Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 21

message: Thanks for your point-by-point reply above, Urthogie.  May I ask however that in the future you provide a single rebuttal to my posts rather than breaking them up into little pieces?  My post was intended to present an integrated set of points, rather than a grab-bag.  I also think that interjecting point-by-point rebuttals leads quickly to impasse, in the form of thick, gnarled, weed-like arguments between two people, instead of a vigorous but open debate that anyone can join.
With respect, I think you haven't quite answered the objections raised about the value of this infobox and the NPOV issues it raises.  There are, as I said, many ways of "categorically grouping concepts," and some are indeed POV-pushing.  Frontloading a "handy" list of all the other countries in which apartheid has been "alleged" is as POV-pushing as frontloading a handy list of all the other crimes Israel has been accused of.  Now, you keep saying that infoboxes don't need reliable sources.  This is true but only in the trivial sense; we don't, that is, include footnotes for infoboxes.  The conceptual groupings they endorse, however, should be ones that are important to – or at the very least ones that have occurred to  – the reliable sources that provide us with our understanding of the topic in the first place.  Infoboxes are not little free zones where WP:NOR doesn't apply, where Wikipedians get to present their own idiosyncratic conceptual frameworks for the material at hand.
You rather breezily waved aside my point about the parallel case of "ethnic cleansing, saying that it's "not comparible to apartheid, because apartheid is named after a specific racist south african policy, while ethnic cleansing is concretely recognizable in some circumstances. 'apartheid', in short, is subjective outside of its original home (south africa)." I think this won't do, and if you don't mind I'm going to return to it and press you a little.  Ethnic "cleansing" is a loanword from Serbo-Croatian named after specific policies in the former Yugoslavia, just like apartheid is a loanword from Afrikaans, named after specific policies in pre-1994 South Africa. The fact that you find the application of the term "ethnic cleansing" outside of its "original home" to be self-evidently justified in certain contexts ("concretely recognizable in some circumstances") is – with respect – beside the point.  Many prominent persons with no particular axe to grind find apartheid conditions to be "concretely recognizable" in Israel-Palestine.  That's also beside the point.  What is not beside the point is that in both cases a morally charged historical analogy (apartheid, ethnic cleansing) is invoked in a huge variety of contexts.  Sometimes the analogy is meant rhetorically and used merely for moral emphasis (describing the aftermath of Katrina as "ethnic cleansing" underscores the racial and socioeconomic fault-lines the disaster made visible, for example; referring to Cuban tourism as a form of apartheid, similarly, underscores the hypocrisy and unseemliness of a socialist pseudo-utopia kept afloat by a nakedly capitalist tourist economy).  At other times the analogy is meant with much greater literalness, and becomes the subject of sustained historical comparisons by scholars, writers, journalists, activists and politicians (this is the case with ethnic cleansing in the Sudan, or apartheid in the occupied territories).  An infobox that flattens these distinctions, and creates a single category for them, a category that is "so damn obvious" to Wikipedians with a given POV (but not obvious enough to have penetrated the thick skulls of our reliable sources), is POV-pushing original research.  If apologists for the Janjaweed were well-represented on Wikipedia, they'd have a field day making little infoboxes about "allegations of ethnic cleansing," and neatly arraying within them whatever scraps of heated rhetoric they managed to comb together from their internet researches.  I'd be opposing them as doggedly as I'm opposing you, so don't take it personally.--G-Dett 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: I wrote above that "ethnic cleansing" is a loanword from Serbo-Croatian.  In fact it's something called a calque.  Sorry, I learned the word five minutes ago.--G-Dett 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break in infobox/banner debate

message: The lead includes the following statement that is not backed up by anything in the rest of the article, and the footnote itself doesn't mention a country "that more closely resembles" Apartheid either.  The lead should not included weak and perhaps non-existent claims.
"and that the practices of other countries, to which the term is not applied, more closely resemble South African apartheid. [3]" Kritt 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually seen this argument made before.  That the real apartheid is Islamic apartheid.  Just add a citation needed template for now and we'll work on getting a source.--Urthogie 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get a source, that seems like a good solution.--G-Dett 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other countries (other than Israel) that more closely resemble SA Apartheid?  Which are they?

message: 6SJ7, I don't believe you've explained why you think the lead needs to characterize the analogy as coming from "some critics of Israel."  Being gramatically unnecessary, it seems to basically be your OR.  If you think it's necessary, feel free to explain why. Mackan79 05:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Critics

message: Israel unilaterally disengaged.  Unless the criticism was written after the unilateral disengagement, I'm suggesting we remove it, as it makes a joke out of the arguments for the analogy, and for those who are ver ignorant on this subject it actually makes them think that Israel has done nothing to leave Gaza.--Urthogie 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that as long as Israel continues to control all land, air, and sea access routes into Gaza, then the territory is still under de facto control.  Removing a ground presence was only a small part of the equation. Tarc 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the mentions of Gaza in the article relate to ongoing cantonization and border control issues that are still very much current. Don't see how removing these allegations makes sense solely because Israel has no feet on the ground there. -- Kendrick7talk 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tarq.Kritt 20:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not seeing what you are seeing. There may be a need for a historical section of allegations that are no longer current. -- Kendrick7talk 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, to be more specific, "Historical uses of the allegation"?--Urthogie 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Historical allegations or something, sure. -- Kendrick7talk 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I really lean against any wholesale removals of any material. So let's keep it in, for reasons stated above. thanks. --Sm8900 19:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I d'know how moving it to a new section is "removal"--Urthogie 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we remove mentions of Gaza? 

