 23:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Political" is sometimes use as to mean "partisan" or "polemical", in their epithet form. The debate is political so far as it involves political question, changes, and proposals. Part of it includes evaluating current, in the ground, facts, but part of it is about what to do with facts, and also part of it is about how South Africa went from being a cesspool of racial and ethnic oppression, with levels of civil strife similar to that in Israel and the territories, to a point in which a foreign minister of Apartheid South Africa became a leader in the ANC. As I have said, I take issue with the reductionist viewpoints that seek to limit the debate to two polar opposites, and refuse to let the rainbow of differences shine. Not everyone who uses this analogy is anti-Zionist, not everyone who criticizes the analogy is a Zionist, and even more, not everyone analogizes in the same fashion: some like Desmond Tutu argue from a human rights perspective, others argue from a civil rights perspective, and so on and so forth. I do think that if this becomes a compromise to only allow the extremes - as suggest by the view above - to dominate discourse we will be just engaging in a covert form of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and doing grave harm to our encyclopedic mission. Thanks! --Cerejota 02:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only battling going on really is by those who cannot stand to see the article exist, and failing repeated and repeated and repeated AfDs, seek to neuter the article and/or the title by any means available.  Or create pointy forks like Chinese apartheid as fraudulent counterbalances.  Others recognize that prominent public figures have likened Israeli practices in the OT to those of South Africa, and have created an article about such a notable allegation.  It is really quite a simple matter once we slash through the rhetoric and hyperbole; the allegations have been made, the article covers the allegations and the counter-arguments against them, and the article title reflects that reality. Tarc 13:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about not doing anything? 

message: Note: The subgroup includes two quite different usages: the phrase as an epithet (see above) and as a point-of-view on how to conceptualize Israeli policies.
====== (A1) Retain the phrase Israeli apartheid  ======
* Israeli apartheid                   suggested by Tiamat 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (A) Keep the concept or epithet of 'Israeli apartheid' in the title 

message: * Israeli apartheid                   suggested by Tiamat 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (A1) Retain the phrase Israeli apartheid  

message: ====== (B1) Apartheid may be either 1st or 2nd meaning ======
* Israel and apartheid                suggested by Tiamat 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (B) Shift toward 'apartheid' as the self-described South Africa policy 

message: * Israel and apartheid                suggested by Tiamat 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (B1) Apartheid may be either 1st or 2nd meaning 

message: * Debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa    suggested by Cerejota 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (B2) Apartheid as official S.A. policy, explicit 2nd meaning 

message: * Similarities and differences between South Africa and Israel    option suggested by HG 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (B3) 'South Africa' as metonym for apartheid as its official S.A. policy  

message: * Human rights in Israel -- see  Centralized  discussion
* See also Jossi's merge proposal
Hope people find it useful to look at the range of candidate titles in this manner. Generally, I think that those who voted to Keep in AfDs tend to probably want candidates in subgroup (A), whereas those who voted to Delete probably want candidates in subgroup (C) (or in (A1) purely as an epithet). Where might common ground be found? It's my guess that to gain broad and stable agreement by both sides, we might want to focus on titles drawn from subgroup (B). Such a (B) title might not be anyone's first choice, but something everybody could live with. With agreement on a mutually-affirmed name, even if temporary, people could then work more cooperatively to apply WP policies to the content of the article (e.g., editing, keep, delete, merge, etc.).
You may want to put a concise WP Policy rationale under each title. For instance, the  exploratory grounds (G1-2) of neutrality and notability, and possibly  self-identification (G3), would justify at least the titles in subgroup (B). Some folks have suggested alternative grounds for subgroup (B) names (e.g., Cerejota). So, feel free to edit this list. (Please keep the subgroups intact.)
Overall, perhaps the list is encouraging insofar as people are showing flexibility in acknowledging the need for a name change and their willingness to accept several alternatives, even if it's not their ideal choice. HG | Talk 03:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (C) Omit 'apartheid' from title and use a broader rubric 

message: An Arbitration case has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid.  Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence.  You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop. --John Nagle 19:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid]]

