Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 23

message: quick comment on this guy.  
Azmi Bishara, in JTA’s words, “abruptly ended a parliamentary career built on denouncing the Jewish state from enemy capitals and then dodging charges of sedition at home. ” He quit from outside the country in protest of allegations for spying for Hezbollah during this summer’s Second Lebanon War.
Oh no, an arab mp spy called israel apartheid!  this should be noted, why he resigned, what he stood for, and whatnot.--Urthogie 22:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting allegations. This all has only come out in the last few weeks. -- Kendrick7talk 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why he resigned and what he stood for should be noted in this article?  Let readers follow wikilinks and do their original research.  Now, if an article is published linking Bishara's "allegations" of apartheid to the allegations of spying, then of course we'd cite that, but let's not get into WP:SYN or well-poisoning.  --G-Dett 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not considered OR to specify who an individual is.  We don't assume the reader knows the person, and say "click the link" if they don't.  Giving background is indeed a must for any good article.--Urthogie 14:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a source making the connection between allegations of apartheid and allegations of treason, fine.  If not, not.  We don't say "Ariel Sharon, who was tried in absentia in an international war crimes court for his role in the Sabra-Shatila massacres," unless the Belgian case is relevant to what we're talking about, and a reliable source says so.  Otherwise, we say, "Ariel Sharon."  Don't we, Urthogie.--G-Dett 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, we can quote farm from a guy who supports Hezbollah :)  It only makes the POV look as ridiculous as including dictators and the like.--Urthogie 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  amiri bishara 

message: Is anything going on here?  I'm inclined to go with 6SJ7's suggested compromise, though I haven't been following closely. I think a section on the history would probably be more appropriate, at least as a starting point.  Mackan79 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not interested in trading the deletion of the timeline for deletion of the template. I couldn't care less about the template, whereas the timeline is exactly the tool needed to bring history front-and-center in this article. Andyvphil 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are legitimate concerns with the timeline, though, which need to be resolved, and for which past edit warring doesn't seem to show much promise.  We could put the timeline here on the talk page for further work, or could try writing a history section as a starting point to clarify what should go on it.  I don't know; I admit I don't want to get deeply involved, but thought I'd throw out a suggestion.Mackan79 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored the timeline; there was no consensus for its removal.  It needs some cleanup, though.  Work on the "citation needed" sections, please.  Most of the events tagged "citation needed" are major historical events, so that shouldn't be hard.  The only controversial one is probably "Ehud Barak's offer to the PLO to establish a Palestinian state are rejected without a counterproposal, and further negotiations break down.", which represents an unsupported opinion on why negotiations broke down.  See George Tenet's new book for his take on the subject; he was one of the US people trying to get the parties to agree.  --John Nagle 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a somewhat relevant note, I've suggested that Zionology be merged into Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those two articles cover mostly the same material.  If those articles were combined and better cited, we could refer to the Soviet Union/Israel issues in the timeline with a "See main article Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict".  The timeline has an uncited reference to Israeli apartheid from a Soviet ambassador, and that ought to go into the Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict with a proper citation.  --John Nagle 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yakov Malik quote appears both in the timeline and in the main text. It is reffed at the latter location. I don't understand the desire to consolodate Zionology. It has as its subject a particular, notable but not terribly important, Soviet pseudo-academic "discipline" which can be pointed to, "for further information", by multiple articles, e.g. Anti-Zionism#Soviet anti-Zionism as well as Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict. In that it is similar to this article. This mesh is the natural structure of Wikipedia, and the "encyclopedia" is not improved by fighting its natural tendency to look at the same facts from multiple viewpoints. Andyvphil 07:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The "timeline" makes this article even more ridiculous than it was already, which is a difficult feat.  It should be eliminated.  6SJ7 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This "timeline" is one of the most jaw-droppingly OR, POV, pieces of nonsense I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I have seen much that is horrible here. I literally cannot fathom why people think this meets Wikipedia policies in any way. The nearest I can come up with is, "Well, yes, the timeline is a jumble of whatever random "facts" individual editors feel are important in the Wikipedia fight against Israel, but so is the article, so what's the big deal?" I guess a positive benefit is it unmasks people who pretend that this article was ever designed to be anything but a magnet for POV-pushing. IronDuke 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have substantive objections to specific items in the timeline, please make them. Thanks. --John Nagle 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The timeline puts events mentioned in the main text of the article in a historical framework. It is not pro-Israel or anti-Israel, and the the most "random" entries (e.g., "... Repeated incursions by Palestinians into ...") are the product of editors who see the existance of this article as anti-Israeli. Andyvphil 07:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeline selectively chooses specific items from real history, and then pretends they are items in the alternate history world of "Israeli apartheid". It is the very epitome of original research and 6SJ7 and IronDuke understate its flaws. Jayjg (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status