message: Can you guys check to make sure that everything listed under "Israel alleged apartheid state" doesn't more accurately fit under "Israel alleged apartheid in territories."  We don't want to libel anybody, so check the sources :)--Urthogie 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another request for editors of this page 

message: Can I suggest use of :Template:Noncompliant. Problems with this article appear to be not just WP:NPOV, but that this article reads in parts like an essay and contains non-encyclopedic content. Some people may feel WP:NOR applies to, but this seems to have plenty of references.--ZayZayEM 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag replacement 

message: This article has been tagged as POV for a year.
NPOV is the most basic of wikipedia policies.
I think we should set a date until which this article would become NPOV. If we fail by that date we should remove the article. Zeq 07:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, the reason people are removing the statements you're putting into the proponents sentence is that those are not what proponents say.  It's not up to Wikipedia to try to rebut what the proponents say in the middle of the sentence where it's being put forward.  What you're adding is right there in the next sentence, under what those who reject the analogy say. Mackan79 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I reverted back to a somewhat earlier version (not the version I wrote, but only with a small modification by me).  It is a violation of WP:NPOV to give undue weight in the lead to those positions which accept the allegations.  In fact, only in the final paragraph do we actually figure out what most commentators think about the allegation.  Please don't remove this important fact, as we are otherwise giving undue weight to supporters (who are a minority in the press), and taking away the deserved weight of detractors (a majority in the press).  If I were really being stubborn I'd insist we give more weight to the majority view on whether these allegations are valid, because the majority view is by definition deserving of more weight.  However, I have been willing to compromise and give slightly less weight to the mainstream opinion which deserves immensely more.  I've also compromised by not restoring my own lead, because I listened to consensus, despite the fact that I think it's immensely better than this lead.--Urthogie 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urthogie, you're the one who keeps saying we should acknowldge that some allegations pertain only to the West Bank, not to Israel itself or even the Gaza Strip. I am simply trying to reflect that difference.  As for the restrictions, almost all commentators do accept that there are restrictions. They only differ on the cause. --Sm8900 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead shouldn't give undue weight 

message: Can we slow down a little with these incessant modifications of the lead?  The usual protocol is to copy whatever version of the lead has enjoyed some stability (meaning weeks, usually) and paste it in on the talk page, list your objections to it and propose a substitute in draft form.  Then others either echo your objections or dismiss them.  If the latter, you're out of luck.  If the former, then they make suggestions and modifications to your draft rewrite.  By and by the draft rewrite tightens and refines and gets backing; and when it reaches some critical mass of consensus and stability it's moved, with a certain amount of fanfare, into the article itself.
The lead isn't the place to build sandcastles to be knocked down by the next caprice of the tides. 
I'm not going to edit-war with you, Urthogie, but it may interest you to know that the last paragraph of the lead as you've got it now is virtually a word-for-word repetition of the second-to-last.  Then again, that's probably all changed in the three minutes I've taken to write this.--G-Dett 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: G-Dett, I hate that last paragraph too.  I just kept it because I saw there was a seperate edit war going on over it.  Feel free to remove it and edit war on it as I don't like it either. Sm8900 might get in your way though.--Urthogie 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask what problem you have with that paragraph? i thought it was constructive, as being fairer to Israel. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well like other users said, it's redundant.--Urthogie 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it redundant? it refers directly to the West bank, unlike the third para, which focuses mainly on Israeli Arabs. --Sm8900 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chill out on the lead for G-d's sake 

message: Every single accusation of apartheid in Gaza before unilateral disengagement should be placed in a seperate section.  While Israel controls the air space, and the borders, I'm yet to see any sources that say that this amounts to apartheid in the settlements.  What reasons are there to oppose this rather logical division, aside to confuse people who haven't heard of the disengagement, or make this article not be taken seriously by those who have?--Urthogie 17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  gaza should have its own section, as should west bank 

message: "The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state" -- south African prime minister.  I think it's likely true because South Africa was attempting to defend itself from criticism by associating with a morally just cause, but I'd still like to see a primary or secondary source even though my intuition is that it's true.  The only source I could find was the guardian one, which is a tertiary source.  Anyone know of a document or video from that era for this quote?--Urthogie 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  any secondary source for this quote? 