message: Straw polls are non-binding, and only serve to illustrate state of consensus.
Please vote in order of preference:
#Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
#Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
#Keep current or others to be discussed
Please do not propose new one here, this poll is not intended to be final, and there is a thread for discussion. Look at my vote for how I propose to vote (yes, straw polls ARE votes).
* 2, 1, 3 --Cerejota 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strawpoll on title 

message: Please don't run yet another meaningless "straw poll".  This issue is currently in arbitration. --John Nagle 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitration is for behavior, not content. Thanks! --Cerejota 02:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant.  All of these distractions, from straw polls to AfDs to DRVs, should be put on hold as a show of good faith while the ArbCom case runs its course.  I urge to you with draw it, and failing that, for others to decline to participate. Tarc 02:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I do not favor straw polls. But note that having an ArbCom case related to user conduct, does not mean that interested editors should stop collaborating on this or any other related article. We are making good progress, and that is what counts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jossi, even on the straw polling: It just that I am very close on being bold, and wanted to see where consensus is... However, this "lets wait for ArbCom" attitude I think is harmful to making progress on content. I also take issue that continuing to edit is failing to assume good faith, when it is quite the contrary: it assumes that ArbCom will not rule on anything that should be controlled by the community. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll objection

message: By the way, here is the link for the Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. --Steve, Sm8900 19:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbcom matter 

message: We have enough dead bodies already, don't you think?  I do not think another one will make any difference or do any good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love gallows humor... you after my heart you bawstard... ;) but lets keep poll clean, 'aight? Thanks!--Cerejota 05:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the options listed in number 4 should be listed separately. Changing the name of the title to something other than those proposed is very different than wanting to keep the title as is. Tiamat 10:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have followed why this strawpoll exist, it is because HC proposed a model for discussion, and then proposed a strawpoll based on that discussion. "4" is basically a vote against that discussion. As this is a non-binding poll, "4" is intended to allow those who strongly disagree with HC's model to express their dissatisfaction, or those who strongly believe in other title alternatives to say so. It is very important for everyone to participate because it will show more or less where we really are, without rhetoric and clutter. It is also nuanced to show that we are not monochromatic Manichaeist. Yes, it is biased towards HC's proposal, but this what the poll is about. If you feel strongly about it, you can vote "4" as your first choice... Thanks!--Cerejota 12:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think HG's proposal is fully represented here and the options presented are biased towards what those who want to delete the article will accept. Tiamat 12:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  If anyone thinks this thing is representative of more than a handful of editors then they are seriously mistaken.  Again, there is arbitration going on right now concerning all of these types of articles.  Moving an article that has had a seriously bad history of move wars would be a show of bad faith and sense that the movers are more interested in their own POV than in getting anything done. Tarc 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arbitration will not deal with the content dispute. Better lower your expectations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this is far beyond simple content dispute, as you well know. Tarc 15:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion of votes and of poll

message: (with first 17 minds/votes) - don't hesitate to check
* (1) Cerejota's method
:option 1 : 3 + 2 + 6/3 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 4 + 3 = 44
:option 2 : 4 + 3 + 6/3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 3/2 + 3/2 + 3/2 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 42.5
:option 3 : 1 + 4 + 6/3 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 4 + 0* + 3/2 + 3/2 + 3/2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 3/2 + 0 = 42 
:option 4 : 2 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 3/2 + 1 = 34.5
:option 5 : 0 + ... + 4 = 4
:results : 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
* (2) Condorcet's method
:(1) vs (2) : (-5) -> 2 > 1
:(1) vs (3) : (+1) -> 1 > 3
:(1) vs (4) : (+7) -> 1 > 4
:(2) vs (3) : (-3) -> 3 > 2
:(2) vs (4) : (+7) -> 2 > 4
:(3) vs (4) : (+1) -> 3 > 4
:(any) vs (5) : (+16) -> any > 5
:results : circular preferences 2 > 1 > 3 > 2 -> 1 = 2 = 3 > 4 > 5
:nb: there exist methods to solve the circularity but they lead to different results
==== Alithien's mind ====
From my mind, Cerejota or Condorcet methods lead to the same result because 44 ~ 42.4 ~ 42 > 34.
Aware that "only" 17 people give their mind and maybe this sample is not representative of the community, I think the "pooling" confirms this is a very difficult debate and that wikipedia:voting is evil. Alithien 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary results - just for info 

