Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 15

message: I'm planning to make some changes to the organization of this article, changing some headings and rearranging some content. I'm not planning to add or delete anything. My intention is to make the article more clear about who makes what allegations or comparisons. 
A few people, including myself, have put questions and comments recently at Wikipedia:Central_discussions/Apartheid.  From the low traffic on the page, I have a feeling people aren't watching it. Anyone care to trundle over there and take a look? If not, I'll copy the discussion over to this page, as this article is definitely the hotspot. Cheers, Su-Laine Kla'quot 06:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the restructuring. It now has a lot more headings to break up what used to be very long sections, and the headings are more descriptive. I've also made the organization more theme-based. It was previously somewhat chronological and somewhat ad-hoc. I believe I haven't removed any of the  content other than headings. However, the Rufin quote was previously there twice, and I've consolidated the two. The article generally needs some smoothing over to ensure sections have adequate introduction and context. I'll try to get to that soon. Kla'quot 09:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a problem with what you have done I'm afraid. I think using the "apartheid analogies" wording in the headings near the top of the article is slightly misleading. Proponents of the term aren't using an analogy to apartheid - they are saying Israeli is actually practicising apartheid. Big difference, I think. I am going to change those headings. --SandyDancer 13:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I have reverted headings using the new, and I believe inappropriate, "analogies" wording to language more like what was there before - i.e. talking about the "term" and the "allegations". This fits better with the article heading and is, in my view, more neutral. --SandyDancer 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring the article 

message: SandyDancer just brought up a good point that allegation and analogy are different concepts. I do prefer the word "analogy," and I think there is a discrepancy between the title of the article and what the quotations in the article actually say. Let's discuss the apartheid allegation versus apartheid analogy thing a bit further. 
I'd really like to get consensus on what the subject of this article is; I think its subject has almost always been unclear, and the article currently suffers from it. As I see it, there are at least three different possible subjects for this article:
# The term "Israeli apartheid" itself 
# The debate over allegations that Israel practices apartheid
# The debate over comparisons between Israeli practices and apartheid
The article may have began as being about the term "Israeli apartheid," but if  the term is the main subject of the article, approximately 90% of the article is off-topic. Of all of the "proponents of the term," only NGOs are actually quoted as using the term in the body of the article. In the footnotes, an additional two individuals (Tutu and Davis) have quotations including the term. 
If we were only to cover allegations that Israel practices apartheid, we'd have several problems. 
* In the real world, there is a spectrum between people who think Israel can do no wrong and people who think Israel is as bad as (or worse than) apartheid-era South Africa. In-between, there are many people who do not say Israel practices apartheid, but who do say that there are meaningful parallels to be made, and/or warn that it is heading in the direction of apartheid. (I consider myself as belonging to this middle ground.) 
:We should discuss the spectrum of opinions, not just the extremes. If we only covered allegations, not analogies, many of the people on the list of "proponents of the term" would have to be dropped. I'm not in favour of dropping them.
 
* For Tutu in particular, the analogy is far more holistic than simply pointing out bad things Israel has done. He includes in his analogy comparisons between the struggle against Israeli practices and the struggle against apartheid. For him the spiritual significance of the two conflicts is also alike. I'd like to have the article mention these other aspects of his analogy, which in his writings actually have more prominence than his specific allegations do.
* The meaning of the term "apartheid" in common political discourse is fuzzy. The "crime of apartheid" definition exists, but very few people have even heard of it, and it does not have well-defined operational criteria. I think it's far more common to simply use the term "apartheid" colloquially to mean "discrimination that reminds me of South Africa."
I voted Delete in the last VfD for this article because I don't think the question of whether   Israel practices apartheid is encyclopedic. However, I do think we can develop this into a good article covering the debate itself, discussing the people involved in the debate and what they say. Kla'quot 20:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analogies and allegations

message: I've made some rough clean up edits. Many failed WP:AWW, in the form of "Some people say x. Mr. Z says x." which I changed to just "Mr. Z says x." Another popular one was "some people claim fact A, though fact B, results in C", which I replaces with "Fact a. Fact b." Even though fact B is stated elsewhere anyway, and there's rearrangment TODO. Also removed a few uncited crystal ball statements (Though I'm sure we will all one day live in Big Rock Candy Mountain, it's not encyclopedic). -- Kendrick7 06:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just the facts 

message: his new book: http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Peace-Apartheid-Jimmy-Carter/dp/0743285026
: Does he make a relevant allegation there? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It hasn't been released yet, but the advance review manuscripts are pretty clear: http://www.forward.com/articles/carter-book-slaps-israel-with-%E2%80%98apartheid%E2%80%99-tag/  Kla'quot 15:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a minor issue compared to other controversies over this article, but why is Carter at the top of the list, before Tutu and Dugard? His book hasn't even been released yet. Kla'quot 06:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also difficult to have this book mentioned so prominently in the article, when it is not available for critique.  Elizmr 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't bother me to move him down in the list of notable individuals.  There will be press coverage of the book after the election and the article can be amended at that time.  --Deodar 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The book has received reliable press coverage of a critical nature in the Forward.  But either way, in less than 3 weeks it will be settled.  --Deodar 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this MSNBC / newsweek interview, especially this page , he seems to fall in the category of viewing Israeli apartheid as a specter or possible future that we must at all costs, and his book seems to be about advocating a course so that this possible future does not happen.  It doesn't seem like he is saying that there is apartheid at this point.  --Deodar 20:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the above, I'm not sure that Carter should be in there at all since he is not saying the situation NOW is apartheid, but that this is something to avoid.  Elizmr 21:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coverage of Jimmy Carter's use of the term fits best in the Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#The_debate_on_the_future_of_Israel section.  --Deodar 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimmy Carter

message: The lead has been changed to include Nelson Mandela.  I am not sure if it is appropriate to fill the lead of the article with so many names.  Second, there is no mention of Mandela in the rest of the article nor any reliable source to back up this claim.  I would recommend that we don't go overboard with the intro and to remove Mandela from the article unless you find a source -- and if you find a source then we should document specifically his mention/claim as we do for the others.  --Deodar 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last sentence is unnecessary.  The lead should just lay out both positions, but should not involve point counterpoint type discussions.  Elizmr 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Kiyosaki, it is important to realize that [this letter from "Mandela" is not really from him but rather by an columnist impersonating Thomas Friedman's style of writing his column as if it was a hypothetical letter -- I have been reading Friedman since 2001 thus I recognize this, but I understand how it can be confusing to others.  As far as I can tell Mandela has not make this comparison himself.  --Deodar 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking the last sentence out per above comments.  Elizmr 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) If someone can find the original sources where Mathabane and Mandela make the comparisons it would immediately clear up any issues.  This reference is too secondary and also really vage to really focus on in the article at the moment.  --Deodar 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Its still a second hard reference.  I don't think that linking Mandela to saying there is apartheid is that important that we should let it in this way.  It's a slippery slope using second hand references.  Let's hold off until we find a more conclusive statement.  Mandela or not it doesn't have that much of an effect on the overall article.  There is going to be a lot of talk on this subject in the coming two months in the mainstream media, there will be plenty more people to add.  I've edited wikipedia for a while and while I agree with your point of view more than Humus sapiens does this just doesn't pass the bar at this point.  Your other research is great through and after some consolidation (the article is getting overly long) it should result in a real improvement in the overall robustness of the article.  --Deodar 02:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nelson Mandela? 