message: I am not entirely happy with my effort, might need some stylistic rework. However, it goes hand-in-hand with the practice of summarizing quotes in encyclopedic language, specially in intros.
I also shows that the criticism of the allegations, as the allegations themselves, are not unidimensional, which helps the case of a better article.--Cerejota 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LEAD|Intro]] rewording 

message: I am no expert on this topic, however it jumped to me the following incongruity:
"Allegations of apartheid policies inside Israel" section note (with sources):
"The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law,[78] passed by the Knesset on 31 July 2003, forbids married couples comprising an Israeli citizen and a Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza Strip from living together in Israel.[9] The law does allow children from such marriages to live in Israel until age 12, at which age the law requires them to emigrate.[79] The law was originally enacted for one year, extended for a six month period on 21 July 2004, and for an additional four month period on 31 January 2005. "On 27 July 2005, the Knesset voted to extend the law until 31 March 2006, with minor amendments."[80] The law was narrowly upheld in May 2006, by the Supreme Court of Israel on a six to five vote. Israel's Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, sided with the minority on the bench, declaring: "This violation of rights is directed against Arab citizens of Israel."
And then followed by a "Critcism" section, the first line is an un-sourced assertion:
"Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity.[citation needed] Israeli Arabs have the same rights as all other Israelis, whether they are Jews, Christians, Druze, etc."
Which of the two is true? Both cannot be true.
Avoid wikilawyering and weasel wording: Yes, the law doesn't explicitly restrict rights of Israeli citizens based on their ethnicity. However, it implicitly restricts their marriage choice, which a sizable simple minority of the Israeli Sumpreme Court agreed was ethnic discrimination.
Being that Wikipedia generally accepts the rule of law, it appears to me the un-sourced assertion that "Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity.[citation needed] Israeli Arabs have the same rights as all other Israelis, whether they are Jews, Christians, Druze, etc." is wrong according to law. If we can find a reliable source that asserts the quote, in can go in as a matter of opinion. However it breaks NPOV to have it.
Comments?--Cerejota 01:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that the assertion "is wrong according to law". It seems that neither Israeli Arabs, Jews, Christians or Druze can give residency rights to a Palestinian by marrying one. A majority of the Supreme Court of Israel apparently rejected the idea that disparate impact amounted to impermissable ethnic discrimination, and even if they hadn't it would still be true that "Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity." Andyvphil 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what is the law then if not discrimination according to ethnicity?--Cerejota 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The law restricts the ability of certain foreign nationals (who could not unreasonably be referred to as "enemy aliens") to gain residency by marriage. On its face, then, it is discrimination on the basis of nationality, not ethnicity, and it certainly does not discriminate on the basis of the ethnicity of the Israeli spouse, and thefor does not make false the claim that "Israeli law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity". I'm not saying the latter is true (the Teudat Zehut, the Law of Return, indeed the basic purpose of Israel, all point to looking at that assertion with skepticism) but merely pointing out that your proposed disproof doesn't work. Andyvphil 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't stop Israelis from marrying Palestinians from Israel itself, or from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc. Are you claiming that Palestinians in different countries are different ethnic groups? Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the law for the Teudat Zehut does "differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity" though since 2002 2005 only between Jews and non-Jews. -- Kendrick7talk 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was removed in 2005. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, you are correct. -- Kendrick7talk 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, the birthdate for Jews is now listed in both the Western calendar and Jewish calendar dates which allows the authorities to determine who is a Jew and who is not. This practice has not been cancelled. Tiamut 08:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incongruity? 

