Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 16

grammar in lead
I've rewritten the first sentence. An analogy is drawn from one subject to another. (You could say "between" for a two way analogy, but I don't think anyone is saying South Africa reminds them of Israel.) The grammar of the second sentence is still wrong: 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. There are multiple allegations, per article title. Can a set of allegations be an epithet? I vaguely know what this is trying to say, and tried to reword it thus in the sandbox: The allegations' critics counterclaim that the allegations are factually inaccurate, and that applying the term "apartheid" is political slander intending to isolate Israel, and cite Israeli security needs for the practises that have prompted the analogy. -- Kendrick7talk 18:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, it's better now. -- Kendrick7talk
 * Thanks for the corrections. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, btw, that you can criticize an allegation, though you can certainly criticize the accuracy and meaningfulness of an analogy. To be very precise, someone might reject the allegation and criticize or dispute the analogy. I'll wait for feedback before I seek to make this change. --Leifern 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a logical change. --Deodar 20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

) -- Kendrick7talk 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * Take a look at the first citation now. See how much more information is available? ANd the vertical style separates the cite from the text. -- Avi 04:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The templates make the text almost impossible to edit for flow, and so we end up with bad writing, that's the problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
There has been a serious misuse of source material here, which is worth pointing out.

Kendrick added Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley as sources in the sandbox. They are good sources, working in relevant disciplines in mainstream universities. They said three things that are very important for our article: (1) that the majority of commentators on this issue deplore the use of the term "Israeli apartheid"; (2) that the proponents are mostly Palestinians, Third World academics, and some Jewish post-Zionists; and (3) that there are other commentators who see both similarities and differences.

That was the order in which the sources listed the commentators, and that was therefore the order in which we had to list them.

First, Kendrick added this in the correct order, but omitted the most important point, namely that "the majority" of commentators deplore the use of the term. He simply added that opponents deplore its use.

Then, Kiyosaki switched the order so that the first thing we claimed the sources said was that proponents of the term say X, and opponents say Y, as though they were both equal and the order didn't matter (and if it didn't matter, why switch it?). 

Proponents come before the Critics, unless you have the POV that supports critics, it would make sense then that you support putting the "critics" before the horse itself. Please show some good faith, Slim.Kiyosaki 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither editor named the sources or said who they were.

This is the kind of editing that can't be allowed to continue. We must use good sources and we must stick closely to what they say. We must also name them and say where they are (which university) so that the reader knows why we're using them as sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was attempting to adhere to WP:AWW in my paraphrase, and I put the reference citation immediately prior to the list, which I believed to be a valid style of referencing. (Were you not quoting, the referencing style you are using seems to apply to only the third element). I also had a fourth element, from the source, which mentioned its political use which was removed, but I had thought to be appropriate.-- Kendrick7talk 04:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You egregiously abused your source and WP:NPOV, both by omitting who holds which viewpoint, and by omitting what the majority view is. This was deliberate, and gave the paragraph a clearly different meaning than the authors intended. You also abused your source by failing to attribute to them. This was also deliberate, since you removed their names when they were added. Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kendrick, two questions: First, how were you avoiding weasel words by not properly representing what the sources said? And secondly, given that NPOV tells us we must identify the majority view, and given that these apparently authoritative academic sources (thank you for finding them) told us that the majority view is to deplore the use of the term, why did you leave that part out? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I made an error in judgement. I will be more careful next time. -- Kendrick7talk 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not sure what you mean, "half the notables in this early paragraph should be people/groups clearly holding such a view". Can you explain? Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't worry. I'll figure it out. -- Kendrick7talk 03:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved the anti-semites down the page to where their examples, as anti-Semites who use the term, are relevant. Without context, citing them is a violation of WP:RS: "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources." -- Kendrick7talk 22:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved them back up to where they belong; they will not be hived off into some separate bantustan. Reliable sources really doesn't apply in the way you think, since we are merely providing examples of people using the term, not stating their beliefs have any merit. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Focus on the key points
Unless I'm misreading all of the sources in the "Use of the term" section, I believe mainstream Israeli apartheid allegations are overwhelmingly focused on 1) Living conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank, including the effects of the separation barrier 2) Living conditions for Palestinians in the Gaza strip before 2005, and possibly 3) Return/citizenship for Palestinian refugees. I figure something like 90% of apartheid allegations exist to bring attention to these themes, and most of that 90% is about the West Bank. Is this a fair description of what the main themes are?