message: I still think it is important that we find a source where Mandela actually makes the comparison before we include it.  The current secondary source only points to "the relevance of the South African experience" but this could be extremely vague.  I actually  know that Mandela has supported armed resistance as well as Arafat many times and made parallels between their struggle and the SA one but that does not necessarily mean that he viewed it as an apartheid system.  Mandela is already mentioned in Wikipedia in support of Arafat and so on, thus mentioning him in the context of this article requires from him an explicit comparison with apartheid.  --Deodar 22:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still waiting for a quote from Mandela

message: http://electronicintifada.net/download/audio/20060906faridesack.mp3  This speech by South African Farid_Esack was given at Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 7:00pm
Veterans Room,
Oak Park Public Library,
834 Lake Street, Oak Park, IL, 
I'd say about 55% of the way through (slide the thing), you can hear him reference Mandela also.  He's quite clear about his view of the connection between Zionism and apartheid.  Please listen.Kiyosaki 01:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its still a second hard reference.  I don't think that linking Mandela to saying there is apartheid is that important that we should let it in this way.  It's a slippery slope using second hand references.  Let's hold off until we find a more conclusive statement.  Mandela or not it doesn't have that much of an effect on the overall article.  There is going to be a lot of talk on this subject in the coming two months in the mainstream media, there will be plenty more people to add.  I've edited wikipedia for a while and while I agree with your point of view more than Humus sapiens does this just doesn't pass the bar at this point.  Your other research is great through and after some consolidation (the article is getting overly long) it should result in a real improvement in the overall robustness of the article.  --Deodar 02:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio mentions Mandela

message: It includes what the opponents say only.  Isn't this article about the "allegations" and who says what?  Then to be followed by the critics?  I think the order is a little backward.  Thanks. Kiyosaki 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: K--the lead starts with the proponents pov and then states the opponents.  what you added was a response to the opponents.  I think that the current order is correct ebcause the proponents should go first because they are the ones to have first raised the issue.  The opponents then respond.  Elizmr 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Lead Paragraph is not Balanced

message: I read both Tutu cites (9 and 10) and the remarks about apartheid are very general.  The main comparison drawn seems to be checkpoints.  The second cite basically says that if the SAs could overcome apartheid, then the palestinian issue could also be solved and calls for the tool of economic boycott, successful in the former, to be applied in the later.  It is mentioned that SAs have recognized similarities, but nowhere are these similarities enumerated.  I feel the current text overstates the nature of what Tutu actually said.  Also, can we clarify the nature of his experience?  Was it one trip to the area?  Did he meet with anyone from Israel or just anti-Israel folks?  Elizmr 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tutu 

message: I could use some help in this section.  Can people also please provide some more sources and references?  These items are routinely in the media and tied to allegations of apartheid.  I think we need to include more info here, and additinal help from others in compiling the sources would be appreciated.Kiyosaki 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about the conflict or Tutu's views on the Jewish history. Until there is a proof that he talked about Israeli apartheid, this quote should be considered an original research. For now, I am removing it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I just realized that the same Tutu quote already appears elsewhere in the article (and the second sentence isn't directly relevant to this piece).  CJCurrie 23:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was just one quote, and a direct one from one of anti-apartheid's greatest men, why can't it be referenced in 2 totally different sections?  Why was the header totally deleted?  I think it needs some beefing up and sourcing, that is something we could all work on?Kiyosaki 23:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I suggest that each of Kiyosaki's edits should be scrutinized because of that editor's glaring bias. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Collective persecution is an element of apartheid, by definition, as this article notes. As such, a section on this seems entirely appropriate to me. -- Kendrick7 00:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have gone over this many times, but first of all, even if you assume that referring to the situation as Collective punishment is appropriate, you really can't automatically say it is the same as apartheid since that word specifically applies to something in a entirely different culture and situation, the only reason people use the word is to appeal to emotions by reminding people of South Africa.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Humiliation, Collective Punishment, Home Demolitions, and Checkpoints

message: Initially, there was concern that the allegations where never made by credible individuals and thus there was a section created focusing on notable people who have made the comparison in one way or another to justify the existence of the article.  At this point, the section on notable people who have made the comparison is unnecessary since that fact is established -- notable people do make the claim.
Thus, from a readability standpoint and with a goal of reducing duplication, it would be best from my perspective to combine the "people who have used the term" section with the later "Israeli practices" section.  The fact that notable people make the claim should be understood as a given or else where would be no article.  The descriptions of who is making the claims should remain but they should be described at the same time their claims are listed in the appropriate subsections of the "Israeli practices" section.  --Deodar 03:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This change, since it reduces duplication, will also allow for shortening of the article, which is right now overly long.  --Deodar 03:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this makes sense. I also wonder if the alleged cited practices, and counter allegation shouldn't be listed first, rather that quotes from various luminaries who've mentioned such practices. I'd move sections 2 and 3 much further down myself -- Kendrick7 04:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Kendrick's idea makes a lot of sense. I'd like to expand more on what some of the individuals have said, and having the "practices" sections earlier would provide context. BTW Kendrick, I am much too tired from real life right now to reply on the ID card issue but I'll try to get to it this week. I think you might have misunderstood some of my earlier statements. I am not trying to be difficult. Peace, Kla'quot 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidation of "People who have used" with later "Israeli practices"? 