message: Shulamit Aloni, former education minister, Israel Prize winner, and a former leader of Meretz, and Tommy Lapid, leader of the liberal Shinui and former Justice minister, used the term "apartheid" when describing a bill proposed by the government of Ariel Sharon to bar Arabs from buying homes in "Jewish townships" within Israel proper.[19][20][21]
Aloni's article clearly does not use the "Israeli apartheid" allegation in reference to Israel itself, but rather to its actions in the territories:
Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.
He therefore belongs in that section on settlements, not this one.
Lapid never even says there's apartheid.  He variously says it "smell of apartheid" and that it's "getting close to apartheid".  Note, he's saying this individual law is apartheid, not all of Israel, as well.  Perhaps we need sections for specific laws and policies within Israel, so that we don't make it look like anyone who calls a given policy apartheid is saying the whole state of Israel is "apartheid state."--Urthogie 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel is an apartheid state if they are creating apartheid conditions in the West Bank, right? I understand the distinction you are trying to draw, but you need to make it more explicit. -- Kendrick7talk 18:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We intentionally created a new section just so we could distinguish between the claims against all of Israel vs. Israel in the territories.  Do you still oppose my move, to that section, then?--Urthogie 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe your resplit into three sections makes more sense. -- Kendrick7talk 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  questionable examples 

message: I just noticed that most of the quotes mention the West Bank and Gaza in the same sentence, so it's literally impossible to seperate the two from each other.  I'm going to try to make clear in the lead of that section that Israel no longer occupies Gaza land. --Urthogie 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my mistake 

message: She is not saying Israel is an apartheid state, she says that only the territories are.  From the source provided:
Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. 
1967, people.  Not 1948.--Urthogie 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why i moved shulamit aloni 

message: Examples should go at the top of the allegations sections.  I've moved (or removed, in the case of repeats) examples that are in the individual issues susbections.  The point of these subsections is to explain the reasons for various POVs, rather than to just quote more allegations.--Urthogie 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm being bold, but not reckless.  Any possibly controversial change is mentioned on the talk page.  Do you have specific concerns with my edits?--Urthogie 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said; the volume.  It makes the history page a nightmare to navigate this way.  Just suggesting that you do what you want to to in one edit rather than 30 in a row. 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well with many edits users can revert to a certain point, rather than whole sale.  It's actually done so that consensus is easier to reach, even if it's hard to navigate.--Urthogie 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't put examples in the issues subsections 

message: Brzezinski has apparently been invoking Israeli apartheid for a decade now.  In 1997, sitting alongside Madelaine Albright on PBS's Newshour, Brzezinski said of then-Prime Minister Netanyahu:
His concept of "peace" is really very different from the concept of peace that labor embraced and which I suspect we support. His concept of peace is essentially a very close equivalent of what the white supremacist apartheid government in South Africa was proposing at one point for the Africans--a series of isolated--lands--broken up, not contiguous territory, essentially living in backward villages, surrounded by white islands of prosperity.  This is the Likud image of solution for the Palestinian problem, and, therefore, when he's asked to stop building settlements, to stop engaging in actions which would make peace possible, instead of subverting them, he's being asked to change his policy, and he has no incentive to do that unless he feels that America will disown him, or unless the Israeli public disowns him.
In May of 2002 the Toronto Star reported that:
FOR YEARS, critics have compared Israeli policies in the occupied territories to the old South African apartheid system. Now more mainstream figures — such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Canadian-born former U.S. National Security Adviser, and South African anti-apartheid stalwarts Bishop Desmond Tutu and author Breyten Breytenbach — are drawing the parallel. Members of the 80,000-strong Jewish community in South Africa have joined the debate as well.
I can't find relevant quotes from him in 2002, but I doubt the Star was referring to his five-year-old statement on Newshour. Could be, though.
In October of the following year, in a speech at the New American Strategies for Security and Peace conference in Washington, D.C., Brzezinski said:
Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering.
Indeed as some Israelis have lately pointed out, and I emphasize some Israelis have lately pointed out, increasingly the only prospect if this continues is Israel becoming increasingly like apartheid South Africa -- the minority dominating the majority, locked in a conflict from which there is no extraction. If we want to prevent this the United States above all else must identify itself with peace and help those who are the majority in Israel, who want peace and are prepared to accept peace. 
In fact, it seems that Brzezinski has been pushing the meme for longer than Carter.  I note moreover that he always uses what I'm calling the diplomatic future tense.  The bad moon always rising and waxing, never quite full: "Increasingly the only prospect if this continues is Israel becoming increasingly like apartheid South Africa," he says in 2003.  And then in 2006: "the absence of a fair and mutually acceptable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid."  Then again when Z-Big orders a hot dog, he probably says "I would like a hot dog," like I do, just to be nice, not because his hunger is hypothetical.--G-Dett 01:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on your good work! This is exactly what I asked for, and we can now pull Zbig out of the Carter paragraph and attribute his own views to him, weasel-wording and all. (I still reject the "diplomatic future tense" as being anything other than weaseling.) BTW, I think one says "Xenophon says..." not as part of a convention of honoring past authors but because he "speaks" to you in the present instant whenever you are reading him; and "I would like a hot dog" is not an example of temporal shift at all -- it is perfectly correct to say "I would like a hot dog now". Andyvphil 14:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, a man who puts the word "increasingly" before every verb in a sentence, and throws in "prospect" and "becoming" and "if this continues" for good measure...is trafficking in weasel words.  Can't argue with that.  Put it down to a career spent in state service and a retirement spent in public punditry.  Thanks for the kind words and the interesting exchange about idiom.  I'm off (well, not just yet, but will be) to my four-martini-and-three-hot-dog lunch, cheers,--G-Dett 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Brzezinski material, going back ten years

message: How about we compromise as follows:  we move the "most" clause to the "Israel as an apartheid state section."  I'm willing to take it out of the lead if everyone opposes it, but we'd have to move it somewhere like that section.--Urthogie 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested compromise 