message: User:Andyvphil reverted changes I made intended to increase article quality and focus. While of course this is subject to debate, in the interest of our common golas I suggest we discuss things befor doing blanket reverts. 
I belive a timeline should be of relevant items to the subject matter of the article, not a general overview of the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor of opinions regarding the Allegations. Any other use will lead to a humougous timeline in which we have to include everything that gives context to this or the other overview. 
It creates a vicious circle of response-counter-response:
For example, the obvious thread on the Soviet Union's opportunism omits the fact that the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel. I think all would agree that that is irrelevant to the subject matter. However, it might be peripherially important to mention to use of the Apartheid analogy by the SU, however, putting this on the timeline led to other editors to include completely irrelevant facts about the Soviet Union's treatment of jews. 
In order to avoid such vicious circles, I think we must limit the timeline to facts that affect the development of the allegations. Quote of figures do not allow that. The publishing of books, or events in the ground, or laws that are used in the debate are.
Lastly, as part of the same revert user Andyvphil comments on my rewording of an extensive quote on the WP:LEAD. Since I explicitly raised this in talk, and Andyvphildidn't comment, I ask he first share with us his rationale, particulary if he is going to use language such as "mis-guided".--Cerejota 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your substitution of unspecified "others" for "Baruma" was indeed misguided and I am glad to see that I'm not the only one to think so, hence the reappearance of the specific in the current version (due to...Kendrick?; not me, anyway). The fact that you mentioned objecting to the number of quotes in the article and I did not respond should not be interpreted as giving you leave to delete notable cited examples of actual allegations of apartheid from the timeline or to engage in any specific undiscussed (you will find that this entry is the first appearance of "Buruma" on this page) bad editorship. Still less to complain about reverts of your undiscussed reverts. Andyvphil 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There are no "facts" about Israeli apartheid in the timeline, since the entire thing is original research. According to whom are these specific "facts" relevant? And why would you selectively remove some quotes but not others? Don't bother to answer, based on which ones you removed and which ones you left, the reasons are clear. Finally, your inclusion of the fake Mandela letter is telling. Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that was Andyvphil  a while ago; Cerejota just labeled the ref. I'm tempted to footnote somewhere as that bad ref does keep coming back. -- Kendrick7talk 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first I've heard that the Mandela quote is a fake. When I ran across it I first offered it to G-Dett, since I thought she would put it to better use than someone as unsympathetic to the analogy as I am, then stuck it in myself when she didn't respond after another prompt and a week or so. But no one said they knew it to be fake. Can you provide cites on this episode? If it's a fake I think it should be mentioned as such in maintext... Andyvphil 23:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Andyvphil, I should have mentioned I knew it was a spoof.  I thought I knew you knew I knew and were playing with me.  You're no dim bulb, after all, and the whole Tom-Friedman-impersonating-a-world-leader-speaking-in-aw-shucks- Tom-Friedmanisms parody was pretty obvious.  Then again sometimes the world leader Tom imitates then imitates Tom imitating him, and the whole thing becomes a house of mirrors.  It must have seemed like I rather rudely ignored your gift.  Please know that secretly I loved it, and was honored that you thought of me.--G-Dett 00:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't recognize that Arjan El Fassed was having his "Mandela" imitate Friedman. My eyes were glazing over, but I expect that reading any politician, so I merely checked that the allegation was made and tried to pass it off on you. Anyway, I've yanked Mandela from the "Overview". My bad. Andyvphil 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I go further: I re-included the ref, originaly made by User:Liftarn so that I wouldn't go under WP:3RR when I reverted 6SJ7. Please Jayjg , be more careful with your assumptions, and read the history before lashing out. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the author's blog. But, even the link you had clearly lists the real author of the piece. -- Kendrick7talk 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agreed with the removal of the timeline, see above.--Cerejota 22:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed "citation needed" from timeline header.  