message: There's an article about the forced removal (an act of apartheid by the U.N. definition) of Jews from their land in the Occupied territories. It's not RS's, but I proposed it be merged in here. -- Kendrick7 04:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should stay as its own article.  That allegation is only part of that article.  Although we can include a mention of it here since it is related, but to merge it into this article would be a disservice to that article's topic since it would be obscured almost completely in this one.  --Deodar 04:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, now Israel is being accused of "apartheid" not only for what it does to Arabs, but also what it does to Jews?  Perhaps more to the point, Israel is being accused of "apartheid" because it is trying to clear land to give to the Palestinians?  Am I the only one who detects a certain "Alice in Wonderland" quality about this?  Or perhaps "Catch-22" is the better literary analogy:  No matter what Israel does, it is condemned.  My proposal for the "Evacuation" article is that all references to apartheid be removed, and it remain its own article.  6SJ7 12:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evacuation (Israeli politics) 

message: Before SV changes:
:"Allegations of Israeli apartheid state that Israeli policies toward West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens, violate international law against apartheid, Desmond Tutu http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm Tutu condemns Israeli apartheid Jonny Paul, Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 15, 2006, accessed October 21, 2006Jon Kerkon, Opinion: Levin must speak out against divestment, Yale Herald, November 21, 2002, accessed October 21, 2006 or compare the policies to the practices of the apartheid-era South African Government. Opponents state that the situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories lacks true parallels to South Africa-style apartheid, and point out the legal status of Israeli Arab citizens.  They cite security motives and allege that the use of the term is calculated to achieve political ends."
After SV changes:
:"Allegations of Israeli apartheid are based on a controversial analogy between Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel and the treatment of blacks in South Africa during Apartheid. Critics of the allegation argue that it is a factually inaccurate political epithet that is used to isolate Israel, and cite Israeli security needs for the practises that have prompted the analogy. Matas, David. Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, pp. 53-55."
After Ben and Kendrick changes:
:"Allegations of Israeli apartheid exist and are highly disputed. Some are based on a controversial analogy between Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the military occupied West Bank, and Gaza Strip and to a lesser extent Israeli Arabs and the treatment of blacks in South Africa during Apartheid. Others contend Israel has policies that violate international law against apartheid.Desmond Tutu http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm Tutu condemns Israeli apartheid Jonny Paul, Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 15, 2006, accessed October 21, 2006Jon Kerkon, Opinion: Levin must speak out against divestment, Yale Herald, November 21, 2002, accessed October 21, 2006 Some allegations focus on the current situation while others describe a possible future for the conflict.  Critics of the allegation argue that it is a factually inaccurate political epithet that is used to isolate Israel, and cite Israeli security needs for the practises that have prompted them. Matas, David. Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, pp. 53-55."
They are all fairly equivalent.  It might be useful to pull out the various points in that lead paragraph and discuss their comparative value seperately if we want to nail down a lead section.  It is important that the lead be a weighted summary of the article.  For more information we should refer to WP:LEAD.  I can see obvious areas where the precision of the current lead can be improved.  --Deodar 17:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Allegations of Israeli apartheid are based on a controversial analogy between Israel's treatment of Palestinians living in the West Bank, and Gaza Strip and to a lesser extent Israeli Arabs and the treatment of blacks in South Africa during Apartheid.  Some contend that Israel's currently policies violate international law against apartheidDesmond Tutu http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm Tutu condemns Israeli apartheid Jonny Paul, Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 15, 2006, accessed October 21, 2006Jon Kerkon, Opinion: Levin must speak out against divestment, Yale Herald, November 21, 2002, accessed October 21, 2006 while others bring up apartheid as a warning against a possible future for the conflict.Newsweek Interview with Jimmy Carter: "He Was Like a Brother to Me", Newsweek, accessed October 24 2006.  Critics of the allegation argue that it is a factually inaccurate political epithet, possibly anti-Semitic, that is used to isolate Israel, and cite Israeli security needs for the practices that have prompted them. Matas, David. Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, pp. 53-55."
--Deodar 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I kinda liked my version. At least the first sentence was nearly bulletproof. -- Kendrick7 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is highly disputed" tells the reader nothing at all.  Also, what's all this mania about the "militarily occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip"? Is that to distinguish it from the un-militarily occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip? The militarily unoccupied West Bank and Gaza Strip? Is there some reason West Bank and Gaza Strip isn't good enough, or is "militarily occupied" now part of the name of the place? Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your opinion on the final version above given above?  It does not contain "highly disputed" as well as the mention of "miliarily occupied".  --Deodar 22:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's pretty inaccurate. Almost none of the people making the allegation of Israeli apartheid assert that Israel is actually violating the "crime of apartheid"; they just use "apartheid" as a broad epithet. The group worried about a possible "future apartheid" condition is equally small. The key elements here is an accusation that Israel is discriminatory or racist in some way, and the epithet "apartheid" is used to allege that, because it's a cliché, and the strongest phrase many people know, aside from "Nazi", which they also use. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the vast majority are using it as an epithet - the ICJ's "Crime of Apartheid" is a little known footnote to all this. As for "South African anti-apartheid leaders", you have no idea how they feel about Israel, nor what expertise they have about Israel and its policies; I suspect little or none.  Who accused them of being racist? Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section before and after

message: The future trends section should be revived.  It is a key component of the article and should be retained.  --Deodar 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have revived most of the deleted sections.  We should discuss each of those on this talk page rather than just remove them wholesale without discussion.  --Deodar 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future possibility section needs to be revived 

message: Why did someone remove these?  They are perhaps the most important and relevant allegation of Israeli Apartheid that exist, and isn't that what this subject is about? Kiyosaki 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restore them then, and we can discuss them with the people that believe they should be removed.  --Deodar 18:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The quotes can be found in this version here .  I think that a history section (similar to the history section used in the New anti-Semitism article: New_anti-semitism#History) would be a good addition to the article -- it would replace the previous less robust "Introduction to the term" section that was removed.  Such a history section could also consolidate much of value in the "use of the analogy" section -- I think that section is not that valuable and overly long as I have described earlier and would eventually like to see its complete removal.  --Deodar 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't simply undo my copy edit. This article is very badly written (POV issues aside) and it needs that edit. Regarding the marriage section that has been restored, is there a source linking it to the allegation of apartheid? I looked through the sources offered but couldn't find it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The only names I deleted were those that were repeated. There is no need to keep on mentioning the same names. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Which Tutu material are you talking about? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You can build on my copy edit without undoing it. Please do that. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, he didn't undo your copy edit.  Rather I made a series of changes to it as I outlined above in my comments on the talk page.  I have tried to build upon it.  I think there is some confusion on the issue here.  Best.  Besides restoring a few of the deleted sections and the modifications to the lead, most of your changes have remained.  You should go through the edit history. --Deodar 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why were quotes and comments by Desmond Tutu deleted?