I'm bringing this up because there's an odd amount of attention, by some contributors, on themes that are way out on the fringes of the Israeli apartheid debate, such as kibbutz membership and marriage laws. Although there may be some sources that can tie those issues to apartheid allegations, the article should devote space proportionally to the key, mainstream issues. Small minority viewpoints should either be summarized in a few sentences or not mentioned at all. The main themes should be expanded.

I'd like to stress that giving a proportional amount of space to the central issues is not some kind of pro-Israel censorship. Most experienced activists are careful to pick the key messages that they want heard, and avoid giving laundry-lists of complaints. They are also careful to target criticism at specific, serious problems that they want to see fixed, instead of finding every possible way to argue that Israel practices apartheid. We would be doing them a favour if we reflected that emphasis here. Kla'quot 07:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a very good argument for consolidation. I would support it if we add one more point. There has been one point that has been lost in the current version, and that is the exclusion of the Palestinians from the electoral system of Israel while at the same time not giving them true sovereignty over their own affairs (eg. they are powerless to stop the growth of settlements outside of the green line and so on.) This is combined with the fact that Israel does not want the Palestinians to become Israeli citizens because of the "demographic threat" they pose. Thus Palestinian Arabs are not considered Israelis but also there is no Palestine state -- thus they are caught in a fairly powerless and vague no-mans land very similar to how black South Africans were put into Bantustans (read this article!) The spectre of apartheid is related to the thought that there might never be a Palestinian state or that it will be an inoperable state that exists haphazardly between Israeli settlement blocks -- that is reflected in many of the quotes in this now deleted section: . If we reflect this point as well, then I would completely support the consolidation. --Deodar 08:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say 90% percent of the allegations deal only with the so-called "Apartheid Wall" and there is already an article for that. One of the main (non-ad hominem) arguments against the analogy is that Israel treats Arabs equally when they are considered citizens. So, naturally, thoughtful proponents of the term do proactively mention one or more ways in which they perceive Israeli practices actually undermining Arab-Jew citizen equality. Failing to note those perceptions would in large part hand over the debate to critics of the term. Unfortunately, there is an odd amount of demand for multiple reliable sources to be quoted at length for such any such arguments, and that's only fair, but such demands are going to require more than a sentence or two to fill. -- Kendrick7talk 08:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * THE KEY POINTS are roughly as follows - and I don't think anyone has presented them:
 * Are Israelis attempting to operate separate communities, a different school system etc - "Separate Development" per the South African model?
 * Does officialdom issue identity papers that identify the "community" to which citizens belong?
 * Is there a feeling of 1st class and 2nd class citizenship?
 * Does one community live substantially better than the other?
 * Israel is clearly not operating in the same fashion as did South Africa, nor is it acting for the same reasons.
 * But if Israelis fail to tell us what name they'd like for their system - then people will use the word that they think best fits the case - and "apartheid" may suit.
 * PalestineRemembered 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the key points are what do notable sources say about the matter? Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

majority view that term is without merit
I'm going to reorganize the article based on the three bulleted views of Mr. and Mrs. Adam. (It's a trap!!). ::sigh:: No really, I believe this makes sense to present the majority view first. -- Kendrick7talk


 * Good idea :) Kla'quot 09:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I think the lead is POV and needs to be worked on and improved.Kiyosaki 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why, then, did you do the opposite, adding even more POV, and making it worse? Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam quote fragment out of context
I pulled this line
 * "Various other political actors also use the South-African analogy self-servingly in their exhortations and rationalizations."