It's appropriate to put that on an item if needed, but not on a heading. Which specific items is  unhappy about this time?  --John Nagle 05:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg isn't complaining about specific items. He's objecting to the word "Relevant". Who are you, he sez, to say one thing is relevant and something else is not? ~"J'Accuse! Synthesis! Original Research!"~ Of course, deciding what's relevant or not is a basic editorial function without which one cannot write Wikiarticles. This has been pointed out to him before, but since he is a troll he will not take that in. Andyvphil 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review WP:NPA. Jayjg is not a troll, he is a long-standing respectable and knowledgeable editor. Indeed, this "article" is an embarrassment to WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually agree that Jayjg is knowledgeable, probably more so than I on this tiny subject (see the "Mandela" quote). He's an admin. And a former arb, for crying out loud! But in the war over this article he's been a troll, impervious to any presentation of evidence or request for reasoned argument. The timeline, he says, was started as OR in support of a proposition. But I started the timetime and I have repeatedly denied the proposition. This is pointed out to him... and he repeats his talking point like an automaton! If you can't have an interactive discussion with someone then he's a troll, no matter what his credentials. Don't feed the troll. Andyvphil 07:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The only embarrassment is the never-ending attempts by those with an agenda to see this article deleted, by hook or by crook.  If there's a problem in the article, contribute and fix it.  Endless bellyaching over the existence itself is counter-productive. Tarc 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When we try to "fix" it, the article only gets worse, like with this absurd "timeline".   6SJ7 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the objection to the timeline?  People have mentioned original research; why not just remove original research?--G-Dett 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the last unindented comment above (mine.)  There would be about three items left and they would be completely disjointed.  There is no basis for a "timeline" here.  There are also about four other sections on the timeline on this page, and the reasons for deleting it are spelled out there as well.  6SJ7 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying that each item on the timeline has to be a sentence with "apartheid" in it?  The point, as I understand it, is to arrange chronologically various events that figure centrally in the history of "Israeli apartheid" according to those RS's who make the allegation, and upon whom we've depended for the substance of this article.  How is this OR?--G-Dett 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been all through this.  6SJ7 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I think there is a problem here with POV-pushing that affects this very necessary article and lead to unnecessary edit warring.
The fundamental issue is that a set of editors firmly believes, in one way or the other, that these allegations are true, and the other set, in one way or the other, believes the allegations are false.
However, all of you need to be reminded about a cardinal rule of wikipedia: verifiability, not truth. We are not seeking truth. We are seeking verifiable sources of information.
This POV-war creates two distinct issues:
#Mis-grouping of allegations and counter-allegations - Norman Finkelstein's as similar to Jimmy Carter's as similar to David Duke's, etc. We do a better job with sources like Adam and Moodley or Ian Buruma, but still there is a lot of confusion: Juan Cole and Benny Morris agree on not calling Israel an apartheid state, but on very different grounds, and with differing positions on Zionism and the Palestinian conflict. Yet we lump them together.
#Over reliance on direct quotes - Since POV must be supported, what better way than to quote ad nauseaum. This is probably the most egregious violation here. There is no need to quote Benny Morris or Jimmy Carter so extensively. There is no need to have so many quote boxes. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotations. While some might allege WP:OR because we choose to include and not include x or y quote, those argumments are fallacious. Everybody can agree that a Desmon Tutu's quote is relevant, and so is a Benny Morris quote. I am not sure that the same goes to Juan Cole and the Canadian delegation to some UN conference, althought sourcing to them can be good.
Those are my two major gripes. I of course have opinions on the subject, but this is not where I will give them. I do however think we owe to our readers and to our fellow editors a quality article.
--Cerejota 02:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grouping allegations and quotefarm 