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.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Allegations of apartheid}} 

message: I think we need to NPOV the amount of blockquotes and/or even them out.  A reader who comes here to learn, finds less text about the allegations themselves.  Please do not bury Apartheid expert Desmond Tutu's allegations.  Kritt 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's put Tutu and Carter and Barghouti and the Durban communique right at the top. Just keep the quotes on topic. Tutu on someone's general unhappiness with the occupation is not on topic. Tutu drawing the analogy with pass laws is, and is absolutely important to defining the subject of this article. Which has to preceed commentary on the analogy. Andyvphil 21:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Many editors suport the longer blockquote for Morris.--Urthogie 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it is 1 editor or a 100 isn't terribly relevant if it is running afoul of undue weight concerns. Tarc 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Tarc here.  If we're going to lean on Morris' scholarly reputation to justify a lengthy block-quote, then that lengthy block-quote should come from and/or be representative of his scholarship; otherwise we're playing a shell game.--G-Dett 14:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is not measured by number of words. As it is, the comparisons between Israeli practices and apartheid are of several different types, ranging from those who say there are some worrisome similarities to those who categorically say it's all apartheid to them. As for collaborating, the recurring theme on this article is an insistence by some editors that the allegation be accepted as a premise. --Leifern 14:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leifern, can you point to a single example of such insistence on the part of a key editor of this article?--G-Dett 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are pro-Zionist and Criticism blockquotes longer than Allegations of Apartheid themselves?

message: You keep reverting the article structure to a version that has no consensus.  We have an overview section for the purpose of summarizing the subject.  Going right into examples is the opposite of explanatory, and that's why we don't do it right away.  We do it soon after though.
Also, to Kritt, please stop puttin things in the wrong section.  Tutu and Carter don't allege that all of Israel is an apartheid state.  We distinguish for a reason-- to be clear on this issue.  We've already put the section that Tutu and Carter are in at the very top, per your request.  The overview (a summary section) is the only thing which comes before it.--Urthogie 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion of that is your original research.  Carter and Tutu state clearly what they mean, that's why it's in blockquote, so editors cannot twist their or bury their words for POV purposes. This article is increasingly an attempt to deny and hide the statements of the actual sources.  Collaboration means not burying the allegations of Desmond Tutu or interpreting them along Original Research and POV lines.Kritt 07:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so my opinion is original research and yours is fact?  Puhleez.  By the way, I move them to the top of the section per your request.--Urthogie 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  andy 

message: There should be two articles - Allegations of Israeli Apartheid and Status of Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank, with a redirect from Israeli Apartheid itself to the latter of the two. This latter article could use almost all of the material here on actual status issues, but would need a ton of balance. The allegations should refer to this latter article for all but the most general and noncommital factual claims (though all the he-said-she-said which uses the word apartheid stays.) This article should be about what its title says, and not an excuse for a POV fork of factual data. (note: I'm not claiming that any data here is false - just that any article with this title will inevitably sideline any equally-true pro-Israel facts). --Homunq (talk • contribs)
:I agree, but it's difficult to know exactly where exactly the perfect place to split it is.--Urthogie 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was actually some support for this idea in the last discussion to rename.  I think the article is better organized now, but it's one thing to consider, which might also help stem the proliferation of "Allegations" pages.  If so, I think this page would generally go back pre-Urthogie, and would then simply end before the sections on conditions, which would be moved, linked and potentially summarized per WP:SS. Mackan79 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article 