message: From my mind, Cerejota or Condorcet methods lead to the same result because 44 ~ 42.4 ~ 42 > 34.
Aware that "only" 17 people give their mind and maybe this sample is not representative of the community, I think the "pooling" confirms this is a very difficult debate and that wikipedia:voting is evil. Alithien 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alithien's mind 

message: Which contributor will be able to synthetise the different arguments given by all parties concerning our matter in respecting WP:NPOV as if he would edit an article ? :-) Alithien 10:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPoV exercise 

message: I would like to modify this :
* Idi Amin Dada, the racist former dictator of Uganda who killed between 300,000 and 500,000 Ugandans, expelled 80,000 Uganda's Asians and died in forced exile in Saudi Arabia in 2003, compared Israel to South African apartheid in the United Nations General Assembly in 1975.Pollack, Joel. "The trouble with the apartheid analogy." Business Day. 2 March 2007. 10 March 2007.
to this :
* Idi Amin Dada, former dictator of Uganda, compared Israel to South African apartheid in the United Nations General Assembly in 1975.Pollack, Joel. "The trouble with the apartheid analogy." Business Day. 2 March 2007. 10 March 2007.
Indeed, the principle of writing : "Mr X, who is very bad, ugly and and lier, thinks that blablabla" is typically not neutral. The same way as "Mr Y, this wonderful and unique guy in history, thinks that blablabla" will not be.
Such way of introducing information only tends to discredite it. Reader must be considered "clever enough" to understand by himself what credit he could give to Mr X or Mr Y. That is why I would suggest to limit the qualifications of Mr X or Mr Y to their profession.
Alithien 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are. Such well-poisoning is against policy, so I've removed it per your suggestion. It's not as if Idi Amin is someone nobody's heard of. If Stalin is mentioned in passing do we need to mention, each time, that he killed more people than Hitler? Andyvphil 10:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Thank you. Alithien 06:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amin Dada 

message: I use the word 'apartheid' in its literal sense; it means separation, because that is what is going on. -- Jenny Tonge Jerusalem Post
"Mackan -- with respect, was Tonge, above, using an analogy? Or did she go to great pains to stress the literal nature of her use of the word 'apartheid'? " - BYT
:BYT, She says she's being literal, but that's not the truth no matter how baldly she says it. (Same with Carter.) Otherwise, why didn't she use "separation"? Andyvphil 21:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'cause "separaton" word has many meanings. Husband-wife thing, for instance. greg park avenue 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me express my unqualified agreement with Andyvphil, that "the appearance of a definition in the OED does not mean that it is proper to use the word as if it were identical to that definition."  I fear that my insertion of the OED into this has muddied waters I had hoped to clarify.  The dictionary definition is only relevant in the absence of secondary sources; this article is chock-a-block with secondary sources.  Where there are no secondary sources (as is the case, say, with Allegations of apartheid), then it's original research to classify every primary-source instance of the word "apartheid" as an "allegation" that "draws an analogy," an analogy that is somehow intrinsically notable.  Sometimes it's not, it doesn't, and it isn't.  ("Nuclear apartheid" anyone?)  To hammer this home, I pointed out that the dictionary definition of "apartheid" was broad and inclusive.  This broad, inclusive definition is not a guide to proper usage – Andyvphil couldn't be righter about that – but the extent to which the term has become assimilated into our lexicon as a general term is an indication that we can't proceed on the assumption that each and every use of it is perforce notable.  When we have scores of sources referring to it as an "analogy," however, our job as Wikipedians is done, and we don't need to drag the OED into the matter.--G-Dett 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am unwilling to use these pages to discuss the subject, or to engage in debates or polemics about the subject. I am only interested in discussing the article, how to name it, how to make it more compatible with pour core content policies. My understanding is that these pages are to be used for that purpose and that purpose only. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apartheid's "literal sense" (or lack of one)