message: What is going on here?  Why are there mass reverts and changes being made that destroy the work of others?  Kiyosaki 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed you are correct. This article has been under massive WP:POV attack for a couple of days. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really has to stop. The article was in a terrible state. Kiyosaki, can you say whether you edit from other accounts, or have done recently? You seem to have arrived here as a single-issue editor bent on criticizing Israel. That's not what Wikipedia is about. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Which material from Tutu are you talking about exactly? I've asked you three times but can't get an answer. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My recommendation to you Kiyosaki is that we integrate the above quotes directly into the main content of the article.  Having them in their own standalone section isn't that useful anyways.  --Deodar 21:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that duplication is an issue with the article as per a few of my comments above.  We only need each persons position in there once.  --Deodar 21:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help!!  This article is under attack

message: Because of reverts, someone else needs to restore the Desmond Tutu stuff.  As of right now, there is no Desmond Tutu info in the article.Kiyosaki 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's slow down editing of the article for a bit.  Things are getting heated and there are a few persistent misunderstandings floating around.  Remember that the article was here yesterday, last week and last month, it will be here tomorrow, next week and next month.  Let's encourage a calming of the situation and the various accusations.  Just put the Tutu quote on your to do list for now.  I strongly recommend letting the article cool down.  --Deodar 21:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: my fault. I got tired of typing all those equal signs to resectionalize the article so I stomped Kiyosaki's changes. I would hope things slow down. I'm probably well on my way to my first WP:3RR violation as we speak. -- Kendrick7 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absolutely ridiculous. I asked Kiyosaki FOUR TIMES which Tutu material he was talking about and he wouldn't tell me, but kept reverting wholesale, supposedly to restore it. I removed it only because Tutu was already mentioned: but now it is back and he is mentioned twice again. Do not revert a copy edit wholesale in order to restore one paragraph. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he reverted you wholesale 3 times, warning you about 3RR. Then he started inserting just that paragraph, so apparently he knew how, but he suddenly couldn't understand what 3RR was or how it worked, no matter how many times it was explained. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've put it back, and I'm happy to put back (or anyone else can) anything else that looks like an inappropriate removal, but this wholesale reverting of a much-needed copy edit is out of order. This page isn't supposed to be a list of bad things Israel allegedly does. It is about who has compared Israel to South Africa and why, and it can be written succinctly and clearly without creating an article that consists of little but a list of alleged wrongdoing. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Desmond Tutu text

message: It's time for page protection and mediation.  This will allow us to avoid front on confrontations between what can seem sometimes like partisan blocks.  SlimVirgin, do you want to put together the request for mediation or should I?  --Deodar 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need. This has been caused by an aggressive single-issue editor who is probably a sockpuppet out to cause trouble. All we have to do is stick very, very closely to the three content policies, and try to write as clearly and neutrally as possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things got weird today.  I'm going to take a break.  Happy editing.  --Deodar 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very sensible. Same here. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation is the next step 

message: Could someone say which sources link these marriage issues to the allegation of apartheid? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was the book cited.  I appreciate you taking your concerns to the talk page -- it helps reduce the tension created by revert warring.  What do you think about mediation though in the long term now that interest in the subject has been renewed?  --Deodar 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you quote from the book regarding what it said about the marriage/apartheid issue? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the transportation issue can go in one of the other sections. We have to avoid the appearance of a pile-on here, and write in a succinct encyclopedic way. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, keep in mind this is from a longer section beginning on page 22, a part of which I added to the critical section (where the authors consider the label makes the Israel out to be a pariah) which somehow got blown away as well. I'll do my best, pardon the typos. 
An obvious difference between Israel proper and apartheid South Africa lies in the universal suffreage. It includes the 20 percent Palestinian Israeil citizens in Israel who have the right to vote for the Knesset. Hoever, if the Palestinian territories under more or less permanent Israeli occupation and settler presence are considered part of the entity under analysis, the comparison between a disenfranchised African population in apartheid South Africa and the three and a half million stateless Palestinians under Israeli domination gaims more validity. Most Israeli social scientiest treat the two territories as separate issues and thereby avoid draweing some uncomfortable conclusions.
Moreover, the Israeli Palestinas resemble in many ways the "Colored" and Indian South Africans. As targets of cooptation, they have been allowed to vote since 1983, albeit for separate parliaments, which held joint sittings with the exclusively white chamber as well. The toy parliaments of the minorities could never outvote their white creators and aquired little legitimacy and voter interest. While the more legitimate Arab parties sometimes hold the balance of power in a split Knesset, they also struggle with widespread apathy of their alienated constituents. Above all, both Israeli Palestians and Colored and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another enthic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorites as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their acces to land or allocated civil service position or per capita expenditure on education differently between dominant and minority citizens. Another example: A 2003 Israeli law forbids Israeli Palestinians newly married to non-Israeli Palestinians to live together in Israel.
Israel's immigration practices clearly parallel differential immigration entitlements under apartheid. South Africa encouraged and subsidized white immigration from any country. Nonwhite immigraiton was simply not allowed. Hoever, unlike the situation in Israel, security justifications were never used -- it was simple and pure racism. The ruling minority had to be strengthened and not "swamped" by more blakcs coming in, The closest parallel concerns the one million second- and third-generation Indian minority who customarily imported brides from India. Various linguistic, religious, and caste subgroups practiced traditional endogamy, which required the pool of potential partners to be larger than that available in South Africa. Apartheid outlawed this practice and cut the Indian community off from any contact with India becuase Indians were supposed to "go back" rather than come in. No exceptions were allowed. Adam, Heriber, Kogila Moodley (June 2005). Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians. UCL Press, 23. .
Ah... heck... turns out there a whole PDF here. Page 23 of this book is on page 15 of the PDF -- Kendrick7 06:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The only sentence I can see from the above about marriage is: "A 2003 Israeli law forbids Israeli Palestinians newly married to non-Israeli Palestinians to live together [sic] in Israel." That can't justify a whole section. Do you have other sources? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the section because it's original research. You have to find sources who discuss it in terms of the analogy that this article is about. There are many countries that have restrictive immigration and marriage policies that are perceived as unjust or racist; what we're discussing here is whether Israel's policies rise to the level of an analogy with Apartheid, according to reliable sources. I'm not saying you can't base a section on a sole source, but that source must have devoted more than one sentence to the topic. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph, in the course of a larger presentation of Israeli Apartheid analogies, gives three examples of ways "the Israeli Palestinas resemble in many ways the 'Colored' and Indian South Africans'. The final sentence is "Another example: a 2003 Israeli law forbids Israeli Palestinians newly married to non-Israeli Palestinians to live together in Israel." I'm confident I'll have no problem finding secondary sources also making the analogy, since the law, challenged as racist, did go all the way to the Israeli supreme court. However, these two authors, having moved from Apartheid South Africa, to Israel, because their marriage was illegal under Apartheid laws, seem uniquely qualified to make the assessment. Why do you believe more than one sentence would be required to convey this thought? -- Kendrick7talk 23:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, really. This google search alone returns 227,000 hits. I'm sure there are a few WP:RS's in there somewhere. Please let me know, at your leisure, how many sentences you would like. I expect I could even accomodate exact numbers of prepositional phrases, as needed.  -- Kendrick7talk 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be frustrating, I understand, but we should be careful not to make this about SlimVirgin -- thus this challenge to her isn't going to help matters.  Let's just find a few good sources and rewrite the section.  As long as the sources are good SlimVirgin won't complain since it is an objective criteria that has been meet.  We shouldn't assume that SlimVirgin is being unreasonable since it will just encourage more strife.  One source is admittedly a little weak for a section and I am sure we can do better.  --Deodar 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage section