message: Do Adam and Moodley's research really investigate the distribution of journalists' and commentators' opinions on the allegations?
To me it seems (from the chapter used as a source here) that they only assume this. Is this a part of their scientific study? How did they do it? It would be unprecise to claim that this is something the study "found" unless this distribution is the object of their study. Any opinions?
An academic investigation in 2005 found that the majority of journalists and academic commentators reject, as propaganda, any analogy from South African apartheid and the political process of reconciliation that ended it to the Israel-Palestine impasse and the prospects for resolving it. [1][2] and that other countries also resemble South African apartheid are not accused of it.
pertn 10:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Our text makes it sound like this was a study of how many people accept and reject the analogy, which isn't accurate.  It's also still the wrong place for that sentiment, as I think Urthogie actually agreed (at least as a compromise).  If we're looking for something else, I think what needs to be made clear is that many people object to the legitimacy of the analogy, in addition to challenging it on substantive grounds, if we're hoping to find agreement. Mackan79 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right, Pertn.  The comment about commentators being incensed by the analogy is not their 'finding'; it's them giving the contours of the discussion which their book hopes to reshape.  Their book isn't a statistical analysis or survey of attitudes toward the Israel-South Africa analogy.  It's an attempt to build moral, political, and historical lessons from South Africa into an approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--G-Dett 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. This should be changed immediately as the protect is removed. The current wording, with it's prominence in the article is flat out misinformation. pertn 07:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: this article is unwarranted and non-factual, based on the fact that "apartheid" itself is a charged, loaded and scurrilous word. There is absolutely no factual basis for labeling Israel aparthied. it has tried repeatedly to make peace with Palestinians, and has been rebuffed repeatedly. Any existing restrictions are due to ongoing incitement by the Palestinian side, and stem only from lack of success of Israel's efforts to reach a lasting definitive political settlement. --Sm8900 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All well and good, but there's a fairly hefty RS-discussion and debate of the issue.  Our job is to present this discussion, not censor it on the basis of moral and ideological objections to the subject matter at hand.--G-Dett 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the discussion and the use of the term surely are notable, considering that there's so much literature devoted to this rhetorical device. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urthogie (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Although referring to Israel as an apartheid is a deliberate distortion of the facts on the ground, because several sources repeat this distortion enough, it has unfortunately become a hurdle both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict that both sides have to overcome.  The distortion must be understood by both sides and by the rest of the world.  Thus, this Wikipedia article is necessary and should not be deleted.  On the other hand, I would prefer this article to be condensed and presented as a part of the Allegations of apartheid article.  --GHcool 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: They're not hidden, we moved them to the very top of their sections because you whined about it.--Urthogie 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: this article

message: The article's examples should be converted from bullets to paragraphs.  This way they can be discussed by other sources in the paragraphs as well.--Urthogie 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: G-Dett and Pertn have argued against the current placement/position of A&M in the article.  Let me outline why I think their logic is severely flawed.  Here's their logic (See relevant posts at:  )
# Adam and Moodley wrote a book about learning from South Africa to make peace in Palestine/Israel (given)
# A book about Learning from South Africa to make peace in Palestine/Israel is not a book about allegations of Israeli apartheid (true)
# Therefore, Adam and Moodley can't be a good source for an overview on an article about allegations of Israeli apartheid (false)
Translated another way, it could sound a bit more ridiculous
# Smith and Williams wrote a book about dogs (given)
# A book about dogs is not a book about dalmations (true)
# Therefore, Smith and Williams can't be a good source for an overview on an article about dalmations. (false)
Adam and Moodley devote a chapter of their book (which covers a much larger topic) to the more specific topic of comparing South African apartheid to the situation in Israel/palestine.  In that chapter of their book, they discuss the allegations of apartheid and who makes them.  They analyze these allegations, and come to the conclusion that while there are some similarities, the situation is more different than similar, and the causes are much more different as well.  Even if you disagree with their specific analysis, the answer here would be to add other mainstream overviews, not to remove this one on the basis of spurious logic. --Urthogie 01:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Number 3 is the howler here.  We're not saying they can't be a good source for the overview; we're saying they shouldn't own the overview.  --G-Dett 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, so we agree.  Add some sources to the overview, buddy. (Make sure it's not an original synthesis though.)--Urthogie 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cream in your coffee, boss?--G-Dett 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: )--Urthogie 16:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, "illogical arguments"? I am merely claiming that the wording made it seem like A&M had conducted a research on the distribution of different opinions on the term IA amongst journalists and commentators. In fact (it seems, I haven't read the entire book) it seems that this is something they assumed as a background for the study and not the findings of their research. Hence, my beef was mainly with the long gone use of the word "found", that the book length study "found" this distribution. Your attempts at logic are pretty good. I agree with you. I also agree that A&M, presented properly, is a pretty good source (at least compared to what's the norm around here) for this article. But before you start with logic, try reading carefully. Then you will avoid a) presenting A&M's research in a distorted manner and b) misunderstanding my critizism of this distortion as a dismissal of the source itself. It should be noted though that I am not a native english speaker, so the misunderstanding may of course be on my side here. pertn 15:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How about we replace "found" with "wrote", then?--Urthogie 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current wording is ok. I also propose you try to learn something from this.. think twice before you plunge into logical reasoning :) pertn 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illogical reasons for editing or moving or removing A&M 

message: I couldn't help but notice that so much of this relates to Carter's book.  I was trying to improve the coverage and discussion of his book's use of the word but I was overwhelmed by how many sources discuss it.  If we want to give an in-depth discussion of his use of the word in an NPOV fashion, wouldn't it make sense to give him his own section?  Anyone who searches for stuff on this subject can't help but notice his use of the word is responsible for most of the term's discussion/coverage.  Any support in this regard?--Urthogie 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already articles(plural) on PPNA and commentary on PPNA. Stay out of that swamp... wait a sec. What am I saying? Go. look. Get involved. Andyvphil 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One can't help but notice that most of the criticism of this term is in relation to his usage.. I'm just sayin..--Urthogie 23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate section for Carter? 