message: The inclusion as a source for "Jew Watch"'s echoing the allegations, of excerpts of an article by Uzi Ornan, published by Ha'aretz May 17, 1991 as republished by "Jew Watch" are a violation of WP:RS, WP:SOURCE/WP:V, WP:QUOTE and WP:CITE: we should source the original article as the position and comments of Uzi Ornan, not of "Jew Watch". If a WP:RS inform us of "Jew Watch"'s position on this, then we can source that. No primary sources means no primary sources. The other two sources are OK, IMHO, one is an interview, the other is published in a secondary source that is generally viewed as partisan but WP:RS.--Cerejota 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed Jew Watch twice on these grounds, but someone continues to restore it.--G-Dett 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jew Watch 

message: I won't reply under the above header, although I appreciate that someone else has weighed in on this. In terms of this article, David Duke et. al. are notable primarily as anti-Semites. In terms of their notability here, it is exclusively in terms of how they are used by critics, and the text should be labeled as such, and the prominence of Duke/Jew Watch/et.al. in the article should reflect that. I do not think that Duke has otherwise played a notable role in the allegations of Israeli apartheid, and I have not seen any convincing arguments or references showing his notability in this context. This puts him only slightly above Michael Jordan. The notability discussion here should be taken in the context of this article, as Cerejota alludes to in item 2). Organ123 05:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Much ado about something

message: Does anyone know what happened to the table of contents for this page?  I looked at the coding on top and I do not see anything obvious that would suppress the TOC.  And I am not the person to go messing with the coding anyway, since I'd probably make the talk page appear in a different language or something, and communication on this subject is difficult enough as it is.  :)  6SJ7 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical question 

message: Based on the comments to my raising several things, I think that maybe a lot of the issues might be resolved by refactoring. I suggest we use the Adam and Moodley model, it is both sourced, and while providing some arguments that are POV, I think they construct the best framework from which to view the allegations. 
I propose, each with its own "criticism" and "other views" section:
#The propagandist/polemical views.
#The absolutist anti-zionist views.
#The "seeking-a-south-african" solution views.
Adam and Moodley are a reliable and verifiable source, so I think using their model is better than the currently rather haphazard way it is organized.
Furthermore, sources indicates that there is a difference made between the situation in the pre-1967 borders and in the Occupied Territories, yet the bulk of literature either talks of Israel as including de facto the Occupied Territories or make no explicit difference between the two, in particular when referring to Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Hence a further section on "Apartheid in West Bank and Gaza" might also work.
Thoughts?
--Cerejota 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on re-factoring the article body... 

message: :We should look at all slurs the same way. The only difference is a different slur used at different audiance:  
:I agree that creating two seprate articles: Human Rights in Israel and Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territories is the best way to proceed. THe title of this article (allgations off...) is ridiculus. Zeq 10:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, I generally refrain from commenting on other editors, but you are particularly notorious for getting banned from editing articles for being disruptive, uncivil, and unhelpful. I suggest you avoid bringing yet another ban to yourself, and behave.--Cerejota 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clear example of the fact that you comment on the editor for no good reason instead of looking at the edit conntent. Don't make threats. Zeq 12:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not making a threat, I am alerting my fellow editors that they cannot expect any good faith from you. WP:AGF specifically states: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." You have provided ample eveidence to the contrary in multiple occasions. --Cerejota 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: - translated in: 
other articles in the series:
all are WP:RS to ma'ariv, Israel 2nd largest news paper.
Zeq 09:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  source 

message: After all the contentious editing, we have a few minor stylistic problems to deal with.
* "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw an analogy from" isn't correct English; the subject and verb are inconsistent.  "Are an analogy" or "represent an analogy" might be better.
* Capitalization in the third paragraph ("Right to vote, Freedom of Speech") is inconsistent.
* The link  really ought to be a full reference, especially since the link target is in Hebrew. 
* "... that Arab parties have won overturned disqualifications." is confusing and should be rephrased.
* There's a mention of the "separation plan", but no links or context.  
* The references with anonymous links (#19, #74, #75) should be cleaned up.
* The link to Timeline of Israeli Apartheid can now be deleted, per AfD. --John Nagle 05:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold!, just don't try to pull another POV fork under our noses... :D--Cerejota 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style problems 

message: why this:  ? Zeq 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No explanation is needed.  A one-off IP user made the intro worse, and Gatoclass restored a better one. Tarc 14:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An un explained revert 

message: * What is the difference of point of view between people who think Israel is a state that practice apartheid and people who think Israel does'nt respect civil and human rights ? Are there 2 distinguished groups ?
* If you would write an article about Palestinian political violence, would you title it : Allegations of Palestinian terrorisms or Allegations of Palestinian resistance ?
* Do you see, as I do, a title that could be summarised by these symbols :
: ? ( - ) (a question about a "bad" thing).
: Is this neutral ? I think not.
: why not this : ? ( + )
: or even better ( + ) or ( - )
: or if possible ( O )
* how could we caracterise a neutral way, in English, the situation in between "Israeli apartheid" (terrorism) and "Israel right of auto-defense" (resistance) ?
: Palestinian civil population under Israeli rule
: ...
Alithien 14:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: The template suggests that extensive quotes be moved to a page with the same name over at wikiquote. I think that is a great idea! So I have started q:Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and put the first quotes in each of the POVs as a start. Please go there, and add quotes, and don't forget to share the sources with this article. I think we can move things forward. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fully agree. Alithien 09:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|quotefarm}}'s suggestion 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Allegations of apartheid}}]]