message: Does anyone object to this as the last sentence in the lead?  I think it covers all the issues of the "opponents of the term" better than what is there now:
Opponents state that the situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories lacks true parallels to South Africa-style apartheid, and point out the legal status of Israeli Arab citizens. They cite security motives and allege that the use of the term is calculated to achieve political ends.Elizmr 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that, although I'd like to see two things remain: first, that it's used to "isolate" Israel, which is an expression many critics use, and secondly I like the expression that critics cite Israeli security needs "for the practises that have prompted the analogy," because it's important to acknowledge that the analogy doesn't come out of thin air. Just my opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points.  How's this?  
Opponents state that the situation in Israel and the PT lacks true parallels to SA-style apartheid.  The cite two main arguments.  First, Israeli security needs have led to the practices prompting the analogy.  Second, Arab Israelis have equal legal status to Jewish Israelis.  They allege that the use of the term is calculate to isolate Israel and to achieve political ends.  Elizmr 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Elizmr, the current lead is really succinct; do the proposed changes really add anything? The "pro" side doesn't really make a lot of arguments in the lead, so perhaps the "anti" side shouldn't either. We can't unbalance the lead in favor of the critics of the analogy, any more than we can in favor of the supporters. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I first wrote the additional stuff when there was a tiny criticism section at the end of the article so the balance seemed more necessary.  I don't feel strongly about it.  Elizmr 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I think if we can keep the lead short and very simple, it will help diffuse the inevitable POV-pushing. Of course, people will still try to push their own POV into the lead (as they are doing above: #Lead section before and after), but the justifications get pretty weak when the lead is as clear and simple as this. Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Tutu unquestionably belongs in the article. But no more than once like anyone else. Do you want him at the top or in the larger list. Personally, I think that there should be no names at the top, just groups. Names are in the list. Think I'll go and do that now and wait for the fallout  -- Avi 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His entry in the list below has much  more information and is not a duplication of the first mention so I restored it. Oh and please don't go round saying what other editors can and cannot have. Thankyou Arniep 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact is you removed Tutu from the introductory examples. It is not a duplication so I will put him back. Arniep 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have had the article protected. How convenient. Arniep 13:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides having nothing to do with reality, I am afraid your comment is both indicative of a lack of good faith as well as a personal attack. Please remember that civility is just as important as any other policy here in wikipedia. Also, I see you have not answered my point. It is fine to say that you thought I took it out from the large list when all I did was move it. Everyone makes mistakes, Lord knows I've done plenty of that here on wikipedia myself. But for you to maintain something that I have shown is completely factually inaccurate (through the diffs and screenshot) is a bit confusing to me. Ah well. Azoi gayt dos. -- Avi 14:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Arniep, your bad faith and incivility is astonishing. Your implication that Nishkid64 protected the article at the behest of Avi is one that I think you should apologize for immediately, to both Nishkid64 and Avi. Regarding article content, there doesn't seem to be any reason to have Tutu's identical views listed twice in the article. Please try to work towards improving the article, rather than simply warring with people you oppose. Jayjg (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You have to understand that Tutu thinks everything is "apartheid"; whether it's Tibet and China  , the British detention of terrorists , or Guantanmo , it's all "apartheid" according to Tutu. Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desmond Tutu take two to the two (that's four BTW) 

message: The Individuals section has fourteen bullet points, many of them saying similar things. This creates the impression of a pile-on and also makes the article seem repetitious. I propose summarizing similar  viewpoints in the form of "<list of names and roles> have made similar statements." I did this with the Examples section in Islamofascism a couple of months ago and it was not controversial at all. One thing that needs to come across better than it does now, however, is the spectrum of apartheid analogies. Some of the individuals use the analogy in a very limited way and it is a huge stretch to call them "proponents of the term." Some (including Tutu and Dugard, as far as I can tell) use the term for what is happening in the Occupied Territories, but not to describe the situation in Israel proper. Non-extreme positions are getting drowned out in this article. Kla'quot 06:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think it is important to be clear there are three groups of accusations: Israel proper and current (the most extreme), the occupied territories now (less extreme) and a specter for Israel/Palestine in the future (less extreme.)  Most credible mentions are in relation to the later two cases.  --Deodar 06:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've taken a shot at summarizing what was there. I agree that Palestinian/Arab views are conspicuously lacking. Kla'quot 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individuals section: Many similar quotes 