message: This article is called allegations of Israeli apartheid.  A major head of state making the allegations is by very definition notable.  The definition of a reliable source for this article isn't a political scientist.  If that were the case then we'd have to exclude other political figures as well, which we haven't done.  All in all, it's ridiculous to remove this guy.--Urthogie 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reverted again.  Gatoclass,
*not just "good guys" get to be represented.
*assume good faith.  just because you assume bad faith and think including him is an "attempt" at something, doesn't mean you can revert him.
*please use the talk page if you want to avoid revert wars.--Urthogie 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idid Amin is a reliable source 

message: Here we go again.  Andy's edit summary was "removing self-identified third pole."  Why remove the only mainstream analysis available?
We should discuss their individual views in "other views", yes, but we should also include their overview here, as it's the only mainstream one available.--Urthogie 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It seems to have escaped Urthogie that I did three things (1) fixed a bug in the "Overview" section (present since before the freeze -- nobody reads the paragraph or looks at the ref section?); (2) Moved Ostroff's crit to where it belongs, revising it to match style and improving the ref (tho it could be better wikified); and (3) moving A-M to where I think it goes. He undid all three to get at the third..."  Please be more careful in your reversions, Urthogie. BTW, you would hit 3RR first. Andyvphil 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kendrick restored the bug you fixed, but we have already made a compromise to remove them from the lead.  That they stay in the overview is part of this compromise, which you threaten with your removals.--Urthogie 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, A&M are the only academics who have actually studied this in detail. In a proper article we would briefly summarize their views, add a couple more good sources (Pogrund and perhaps one other), and delete the rest. Given that we are currently saddled with this monstrosity, rather than a proper article, their views should at least come front and center. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For a third time. A&M have actually studied both South Africa and Israel, and have written academics works comparing and contrasting the two. Who else has done this? The person whose experience comes closest is Benjamin Pogrund, who was an anti-apartheid activist in South Africa, and an anti-occupation activist in Israel. Jayjg (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the fourth or fifth time, Adam & Moodley are not represented correctly in this article and it would be helpful if editors had a copy of the book before editing with respect to A&M.  Jayjg, have you read that book?  I agree that they might be overrepresented.  This article however is not a monstrosity.  It provides much information to the reader.  Kritt 04:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing A&M 

message: Taking a step back from the A&M issue for just a moment, I think we ought to make a distinction between various types of allegations. Some draw a comparison between certain elements of Israeli policy to certain elements of SA apartheid policy; some feel that the effects of Israeli policy - regardless of their intent - are reminiscent of the effects of SA apartheid; others say that there's a trajectory that might take Israel to a state of de facto apartheid; and yet others go so far as to say that what Israel does is just like or even worse than SA apartheid. Once you've parsed Carter's view, for example, it's pretty clear that he means "apartheid" in a very narrow sense, whereas Idi Amin probably meant it in the broadest possible sense. --Leifern 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amin used the word with its actual semantic load. Carter mostly pretends to be using it without that. Zbigs "trajectory" usage is just weaseling - we should add his other quotes (see G-Dett, above.) It's my POV that that the reality is that apartheid is a slur, not a policy. I'm not one of the mainspace RS for that observation, but it's true just the same. Andyvphil 23:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't remove people who use it with a "semantic load."--Urthogie 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations, comparisons, and their extent in the introduction 

message: Hmm...It seems like the Criticism section should be for people who issue general criticisms of the allegation, while the intext criticisms should be those that deal with criticisms of specific claims.  Does anyone oppose this?  I plan on applying this principle.--Urthogie 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Immediate rebuttal is not a good idea. Give the allegationists a chance to state their thesis (but not at unlimited length) before you interrupt. Andyvphil 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no coherent "allegationist" ideology; each individual has their own set of reasons.  Therefore, it only makes sense that each individual be criticized  by other sources following their claims.  How is this interrupting, unless of course, you believe in an "allegationist" narrative? (aka original research)--Urthogie 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Allegationist narrative"? Wazzat? "Apartheid" s a slur derived from "Zionism=Racism". I'm not suggesting that those who use the slur be "removed". On the contrary, I want them front, center and uninterrupted to show what the article is about before tangenting off into the details. Carter-Tutu-Darfur(Idi Amin)- etc- masses of usage... THEN rebuttal to Carter - rebuttal to Tutu - ...-general rebuttal. The reasons are not only separate, they also overlap, and this has structural implications. Andyvphil 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, viewing allegations of apartheid as a slur is your POV, andy.  We have to edit according to NPOV, which means no such assumptions are allowed in how we decide to structure the article.  As a sidenote, if you wanted to include Idi Amin, why the hell did you remove him?  I'm trying to assume good faith but your edits just don't match up with your rhetoric here.--Urthogie 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I remove Amin? Please provide diff. Andyvphil 12:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, that was Gatoclass.  But please discuss my other point about how your justification for your edits ("Allegations of apartheid are a slur") is based on a POV, rather than solid policy.  And please avoid making major changes until we've actually discussed it somewhat.--Urthogie 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought I'd address (a) the gross factual error before addressing (b)your fogginess on NPOV, and (c) the fact that you misread my comment on structural implications. (C), first. I didn't say that the fact that "Apartheid" is a slur has structual implications. I said the fact that Tutu and Carter share reasons for using the word is one of the reasons it is inappropriate to begin the rebuttal to Tutu in the middle of the examples of the word's use. The whole premise of this article is that there is a common thread... As to (b), there is no way to structure the article with no point of view as to the underlying subject. NPOV isn't the absence of a POV, it's fairness. Andyvphil 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Critics of the allegation should be identifed correctly, especially if they are Zionists. It is relevant that Desmond Tutu is South African, it must also be relevant and noted if critics are Zionists.Kritt 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section vs in text criticisms 