message: I read this quote from carter:
"It's not Israel. The book has nothing to do with what's going on inside Israel which is a wonderful democracy, you know, where everyone has guaranteed equal rights and where, under the law, Arabs and Jews who are Israelis have the same privileges about Israel. That's been most of the controversy because people assume it's about Israel. It's not."
And yet this man is being included in an article on allegations of israeli apartheid.
Perhaps we should split parts of this article to allegations of apartheid in the west bank, since its clearly mislabeling carters quotes to include him here.  "It's not Israel."  That says it pretty concisely.--Urthogie 15:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree: the allegations are about Israeli apartheid (ie promoted by the state of Israel), not about the de jure territory of Israel. Besides, other sources do speak of it being inside de jure Israel and outside of de jure Israel. I do agree Carter should be used only when talking about the Palestinian territories as a supproter of the allegations, and that he can be used as a criticism voice when refering to Israel proper, but he is by far not the only source. I think the article has much more glaring issues (such as quote farm) than this issue of territoriality, which is resolved by providing sections as it is done now.--Cerejota 16:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the name change as it is a far more neutral title.--SefringleTalk 03:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an issue of neutrality, this is an issue of promoting a POV split.--Cerejota 04:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: First off, I suggest you cease labeling people who may oppose this as "anti-Israeli".  Second, it isn't so much the location of the alleged act that is the critical here, but rather it is who is perpetrating the act.  Anyone with a shred of common sense will interpret "Israeli apartheid" as "apartheid instituted by the state of Israel", not "apartheid within the state of Israel." Tarc 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article includes both, so no, it would actually increase confusion, melding together two seperate subjects.--Urthogie 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested article split 

message: The "quote farm" problem is still outstanding.  I'd suggest, first, that the date of the quote be added to each quote.  It matters whether someone said something on this subject in 1973 or 2003. 
I'm inclined to get rid of the quote from StandWithUs unless the name of an individual can be associated with the quote.  There are questions about who's behind that organization, and the organization doesn't disclose much information about itself, so it lacks something as a reliable source. 
What's the source for the first Benny Morris quote?  Is it from the same source as the second one?  They read as if written far apart in time.  The first one sounds pre-intifada; the second one is clearly post-intifada.  Dates would help here. --John Nagle 20:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I disagree with this approach. Quotefarm is not about sourcing, but about directly quoting souces. I think the article as it stands right now, with may be a thinng here and there, by and large is notably sourced and has a basically good narrative structure (please read above for some caveats). However, I don't think we can even begin to address any of these things until we resolve quotefarm: we must allow the Encyclopedic Voice to speak, to present information, and to inform our readers. Quoting directly and extensively is not only unnecessary, but ugly and confusing: the changes in tone from writer to writer do not make good content. Furthermore it reduces the size of the article without dtracting form its informational value: this is not rated importance "high" by any project and hence shouldn't be given more than its due.--Cerejota 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote farm issues 

message: I have added this article to the "Types of segregation" navbox, to provide further context.--Victor falk 18:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop removing the template and making decisions like this without consensus.  You know you are walking into a difficult area and you're being reckless.--Urthogie 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Navbox

message: The bias is in the title. The title puts one side in a debate on the real topic (the amount and nature of racism in the country in question) on the back foot before the first word of text, and the neutrality of the article cannot be recovered after that catastrophic start. This article sets out to group together a group of slurs under the pretence that together they make an encyclopedic topic. This is no more the case than for "Allegations that French people smell". Or imagine other series of article built around usage of slurs in the media: Allegations that Tony Blair is a liar, Allegations that Angela Merkel is a liar, Allegations that Bill Clinton is a liar, or Allegations that Paris Hilton is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that Lindsay Lohan is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that .... is a talentless bimbo. All of those could be sourced, and the fact that something is sourced does not necessarily make it neutral or a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia. The quoting of sources on any article does not confirm that it complies with :Wikipedia:Neutrality to the slightest degree; any biased essay can be fully sourced. No rephrasing or sourcing can make this article anything more than a politically motivated attack page. Wikipedia is not a place for debate or for arguing the toss. The presence of these articles disgraces Wikipedia. Dominictimms 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I am no friend of Israel. My own biases have nothing to do with my feelings about this type of article. Dominictimms 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is unfit to appear in an encyclopedia