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

Crime of apartheid again
I've removed this section to talk: Since the practice of apartheid is banned as the crime of apartheid under international law, the accusation has a legal dimension, which is highlighted specifically by users of term such as Organization of Islamic Conference, the September 2006 International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People , and LAW-The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment Again, this asserts (non-factually) that the practice of apartheid is banned as a crime under international law. International law consists of those agreements accepted by treaty or by custom; the "crime of aparthied" does not qualify under either. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The crime of apartheid is part of the crimes against humanity section of the treaty known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It has only been ratified by 102 states so far - full details on states party to the treaty are available in this article State_Parties_of_the_International_Criminal_Court. It is part of international law, but international law itself is a more gray area in some regards than many people are aware of. --Deodar 17:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

At best the law applies to less than half of humanity, so it's hardly part of customary international law. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be hard to find a citation from an RS for this which can be included in the article to allow us to portray the debate accurately. --Deodar 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In a way, I view the ICC as sort of like the World Intellectual Property Organization. Some people buy into it and others don't. It doesn't mean it is completely invalid but it does mean it is impossible to enforce in certain areas. --Deodar 17:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

When Homey was editing this and related articles, he did his darnedest to find a RS stating that the "Crime of Apartheid" was part of international law, but was unsuccessful. I didn't find anything either. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I guess I am confused. I think it is appropriate to include the mention of crime of apartheid as many have and many others have counted that allegation. It's not necessary to specifically say it is part of international law -- making that connection is a distraction. We should say that it is part of the Rome Statute of the ICC and link to that and be done with it. We should also include arguments about how it isn't relevant / doesn't apply because of what you earlier expressed -- I know there are some Yale newspaper articles to that effect that used to be cited in the article. Anyways, got to run. --Deodar 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The crime of apartheid (no quotes, thank you) was not only banned by UN convention, but recognized as a crime against humanity in the convention, and further recognized as such by the International Criminal Court. Despite non-universal adherence to the Convention. Crimes against humanity are, since their first articulation, the paradigmatic cases of jus cogens and universal jurisdiction under international law. South Africa applied the convention's acknowledgment of apartheid as a crime against humanity in demanding reparation from its former rulers, despite their non-adherence.
 * Aside from this, please desist from blanking whole sentences when you disagree with one term. For example, you might have replaced "under international law" with "by international convention." Be constructive, please.--Carwil 17:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "By international convention" is the same as "under international law", and neither is accurate. I removed the contentious and erroneous material to the Talk: page, which is exactly what one is supposed to do. You, on the other hand, initially reverted without addressing any of the issues in Talk:, which is completely un-constructive. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The shift into customary international of the crime of apartheid is smoothed by the crime against humanity distinction. For details consider


 * The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (who cite it as crime against humanity to claim universal jurisdiction on 594, 595 )
 * Human Rights Watch's more qualified conclusion would nonetheless apply here as the stronger elements (murder and torture: "The Apartheid Convention has been criticized for criminalizing without distinction gross abuses, such as murder or torture of a racial group, and "measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country," whose content is much more vague and could include relatively minor abuses (Art. 2). Its status as part of customary law in all its parts is therefore contestable.") are involved in the accusatians.
 * The UN-organized International Seminar on the Legal Status of the Apartheid Regime and Other Aspects of the Struggle against Apartheid
 * The adoption by the General Assembly of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid in 1973 - now ratified by almost 80 States - must be seen in the context of numerous resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council which have declared apartheid a crime against humanity. The Convention associates the crime with a serious threat to international peace and security and imposes international criminal responsibility on all those who commit the crime of apartheid and their accomplices. The Convention confers jurisdiction to all States parties to try persons guilty of the crime of apartheid or those who aid and abet its commission.