message: Does anyone know why so many sources have disappeared from the article in the past month? We had 111 sources in mid-March and now the article is down to only 88. That's slightly over 20% less. Was there some discussion above to delete all these I might have missed? It's going to be a real pain to restore all this.... -- Kendrick7talk 04:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources disappearing from article 

message: I thought it might be instructive to take a closer look at the article - specifically, to count the number of statements in it that affirm the analogy, versus those that reject it and those that are neutral. Here are the results:
1. Intro:
A description of the analogy, followed by three arguments about why the analogy is wrong. That is, one neutral comment and three anti. Bias level: 100% to the anti-. Pro 0, Anti 3.
2. Overview:
Leads with a comment asserting that the anti- side is in the majority. Follows it with a comment that the pro's are mostly "Palestinians and third world academics". Pro 0, Anti 2.
Then followed with some irrelevant waffle about how Israeli politicians "use the analogy self servingly". Neutral.
Then a paragraph listing a handful of credible sources which have employed the analogy, followed by one listing a bunch of crackpots and antisemites who have used it. Pro 1 Anti 1.
Overview summary: Pro 1 Anti 3. Cumulative weight so far, Pro 1 Anti 6, neutral 1.
NOTE That we have had two sections up until this point, and not a word has even been said concerning the actual substance of the allegations!
3. Allegations of apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
1st two paras: Tutu calls for peace - an irrelevancy. Weight neutral.
3rd and 4th paras : Tutu says the territories "remind him" of apartheid. Pro 1.
Next paragraph: On Jimmy Carter's book. Mentions that Carter's use of the analogy "caused great controversy", resignations, condemnation from the Dems, "including Clinton and Pelosi". Let's be generous and call it Pro 1 just because the name "Carter" got a mention in a paragraph that does nothing but attack him. That's Pro 1, Anti 5.
Next para: Weak statement from Brezinski that de facto apartheid is "likely" if conflict is not resolved. Pro 1 (just barely).
Next, Soviet ambassador from '60's called it apartheid. His statement instantly negated by reminder that Soviets were cold war enemies of US and Israel. At best, neutral, at worst Anti 1. Again, let's be generous and call it neutral.
Next, members of Israeli Knesset called it apartheid. But since they happen to be Arabs, their opinion is immediately suspect, if not downright worthless. Bias: neutral to negative. Say neutral.
Next, former AG of Israel says it's apartheid. Finally an unqualified Pro from someone likely to be objective. Pro 1.
Next, John Dugard calls it apartheid. Pro 1.
Next, two sources casting doubt on Dugard's objectivitiy. Anti 2.
Final paragraph, four names who agree with the analogy are quickly tossed at the reader, and only one quoted. Since the dubious or partisan nature of virtually all those making the allegations up to this point has effectively been established by now, this one belated paragraph from credible sources doesn't have much impact, but let's be really generous and say Pro 4.
Summary of weight in this section: Pro 9, Anti 7, neutral 2. Cumulative totals: Pro 10 Anti 13, neutral 3.
NOTE that up to this point almost nothing has been said about why the occupation resembles apartheid.
4. West bank barrier.
1st para: Prefaces statement that barrier is "apartheid wall" with statement about "spate of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians" which necessitated it - thus effectively canceling out the Pro opinion. Pro 1 Anti 1.
2nd: At least five statements explaning why the wall is necessary, how effective it's been, how it's only "defensive". Anti 5.
Summary of this section: Pro 1 Anti 6. Cumulative: Pro 11 Anti 19, neutral 3.
Note: Still only a couple of vague statement in the article about why the analogy is valid up to this point.
5. Pass laws.
Not a very important issue, but this section contains two pro statements and one anti. Cumulative: Pro 13 Anti 20 neutral 3.
6. Marriage. Two pro statements immediately cancelled out by two anti. Bias neutral. Cumulative: Pro 15 Anti 22 neutral 3.
7. Allegations that Israel is an apartheid state.
Opens with a quote from discredited apartheid architect that Israel is an apartheid state. Worthless if not negative endorsement. Followed by two anti statements. Let's be generous and say neutral 1 anti 2.
Idi Amin endorses the analogy. Another negative. Anti 1.
"A Palestinian Jew" endorses it. Another highly dubious source. Neutral.
Finally, another Palestinian says the analogy should be used "in Palestine's interest". Another effectively worthless if not negative endorsement. Let's say neutral.
Anti 3 neutral 3. Cumulative Pro 15 Anti 25 neutral 6.
8. Allegations of Racism.
The allegation of racism is made. Pro 1. Followed by six refutations. Anti 6.
Cumulative: Pro 16, Anti 31, neutral 6.
9. Allegations of apartheid in Israel proper
Weak statement that an Israeli law might be getting "close to apartheid". Negated by statement that law was never passed. Neutral to negative. Say neutral.
10. Land policy. 1 pro statement about how the policy indicates racism, followed by two statements refuting the claim and two more statements on how "beneficial" the policies actually are to Arabs. Let's be generous again and say Pro 1 Anti 2.
Cumulative: Pro 17, Anti 33, neutral 6.
11. Status of Israeli Arabs. A totally anti section, not even a semblance of balance. I count at least 16 anti statements in this section, NO pro.
Cumulative: Pro 17, Anti 49, neutral 6.
12. Demographics. Nothing of value here. Neutral.
13. Identity cards. Prefacing the remarks as "controversial", someone is quoted as saying Israel's identity cards are effectively racist. Same source says they are like apartheid SA's. Be generous and say Pro 2. Followed by several statements about how other ME countries have similar cards. Anti 2.
Cumulative: Pro 19, Anti 51, neutral 6.
14. Criticism. Yes, folks, we've finally arrived at the criticism section!
Far too many anti statements to count, so I'll just count paragraphs. (Note that these are all arguments against use of the analogy, not merely statements for or against). 14 anti. Cumulative Pro 19, Anti 65, neutral 6.
15. Other views (actually, exclusively the views of A&M).
At least 17 anti arguments in this section. Zero Pro statements.
Cumulative Pro 19, Anti 82, neutral 6.
16. The One State Solution.
A&M again. For once, I think I can say this section is essentially pro. I'll call it Pro 2, because of Olmert's statement that the one state argument would be "powerful" and "mean the end of the Jewish State".
Final tally: statements in favour of the analogy: 21.
Statements (and frequently arguments) against: 83+
Article weight: 80% anti, 20% pro.
Can anyone still be in any doubt about what a farce this article is? Gatoclass 02:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gatoclass, of all the various op-eds in the article, only Gerald Steinberg's is prefaced with with the phrase "In an op-ed for the Jerusalem Post,". Do you think that indicates any sort of bias? Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That is one very minor issue. What I've done here is count the number of pro- and anti- statements in the article as a whole. If there's some particular statement in the article you object to, I suggest you edit it. Gatoclass 01:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the idea that Finkelstein is a critic of the analogy, as the article implies? I'm not commenting you your analysis, because it's far too subjective, so I'm sticking to specific examples. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The user who nominated it for deletion doesn't edit Zionism or Israel articles.  I think you're being paranoid.--Urthogie 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An analysis of article bias