message: It seems that the term "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" equals X, whatever X my be, therfore I changed the lead from "draw" to "is". --Tom 23:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I changed it to "are". Any English majors out there that can help explain/correct this :) Thanks, --Tom 23:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed the lead sentence

message: We should rename the article to "Israeli apartheid analogy".
* The entire lead discusses "the analogy" rather than allegations per se.
* Many of the "proponent" sources "make comparisons", "draw an analogy", say it "is reminiscent of" or "resembles" rather than outright alleging apartheid
* An analogy includes allegations of identity, so it covers those who actually do make allegations.
* Adam and Moodley discuss three groups, and "allegations" refers only to the second. The first "is incensed by the very analogy". The third group "sees both similarities and differences".
* The word "apartheid" would refer to, neutrally, apartheid in South Africa, to which the analogy is drawn. By contrast, "apartheid" in "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is used as an epithet.
Thus "Israeli apartheid analogy" is more neutral, better reflects the article is it currently is, and most importantly better reflects the sources. —Ashley Y 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people use it as an analogy. Others use it as an epithet. Others insist it is a factual description. Your suggestion doesn't really cover all of that. Also, why are you suggesting the change here, rather than at the central discussion? Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insisting that it is a factual description or using it as an epithet is implicitly making an analogy. "Analogy" is the broadest term that best reflects the variety of approaches made in the sources, and is indeed already widely used in the article (and pretty much exclusively in the lead). —Ashley Y 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your view is interesting but, as you know, the naming of this article has been an extremely contentious issue. If you want the word "analogy" in the title, Apartheid analogy (Israel) would make more sense. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be willing to accept that as the article title, Jay?  CJCurrie 04:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally would support it if it means an end to the madness. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with that either. Also, can anybody address what I wrote above that the first sentence should be along the lines "Allegations of Israeli apartheid IS an analogy" rather than "draw"??Thanks --Tom 14:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a parallel discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid page. Per my comments there, I think Israeli apartheid analogy is more appropriate. Tiamat 18:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Renaming the article may establish its purpose a bit better. "Israeli apartheid analogy" seems fine, but "Comparisons between apartheid and practices in Israel" is a bit more specific, if not less pithy. "Apartheid analogy (Israel)" is not bad either, although it makes the article less able to stand on its own. GracenotesT § 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to stand on it's own. There's a whole slew of Apartheid analogies that are considered "encyclopedic". <<-armon->> 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it's necessary to refer to them primarily as "Apartheid analogy (type)," that wouldn't seem beneficial though.  Of course either version allows for other articles; the problem with the parentheses is suggesting that an apartheid analogy is generally a discrete and notable topic simply for having been made.  I think this would strike many readers as strange: "Wikipedia covers any analogy to apartheid as its own subject?"  Then other problems also seem to stem from this. Mackan79 05:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we can use quotes in names? It would be unusual anyway. —Ashley Y 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I don't know of any rule, but maybe there is one.  You're right, it would be highly unusual.  It seems that a group of editors wants some sort of disclaimer in the title, and I'd prefer scare quotes to solecisms.  Also, I'm concerned that so many of the titles that have been in play here have emphasized the verbal act – Allegations of Israeli apartheid; Israeli apartheid (political epithet); Israeli apartheid analogy – as opposed to the furore that surrounds it.  The latter, not the former, is the locus of notability.  (We have Lewinsky scandal, not Allegations of fellatio in the White House.)   Our emphasis on verbal act over notable and prominent discussion in the present case may be inadvertent or by design, but it has led to the truly extraordinary assumption that any use of the word "apartheid" in its non-South-Africa-specific sense – a sense given by every major dictionary of the English language – is intrinsically notable, and should have an article built around it.--G-Dett 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to "Israeli apartheid analogy"