 * On the CAH-Customary International Law overlap see the ICRC:
 * “Crime against humanity” means — in a comprehensive definition — an act “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack” (Article 7) [34]. It belongs to general, customary international law and it has been defined in several instruments subsequent to the Nuremberg Charter and its Article 6.
 * The lastest "subsequent instrument" is of course the Rome Statute, explicitly including apartheid.--Carwil 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute -- a distinction it shares with a number of other nations, including the U.S. and also including every Middle Eastern nation except Jordan. Some people don't like it when that fact is pointed out. A few months ago, I edited the article on the Rome Statute to include these facts about Israel and the other Middle Eastern nations, but it was quickly removed, and I didn't want to get into a "thing" over it. The claim was that Israel's non-signing is irrelevant. I believe it is very relevant, in fact I think the whole reason there is a "Crime of Apartheid" article is to imply that Israel is guilty of the crime, which is why references to it keep popping up in this article. The whole "crime of apartheid" thing is irrelevant to Israel and shouldn't be mentioned in this article. Israel has not been charged with such a crime, and cannot be. 6SJ7 18:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to that logic, how was Saddam Hussein just convicted of crimes against humanity? -- Kendrick7talk 19:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the No original research policy? Your novel thesis is interesting, but you would need to find a reliable source that actually stated that the "Crime of Apartheid" is part of customary international law. No Western state is a party to the Convention Against Apartheid, and even legal experts like Cassese, who would very much like the "Crime of Apartheid" to be part of customary international law, concede that it is certainly not so yet, though the Rome Statue might gradually make it so. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I still hold that RS say apartheid is a CAH and therefore banned under CIL (see above), it turns out that Israel is a state party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which includes article 3:
 * States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction. (emphasis mine)
 * And before we have an argument about the applicability of 'racial discrimination, let me quote the convention, "'racial discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin." Okay to repost now?--Carwil 02:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think my solution of just saying the crime of apartheid is part of the Rome Statute of the ICC is the best way to handle things. It is accurate and people can click on the links for more information. We don't have to build it up into something it is not. --Deodar 12:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be assuming that Israel is, in fact, guilty of this "crime", and you still haven't found a single source that states the "Crime of Apartheid" is part of international law. Moreover, I predict you will not be able to, since reliable sources know better. If you want to make the claim that something is illegal under international law, you need to find a source which explicitly states that. That's what WP:NOR says. It's very simple. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct that Israel hasn't been found guilty, let alone tried or even officially charged. So far, certain notable individuals and groups have claimed that it is in violation of the crime of apartheid and other notable people and groups have criticized these claims in reliable sources. --Deodar 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Change to the intro
I've removed this insertion from the intro again: "In particular, patterns of residential segregation, restricted movement based on status, dispossesion of land are described as constituting a pattern of apartheid which is criminal under international law." It appears to consist of original reasarch, and to be promulgating a minority view at best, as few of the sources who use the term "apartheid" in relation to Israel actually refer to "Crime of apartheid". Yes, I know there are a very small number of sources that refer to the "Crime of apartheid", but they seem to be few and far between. Let's talk about the proposed insertion. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The trick is to use direct quotes from reputable sources in the body for this point. Paraphrasing positions is always a challenge and can create disagreements as to what is an appropriate paraphrase. --Deodar 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, let's not get caught up on the lead, it can serve as a distraction from creating a solid article. Usually with articles and with essays, its best to write the summarizing lead last once you have completed the body of the work. --Deodar 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've restored the substance without reference to apartheid's criminality (see above for my thoughts on this) because, as was recently noted, the summary ought to describe the topic. The phrases involved: 'residential segregation, restricted movement based on status, dispossesion of land' are mapped from the subheads describing the argument (though condensed slightly).--Carwil 17:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The intro should summarize main aspects of the actual allegations, not state a formal definition that almost nobody applies systematically. Of the four aspects in your summary,  patterns of residential segregation, restricted movement and employment based on status, dispossesion of land only the second and fourth are a substantial aspect of most Israeli apartheid allegations. Kla'quot 17:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the intro until the section that deals with this topic is addressed otherwise it just complicates things. Patience and consensus building is key on these types of contentious articles. --Deodar 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Until this article is turned into something readable and encyclopedic, the introduction should be kept as simple as possible, so that it at least accurately reflects the basics of the topic in a neutral way. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kla'quot, Deodar, and Jayjg. Work out the content in the body first, then the intro can be made to better reflect what the article says in summary. -- M P er el ( talk 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above (The intro), when an intro is dominated by the views of critics, then I must conclude that the article is a soapbox, intended more to make a case than to inform the reader. The deleted material at least serves to balance it. If this material must be deleted, I would propose that the second two sentences of the intro be removed as well. That way the intro would be sparse, but neutral and informative. --ManEatingDonut 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way is the intro "dominated"? WP:LEAD says the lead should contain criticism. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at Lead_section, and I find that criticism is indeed fifth on the list of things to be included. The problem I have with this article's intro, as it stands, is that the other four items on the list have been excluded, leaving only the criticism. --ManEatingDonut 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way is the intro "dominated"? As has been explained above, the contents of the article are in flux, so we can't go into detail yet, but we understand the basics of the accusation, and the response. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism before the Allegations?
I believe there is too much POV in the article (maybe purposefully, perhaps unintentional) to hide or bury discussion of the allegations themselves, which is the topic of the article. I have never before read something that is so upside-down/backwards in tone and content. An explanation of Israeli apartheid should be provided first. What is it? What are the allegation? Who said them? Then cover the criticism. Thanks.Kiyosaki 23:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason to exclude antisemites from the list of "Who said them?" in the intro. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The quotes section really belongs at the bottom. I wouldn't mind a few of these, like Tutu I suppose, where there is a list of some groups/individuals who use the term (currently the only individuals mentioned are a neo-nazi and a klansmember, but everyone else seems to think that isn't POV). -- Kendrick7talk 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to exclude right-wing Jews and Zionists from the list of "Who criticizes them?" in the intro. Actually, I think Humus is wrong and editing with not the best faith, but what do others think of adding right-wing Jews, Zionists and anti-semites to the intro?