message: *(1) Something that is often missing from debates such as the one above is that articles, subjects, and biographies rooted primarily in current events or current affairs will never have high level literature to back it up until many years have passed by because it takes many years to gain perspective, research topics, and write on them with all due detachment, credibility, and objectivity as becomes true scholarship unlike quickie treatises and a "best seller" mentality aimed at scoring points and not caring about the values of calm objective writing. More conservative writers and researchers produce at a slower rate and then have to battle the inherent prejudices of POV left-wing academics with unhidden agendas of their own. It is not easy for the facts and truth to make themselves known let alone to triumph. 
*(2) That in turn opens up the door to journalists, self-appointed pontificators and pundits, the media or blogs and the like, in all their forms and incarnations, to become "sources" for the topic at hand. 
*(3) As we all know, the international media is mostly left-wing and highly biased against and critical of Israel and too often is quite happy to join in and serve as the soap-box for anti-Zionist politicians and talking heads so that if:
**(i) a journalist with an over-active flair for writing, or 
**(ii) an academic with an axe to grind in search of a new "academic" label or slogan to make a point, or 
**(iii) a creative preacher cooks up a new term in the course of a well-received polemical sermon, 
*(4) The end result is some dumb phrase like: "ban the bomb" or "burn the bra" or "make love not war" or "hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today" or "I have a dream" or "better red than dead" or "what, me worry?" 
*(5) Now from the same folks comes "Israeli apartheid" - and guess what? it has about the same academic significance or verifiability as "Yankees go home" or "yellow peril" and similar trashy slogans for the masses - all being plain and simple propaganda &  political slogans, (see also slogans) - or worse, like hatemongering or incitement with potentially fatal consequences for Jews and Israelis and ultimately for the world because when Jews are named as "villains" in questions relating to international politics, then those same hatemongers and inciters will not rest until all their "enemies" are similarly "tarred and feathered" and gone to war with. When was the last time someone who targeted Jews ultimately turned out to be a benefit to mankind? Hitler started with Jews and in the end took on the world. Islamists started with hate against Jews and now they fight the world. It just never ends with the Jews...all with deadly consequences for mankind.
*(6) Mandela and Tutu have no love for Israel and they are not regarded by anyone as scholars about Israel, its policies, or about the Middle East. 
*(7) Pogrund is a known rabid left-wing journalist, he is not NPOV about Israel. 
*(8) No-one knows what Tutu said about Communism and about Mandela's life-long love and alliance with it, and the fact that until this day the South African ANC is amalgamated with the South African Communist Party, and lets face it, the communists of the world commited more crimes against humanity than anything that happened under apartheid. 
*(9) So it could well be that the wish to foist the notion of "Israeli apratheid" is just another "communist plot" like so many others, "Workers of the world unite," "Imperialist pigs," "Capitalist dogs,"  and "Religion is the oppiate of the masses" etc...
*(10) So now are Mandela and Tutu and their ilk going to be the "gold standard" judging Israel's acts? Hmmm, that is like asking the foxes and wolves of the world (i.e. the anti-Semites) to tell us what the sheep (the Jews and Israelis) are or should or could be doing to themselves or others. 
Therefore, the notion of "Israeli apartheid" in its present incarnation is totally false and artificially fabricated (in a low credibility environment, to say the least) because it was coined by the enemies of Israel (= anti-Semites) and it should be given as much credibility as any similar anti-Semitic slogan or name-calling that came from Der Stürmer in the 1930s when Fascism was in vogue among the gentiles of the world. Shame on those who attribute any credibility on the reprehensible anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic slur that "Israeli apartheid" has proven itself to be. IZAK 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While taking exception to right-wing agendas like the one above, I have to agree with IZAK that anti-semitism is inappropriate as an encyclopaedic editing principle. Best regards from a someone “left-wing” (by US standards, anyway) who realises that totalitarianism-based racism rages in various parts of the political landscape and wishes that more people would care about the real problems this world is going through instead of raging against this or that little group of people or tiny patch of land... -- Olve 16:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Olve, your points are well-put and appreciated, but since when is standing up for Israel and the basic peacefull policies Zionism has followed over the last century equal to "totalitarianism-based racism" ? Israel is by definition a "tiny country" - a sliver - you cannot be flippant here, it's serious, they want to wipe it off the map (or doesn't that register?) , and now it must also suffer humiliation merely because it dares to exist as a Jewish state. In any case, the Arabs have had many chances to accept Israel's right to exist and live in peace. They almost always have chosen war. Egypy and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel and the borders with them are quiet now for a long time, Israel does not hurt them, on the contrary, it helps. The Palestinians on the other hand have chosen to become "heroes" by blowing themselves up to achieve their goals. If they like it (suicide bombing) so much why don't they buy suicide belts for all their citizens and kill themselves (like in monopoly, they can skip the steps of owning all of Palestine and go straight to paradise instead) - it's what they believe in, right? These are sick people not worth anyone's (even academic) sympathy, so why does anyone think they are "normal people" worth justifying? What don't I (or you?) get? And it is in order to defend itself that Israel is now accused of practicing "Israeli apartheid", is that retarded or what - if I want to keep killers off my property and build a fence or arm myself against literal Islamic Kamikazes am I in the wrong? IZAK 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah — I see I not express myself clearly enough: My point is that either deep end can be too deep. I agree with you that some left-wing people are falling off the deep end in this particular area. My point is that that is not a problem of being “left-wing” or “right-wing”, but one of being "totalitarianism-based racist" or not. My point is that a lot of people on the left believe that they have a licence to bash Jews because they aren’t right-wing and therefore by definition cannot be racist, anti-semitic or the like. Many right-wing people are equally anti-semitic. Some right-wing Jews are quite racist. (Jews are remarkably like other people there...) In all these cases, political extremism leads to a lack of perspective. Politics cannot be expressed in left/right only — the degree of totalitarianism and racism is/are an independent axis/axes. -- Olve 17:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for the record — since you seem to have misunderstood me there — I believe that the current medinat Yisrael is a country with good and bad sides; a country which has nothing like the institutionalised racism seen a bit too recently in South Africa or USA. Israel does of course have plenty of racism, like most other countries inthe world. This racism can be found amongst Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. There is nothing unique — or even noteworthy — about that, as far as I am concerned. -- Olve 18:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed yes. The antiArabism of Israeli Jews reminds me of parts of the US (not all in the South) vis a vis black and white relations; legally unsanctioned but socially acceptable prejudice, based on "profiling" of common experiences with "bad apples". A complicated situation, fed by the unfortunate conjunction of citizenship, race, and religion in the wars. Gzuckier 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
If IZAK is seriously calling "I have a dream" dumb then I feel sorry for him. Truly. 
Back to the matter at hand. IZAK seems to think that the only people who have any right to an opinion on Israel are Israel's supporters and that all other opinions should be dismissed no matter who makes them, what degrees they have, what experience they have, or where they publish them. This principle is an excellent one as far as Israel's government is concerned but it's not a very good one for an encyclopedia to follow. 67.71.179.227 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please avoid personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: IZAK, this is not a political battleground- please assume good faith. Arniep 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, try telling that to the anti-Israel crowd. IZAK 00:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current events as material for encyclopedias, and avoiding the trap of anti-Semitic slogans

message: Much of the confusion surrounding this article comes from the title. The title was chosen because Israeli apartheid was an regarded as allegation, not so that the article could become strictly a listing of "notable people" who made "allegations of Israeli apartheid". In retrospect, it's now clear the title is confusing. A better title would be Alleged Israeli apartheid. -- Kendrick7 20:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what point you are making; that seems to be a distinction without a difference. Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... yeah, I guess that's true. -- Kendrick7 23:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations 