message: I'm interested in hearing the answer to this.  It seems like editors are going to ridiculous lengths to avoid an indepth discussion of Carter's allegation, even to the point of putting a far-left anti-Zionist into the criticism section!  This to me shows the inherent contradiction of trying to group all the criticisms together-- they don't form a concrete whole when the specific criticisms are grouped with the general ones. --Urthogie 17:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finkelstein is listed as a critic of the analogy?? Now I've seen everything! Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is it NPOV to put Norman Finkelstein in the "criticism" section 

message: If there is such a commonality do all agree it should be among the first sentences of the article?  Do they frame the allegation as a calumny?  If so, within this framework, who is the calumny against?  And to who and what do they attribute this calumny to?  These are a few of the questions that I have.Doright 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should qualify the sentence to say "unreasonably" or "unfairly".  I think an adjective could fix this issue of concession.--Urthogie 01:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the kind compliment.  However, I do not agree that it is a mere "nuance."  Therefore, I will appreciate your substantive reply.  I do agree that in addition to remedying the problem identified by my "analysis" the current intro requires additional weight on the side of the allegation. Doright 08:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the first sentence is a little clumsy, although the idea is essentially expanded on in the second sentence, so I think the overall meaning is clear enough. The passage They say that legitimate Israeli security needs justify the practices that prompt the analogy seems accurate enough to me. I think you will probably find plenty such arguments in the rest of the article. What would you want to replace it with? Gatoclass 09:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply, but "Clumsy" does not address the specific criticism produced by my "analysis." Nor does the purported "accuracy" address the concerns raised by the analysis or the question of how criticism of the allegation is framed.  I think it is premature for me to propose a specific replacement because there has been no discussion of the issue raised in the first paragraph of this talk page section or even the question posed in its title.Doright 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a commonality among the ways those who reject the allegation FRAME the debate?