PS Kendrick, the Criticism section is likwise a collection quotes. I disagree that use of the term should be moved to the bottom below the collection of criticism quotes. It is POV to furnish a quote from "Lee Bollinger" above that of a "Desmond Tutu" and other South African anti-apartheid leaders. Thanks.Kiyosaki 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mean in the intro, I mean in the term section where it mentions David Duke, et al. None of those quotes are arguments, they are just people using the term. Which from me gets a big "so-what" especially since they are a minority POV to those who critize the term. -- Kendrick7talk 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a section of the Talk: page discussing "right-wing Jews and Zionists" below. I take it you added the phrase as a WP:POINT because you don't like the reference to anti-Semites? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"critics, including right wing Jews and Zionists,"
Kiyosaki, can you please find a source for that claim? Which of the listed critics are "right-wing Jews and Zionists", and why would that be relevant? Adam and Moodley state "The majority is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals." They weren't talking about "right-wing Jews and Zionists". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please find some sources and critics that are mainstream/credible that are not Zionists or Jewish. Kindly put them in the article to make it NPOV.Kiyosaki 18:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I just did yesterday, and you promptly removed him as "non-reliable". In any event, it's not up to me to disprove your contention, (though I already have, with the Adam and Moodley source), but rather up to you to prove your original research. Please find a reliable source that states that those who oppose the analogy are "right-wing Jews and Zionists". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to find a mainstream/credible source that isn't Jewish or Zionist and you came up with an Asian studies professor at Bard College that has not written extensively on the sunject. Explain why Baruma is a primary source and why you think he's a good source to use. Explain how the logic of 'primary source' works, I'll listen. I would also appreciate your explanation of why you think Baruma is a good and knowledgeable source, not merely acceptable/barely passing as per the Wikipedia policy. I think you could come up with something better and improve the article. Let me know what you find.Kiyosaki 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, Adam and Moodley state "The majority' is incensed by the very analogy and deplores what it deems its propagandistic goals." Not "the Right-wing Jews and Zionists". The majority. And, again, if you make a claim, which you have, then you must find reliable sources for it. Find them please. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I was reviewing some of this stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies, isn't there something somewhere about not using "weasel words"? Find it please.Kiyosaki 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian Buruma
Kiyosaki, you've removed Ian Buruma from the article, claiming he's not a "reliable source". Given that he's the Luce Professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism at Bard College, New York, exactly why is he not reliable? What makes people like, say, Yakov Malik and Farid Esack reliable sources in this matter, but not Buruma? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Farid Esack is far more reliable and credible to comment on this subject than Ian Buruma. Please review Esack's participation in United_Democratic_Front (South Africa). Should we restore Esack's quotes since someone without NPOV buried them?Kiyosaki 19:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What was his involvement in the United Democratic Front (South Africa)? His article makes a vague unsourced claim regarding it that doesn't really mean anything. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do the research, you will see. Please do the research and let us know what you find. Please do not deny information or links without having done the reserach to know.Kiyosaki 19:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


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

Ian Buruma has no expertise in South Africa or the West Bank/Gaza. Earlier someone tried to discredit Desmond Tutu because he "has no expertise about Israel/Palestine". Obviously, Tutu has infinitely more knowledge about Apartheid than does Buruma. I ask you, what are ian Buruma's qualifications? He's an expert on Asia, not the West Bank or the Apartheid era of South Africa. He's a very, very weak source.