message: OK, should we go back to the page before the edit of (9:54 24 October 2006)  and start anew?  Thanks.Kiyosaki 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not going to undo the copy edit. We're going to edit from that version and turn this page into something Wikipedia doesn't have to be ashamed of, using the strongest arguments and best sources on each side, and sticking very, very closely to the three content policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course not. The current version is the best it's ever been, though that's not saying much. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with SlimVirgin and Jayjg that we should start from where we currently are.  Revert wars are to be avoided.  Let's move slowly and in a controlled fashion.  Let's talk about major changes on the talk page first.  Just because we start at this point, doesn't mean we have to stay at this point.  Wikipedia is a dynamic place.  --Deodar 19:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, I didn't think it was all that bad. But the sooner we start, the sooner we finish. -- Kendrick7 20:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've put in a page unprotect request. -- Kendrick7 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest we try a sandbox first.  Since there are still a lot of accusations being thrown around.  A sandbox let's us make progress without the stakes being as high (we are not editing the main public page), thus it reduces the emotions involved.  --Deodar 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With Carter's book coming out in 19 days, I'd rather see this public, because there's a good potential of new editors arriving. All heck is going to break loose anyway, might as well use this a flypaper to improve wikipedia overall. -- Kendrick7 22:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go with the consensus.  What do others here on this page think?  (Also, if Carter's book does cause a lot of discussion, it should have its own article.)  --Deodar 22:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If that is the case, I would suggest sticking with the sandbox even further because some people might get back from Shabbat and be unhappy with the sandbox article state and it would be the wrong time to unlock the main article just in time to have a big fight.  Also going forward, it is best to discuss changes to the sandbox as if they were the main page.  --Deodar 23:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Elizmr 00:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I'd prefer unprotect to sandbox; presumably we're all adults here.  But my main point in responding is to warn about the perceptions engendered by making allowances for Shabbat -- it's understandable of course, but some editors on the "other side" might see it as favoritism and it might open up a can of worms that will effect future contentious edit situations.  What do you think would happen if you unlocked it now and respectfully asked editors on the other side to refrain from radical changes for a couple of days?  This doesn't have to be for Shabbat, or any other reason other than the fact that, to use a medical analogy, it's not a good idea to get out of bed and start running around as soon as you wake up from a coma.  If everybody shows more good faith, there will be more good faith.  Right? Dasondas 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course, but there has been a rather bad run of bad faith here, hasn't there?  About the issue of favoritism, I don't agree with you.  This is just a group of people deciding what to do about a project we are cooperatively involved in.  I think it is nice to be sensitive to the cultural issues of all the various stakeholders as they occur in any situation.  In this case I happen to have brought up the Jewish editors because it is now Shabbat, but I'm sure the Jewish editors would more than welcome the opportunity to show reciprocity and be sensitive to the cultural needs of the Muslim, Christian, Atheist, etc editors on another occassion.  Just my opinion which i threw out for consideration. Elizmr 01:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, there has been a rather bad run of bad faith here.  What better way to stop the run than by a magnanimous act of good faith?  However, the risks are large (I know), and you are probably right that one or two bad apples will come along and get everybody upset again.  But on the other hand if this thing is really going to just become a bloody edit battlefield again as soon as the lock is off, does it really matter if it starts two days earlier rather than two days later?  Consensus here will never be unanimous; it's just not in the nature of the thing.  What we should be trying to do, IMO,  is create whatever kind of middle we can, however fragile it may be.  Thus my suggestion above.  But it was only a suggestion; I don't have strong feelings about process at this point.  My feelings about content are more defined, and one or two days either way doesn't make much difference to me on that score.  Dasondas 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid/Sandbox
Best.  --Deodar 22:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think your, Kendrick7, edits to the sandbox article are good.  --Deodar 05:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh... I know I've messed the first section up. But, when I noticed, as in the current real-article revision, that the first individual mentioned was the infamous David Duke, I wasn't sure exactly where to stop cutting and pasting. Since it is just a sandbox, I hope I won't be accused of WP:POINT. But I'm just doing janitorial stuff now. Hopefully we all can think of some way of stringing two sentences together without it being WP:OR and give the reader some summation idea of the concept at hand. -- Kendrick7 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I think I'm done. The "use of the term" section worked out OK after all. -- Kendrick7 22:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kendrick7, I think that many of the organizational changes and some of the contextual edits in the Sandbox are good improvements over the existing article and are at least one potential way out of the morass.  I hope that the previously-involved editors at least take a look at your conception and perhaps offer commentary.  One area that might prove contentious, however, is this section quoted from Adam: Jewish nationalism (Zionism) "falsely assumes that anti-Semitism is an irreducible part of Gentile society"[5] and thus "only an exclusive Jewish state could guarantee Jewish rights."[5] Among the Jewish diaspora is an "uncritical ethnic solidarity that falsely equates critiquing the government [of Israel] with denying Israel's right to exist" or with anti-semitism.[2]  The source, as far as I can tell from a distance, seems fine, but those assertions are open to strong rebuttal and I have no doubt that they would be vigorously counter-argued in the article.  Since the article is contentious enough without opening up new editing battlegrounds over the philosophies of Zionism and the organic nature of diaspora Jewry, I (softly and respectfully) ask that you consider whether those quotes are the best ones to use from the source you have chosen.  Dasondas 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The more the merrier.  I've tried to encourage participation from as many people as possible.  Feel free to join in Jayjg.  I also realized that this was a risk and I mentioned it to Kendrick7 a couple days ago -- you can read that warning of mine here .  --Deodar 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, feel free to jump in. -- Kendrick7talk 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to get things back on track

message: I started a sandbox here that people can start to edit.  If it goes well we can unlock the main article and replace it with the sandbox and continue refining it:
:Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid/Sandbox
Best.  --Deodar 22:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your, Kendrick7, edits to the sandbox article are good.  --Deodar 05:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh... I know I've messed the first section up. But, when I noticed, as in the current real-article revision, that the first individual mentioned was the infamous David Duke, I wasn't sure exactly where to stop cutting and pasting. Since it is just a sandbox, I hope I won't be accused of WP:POINT. But I'm just doing janitorial stuff now. Hopefully we all can think of some way of stringing two sentences together without it being WP:OR and give the reader some summation idea of the concept at hand. -- Kendrick7 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I think I'm done. The "use of the term" section worked out OK after all. -- Kendrick7 22:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kendrick7, I think that many of the organizational changes and some of the contextual edits in the Sandbox are good improvements over the existing article and are at least one potential way out of the morass.  I hope that the previously-involved editors at least take a look at your conception and perhaps offer commentary.  One area that might prove contentious, however, is this section quoted from Adam: Jewish nationalism (Zionism) "falsely assumes that anti-Semitism is an irreducible part of Gentile society"[5] and thus "only an exclusive Jewish state could guarantee Jewish rights."[5] Among the Jewish diaspora is an "uncritical ethnic solidarity that falsely equates critiquing the government [of Israel] with denying Israel's right to exist" or with anti-semitism.[2]  The source, as far as I can tell from a distance, seems fine, but those assertions are open to strong rebuttal and I have no doubt that they would be vigorously counter-argued in the article.  Since the article is contentious enough without opening up new editing battlegrounds over the philosophies of Zionism and the organic nature of diaspora Jewry, I (softly and respectfully) ask that you consider whether those quotes are the best ones to use from the source you have chosen.  Dasondas 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The more the merrier.  I've tried to encourage participation from as many people as possible.  Feel free to join in Jayjg.  I also realized that this was a risk and I mentioned it to Kendrick7 a couple days ago -- you can read that warning of mine here .  --Deodar 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, feel free to jump in. -- Kendrick7talk 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox

message: Would it make more sense for unfamiliar readers to say say "Israel's treatment of Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza" or something like that? Gaza is currently mentioned eight times in the article. -- Kendrick7 02:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaza is no longer under Israeli control. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two aspects.  The first is that the article isn't about current accusations but rather the parallel in general and thus in that sense, since much of the material was written prior to the disengagement it is still applicable to inclusion in the article if it meets RS and V.  The second, is the mention of bantustans as pointed out by the Palestinian PM that who was quoted to that effect in the referenced Haaretz article in the context of the disengagement -- something that meets clearly with the WP:Attribution proposed guidelines.  As SlimVirgin is found of saying, we are trying to document reputable opinions to create an encyclopedia worthy article, not argue here whether it is/was/could be a parallel to apartheid or not -- our own personal opinions as to the arguments made by the RS and V and notable people should not be that relevant.  --Deodar 04:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't understand what the awkward phrase "Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza" could possibly add to the article. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The wording could be improved, but if Gaza is a significant aspect of apartheid allegations, it should be mentioned in the introduction. If the allegations don't make sense to us, that's not a reason to downplay them. Kla'quot 06:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead: What about Gaza? 

message: User:Gehockteh leber is obviously HOTR, up to his old tricks again, disrupting any possibility of reasonable discussion. I thought he wasn't allowed to use sockpuppets?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is not the appropriate forum for this dispute with this editor. Please take it elsewhere. --Deodar 00:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually so far as it affecting this article this is an acceptable place to bring up such a matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation is summarized on the AN/I noticeboard. Kla'quot 03:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it be effecting a locked article he's never edited? Even User:Gehockteh leber's edits in the sandbox are fairly innocous, IMHO. -- Kendrick7 05:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but his deliberate attempts to stir up conflict on the talk page are far from benign, in fact like HOTR's previous edits, they reak of malice.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you are casting aspersions or who User:HOTR is. -- Kendrick7talk 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a huge history behind this. The bottom line is that HOTR caused disruption and damage.  There was an arbcom case which he eluded by "leaving" Wikipedia.  If he is back editing, which he promised not to do, it will chase away reasonable editors, and you can expect this article to degrade into a time waster for everyone who remains involved with it.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict; I do not disagree with anything MPerel said, I am just providing a different take on it)  Kendrick, I do not want to inflame the controversy any more than it already is, so I will just say this:  HOTR (aka Homey) is the person who started this article.  Read any of the 14 archived talk pages linked above and you will see the scope and nature of his involvement with this article.  (It is not a complete coincidence that there are about 13.5 archived pages for this talk page from May 29 (when the article was created) to July 17 (when Homey made his last edit to the talk page, at least under that name), and about 1.5 pages since then.  Or looked at another way, this page was archived 13 times in the less than two months that he was involved, and only once in the more than three months since.  I know some people are into statistics here, so I just thought I'd provide some.)  Another point of note is that the current "protection" of this article is nothing new, in fact I believe this article was protected for the majority of the first month of its existence.  In any event, Homey's actions have, and I think I can say this without causing too much controversy, been very controversial -- meaning that he has both his supporters and those who feel that he acted inappropriately (which would include me.)  The circumstances under which he stopped editing under that name remain somewhat mysterious, but there are numerous pages around discussing his activities under other names.  I seem to recall an edit war between one of his alter-egos and other editors regarding his user page(s) after he left.  His future status on Wikipedia currently is the subject of "negotiations," or so I have read elsewhere.  That probably does not completely answer your question, but I am not sure how to do that without starting a pointless debate.  6SJ7 20:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, all. I don't suffer trolls gladly. Having been around since before Eternal September, I am wise to the tricks of the trade, not that I haven't gotten trolled even here. But they are experts at causing endless debate, which when I enjoyed that past time, I did on an internet debate forum. I prefer the focus here to be on editing, so, let's just not cause a flame war. -- Kendrick7talk 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to go over every single one of his edits, and I really can't think of a single appropriate reason of why you would even ask such question.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be taking that comment to mean 'which one of Homey's edits don't you like?', whereas it would seem more likely to mean 'which one of Gehockteh leber's edits don't you like?', which would seem a reasonable question given you just accused them of being an obvious sockpuppet disrupting discussion, and with edits that reek of malice. --Coroebus 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOTR is making trouble again 

message: While there was a lot of fighting on this talk page, the editing of the sandbox had gone well for the past 4 days with 8 separate contributors.  The key to unprotection of a page is not the creation of the final perfect article or polite talk page discussion but rather a return to harmonious editing of the article.  That has been clearly achieved.  I have copied the current sandbox to the main article and hopefully we can all get along going forward.  --Deodar 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deodar, just out of curiosity, could you reference the basis in either policy or precedent that suggested a complete blanking of the previous article in favor of an entirely newly-drafted version for which there hasn't yet emerged a consensus?  Fwiw, I have tried to be conciliatory by reaching out on a few occasions to folks here with other POVs, offering praise and some constructive suggestions for improvement but I have for the most part been met with stony silence which my best efforts at AGF have led me to conclude are complete indifference to my own thoughts on the article.  You did invite me to participate in the sandbox, and I gave valid reasons for which I didn't thing it appropriate at the time.  This should not have been taken as my endorsement that the results of that experiment be imposed by fiat on the article proper.   Borderline incivil, IMO, and not at all conducive to fostering the "harmonious editing" to which you refer above.  Dasondas 17:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fine with either way Dasondas.  Wikipedia is great in that we can all edit articles and articles themselves are dynamic.  I was also very aware that some individuals were not participating and the longer it went on the more time could be wasted by those that were  -- that's why I decided it was time to unlock the article.  I also agreed with your suggestions we talked about earlier Dasondas and still do!  :-) --Deodar 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for a precedent.  A page that many of us (me, SlimVirgin, HOTR, and Elizmr) were contributors to was Juan Cole.  The page was protected because of an edit war.  During that period of protection, a bunch of us then started a series of sandboxes here: Juan_Cole/sandbox and Juan_Cole/sandbox/1.  After the page was unprotected I replaced the main contentious page with the latest sandbox (see this edit  where my edit summary ironically was "replaced stub with Juan_Cole/sandbox/1, please don't shoot me.") and we continued from there.  But what has worked in the past won't necessarily work on this article and there was little buy-in on the sandbox idea on this page, which is likely the key difference between previous successful sandbox attempts and this one.  --Deodar 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've returned the article to the version when it was protected. Not everyone wanted to take part in editing the fork, so it's not representative, and there is some odd writing in it, beginning with the first sentence. Please build up this version so that people can object to the sandbox edits as they are made, rather than having to evaluate them all at once. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with SV here. There's been some good work in the sandbox, but new problems added as well. There are way too many quotes in here that are asserted instead of being presented as part of a debate. Kla'quot 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. I'd rather have other editors feedback, and the sandbox was disorganized. I'll slowly attempt bring in the sourced material added to the sandbox over the next few weeks. -- Kendrick7talk 17:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Unprotected