See: ''Much of his work focuses on Asian culture, particularly that of 20th-century Japan.

He was born in the Netherlands, to a Dutch father and English mother. He studied Chinese literature, and then Japanese film at Nihon University in Tokyo. He has held a number of editorial and academic positions, and has contributed numerous articles to the New York Review of Books.

He has held fellowships at the Woodrow Wilson Institute for the Humanities, Washington, D.C and St Antony's College, Oxford. In 2003 he became Luce Professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism at Bard College, New York.''Kiyosaki 18:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A professor of Democracy & Human Rights is clearly qualified to comment on allegations of Apartheid. Isarig 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite good enough for an encyclopedia. He's a very, very weak source. The article should have good sources. Please show us his "expertise" in this very subject or that of South Africa. Thanks.Kiyosaki 18:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to that POV, but he meets every requirement stated by WP:RS and WP:V. It is self evident that an academic in the fiekld of human rights is a relevant expert on charges of apartheid. If you want to add sources that you feel are even more qualified, go right ahead, but please do not remove well sourced, relevant material. Isarig 18:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He's a tertiary source, and you have not shown otherwise. Please show us something.Kiyosaki 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he's a primary source, and the Guardian which quoted him is a reliable secondary source. I have shown he is an academic, with relevant expertise in the field of human rights. You are making an extraordinary claim - that an academic in a relvant field is not reliable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - hop to it. Isarig 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


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

He's notable as a professor of Asian culture. Ian Buruma: please reveiw his books. He is an extremely weak source. Kiyosaki 19:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He was Luce Professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism at Bard College, New York. He is a perfect source to comment on allegations of Apartheid. Isarig

No, he isn't and you have yet to show exactly why. Perhaps his expertise is in human rights in China? You have no idea, and you have not shown why he is credible on the very subject of this article. Please do so. He is weak, and I am trying to help this article. I'm saying find a better source please.Kiyosaki 19:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, he is quoted as an expert by reliable source, and he himself is Luce Professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism at Bard College, New York, which makes him eminently qualified. Now, explain what makes Yakov Malik and Farid Esack qualified? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, note that he has written extensively on the topic. For example, his most recent book Occidentalism is about precisely these issues. Other pieces by him on this and related topics have appeared in the New York Times magazine and the Chronicle of Higher Education. JoshuaZ 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, show us where he has "written extensively" on the subject. I belive that to be false. His book "Occidentalism" is NOT about Israeli Apartheid or South African Apartheid or the West Bank/Gaza. He is an extremely weak source. From Booklist : ''Four characterizations of the West contribute to the anti-Western stance Buruma and Margalit call Occidentalism and are used to justify attacking individual Westerners as less-than-human beings. The West prefers the sinful city to the virtuous countryside; the West destroys heroism and replaces it with trading; the West thinks only of matter and not of spirit; the West worships evil. Buruma and Margalit argue that the first two of those conceptions, typical of secular Occidentalism, are themselves Western, products of European romanticism that early-twentieth-century Japan and Germany exploited to their own ruin. The third idea informs Russia's long struggle with the West but stems from German romanticism, in particular, with its sense of the wounded national soul. The fourth, peculiar to religious Occidentalism, animates radical Islamism but derives from the good-evil polarities of Persian Manichaeism that the young Augustine embraced. Buruma and Margalit conclude that these ideas' lives are "a tale of cross-contamination" that cannot be ended by answering anti-Western intolerance with more intolerance. A timely tract, brilliantly though broadly argued. Ray Olson Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved''

He is not "eminently" qualified, and please show us why you think that. Farid Esack is far more reliable and credible to comment on this subject than Ian Buruma. Please review Esack's participation in United_Democratic_Front (South Africa). Should we restore Esack's quotes since someone without NPOV buried them?Kiyosaki 19:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep making that assertion regarding Buruma, but so far every other editor of this article has disagreed with you. Perhaps you should re-think this. As for Esak, what was his involvement in the United Democratic Front (South Africa)? His article makes a vague unsourced claim regarding it that doesn't really mean anything, and he seems mostly to be a liberal Muslim theologian. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You have said he is "eminently" qualified and you have not shown this to us. Please show us why he is so qualfied.Kiyosaki 19:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


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

What makes him "strong" on this topic? Show us why he is a good source. So far, it's "prof at Bard College". Can you please do better?Kiyosaki 19:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


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

Please review information on Esack and review in detail the footnotes provided. Let us know what you think after you have done the research. Thanks. Please provide us more pertinent information on Ian Buruma.Kiyosaki 19:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Buruma is a Professor of Human Rights and Democracy. Now, can you explain what Esack's involvement in United Democratic Front (South Africa) consisted of? Or is it that you simply don't know yourself? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Esack is a person committed to inter-religious solidarity for justice and peace and the struggle against apartheid, he played a leading role in the United Democratic Front, The Call of Islam, the Organisation of People Against Sexism, the Cape Against Racism, and the World Conference on Religion and Peace. Please do the research yourself. I have done the reserch on Ian Baruma and maintain that he is a weak source that has not written extensively on this subject.Kiyosaki 20:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific please? You appear to be hand-waving here; what specifically qualifies him? Or Yakov Malik, for that matter. What did Esack do for those organizations? I think I should remind you that joining an anti-Apartheid group doesn't really make you an expert in anything, just as joining the Democratic party doesn't make you an expert in politics. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, please do the research already, then report back to us. If you have a problem with Esack, which it appears that you do, then tell us exactly why but after you do the research. Thanks.Kiyosaki 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Kiyosaki, you appear to be trolling now. Either explain which experience of Esack's and Malik's is relevant, or move on. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg kindly refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. Please provide us your answer to the original question of this section. What evidence do you have that Baruma is "eminently" qualified? Kiyosaki 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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

Moshe: You have been reprimanded before. I see you are likewise avoiding the direct question that relates to the subject heading. Please do not harass other Wikipedia editors in the future, thanks.Kiyosaki 00:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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

What threat are you talking about? Can you please elaborate as to what exactly you are speaking of? I asked you to refrain from harassing others, that is something all Wikipedia editors should abide by, do you disagree with this? Thanks. Kiyosaki 01:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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

Thanks, I'll take a look.Kiyosaki 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

--Iron Duke, I have reviewed the information about Buruma and it seems quite clear (from reviewing his books and cirriculum vitae) that he is an expert in Asian studies, and his expertise about Israel/Palestine is very minimal, and his expertise about Apartheid is nil. Do you disagree? If so, why? I would appreciate your view. Thanks.

Also, do yo think Buruma should be referenced in the opening paragraph? If so, on what basis? That would be a disservice to Wikipedia or any encyclopedia article, as his expertise is quite thin to warrant that positioning. Thanks. Kiyosaki 09:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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

No, sorry you are wrong. I reviewed your prior link and that is not the case. What else can you provide? There must be something. He is not an expert on the subject of South Africa, Apartheid or Israel. Please show us. Thanks.Kiyosaki 04:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


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

Ian Buruma is a professor that specializes in Asia, not Apartheid. He is an extremely weak source. Obviously we disagree, but I believe you have not shown us your reasoning. I doubt a vetted encyclopedia would include him as a reliable/expert source. Thanks. Do you disagree with that statement? Kiyosaki 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


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


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

Nobody has addressed the point. He is not "eminently" qualified, nobody has shown that beyond cursory back-up, and any person who reviews Ian Buruma's work and curriculum vitae will see that he is an expert on Asia. I see ZERO knowledge or expertise from Buruma about Apartheid. None whatsoever. Now, I see that you don't actually want to provide info beyond cursory links, however I ask again that you (or the list of editors you named) do so below, if you want to make a case for Ian Buruma. I will not respond to more arguing and circumvention, but only legitimate information about Buruma's direct expertise on Apartheid and Israel and Palestine. Show it below. Let us see this great expertise that makes him "eminently" qualified as per Jayjg. Thanks.Kiyosaki 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Citation templates
Could whoever is adding citation templates please note that these should not be added without consensus? WP:CITE says: "Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article." It seems pointless to change a citation that's already written properly to one written with the aid of a template, as was done with the first citation in the article, because the only thing achieved is that the text becomes harder to edit. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Slim. I don't know if that was me. I find the line breaks in the standard template easier to read that sudden inlined blocks of ref'd text, but then again I am a code monkey. -- Kendrick7talk 06:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries.
 * I reverted the latest additions, because I feel there's a problem with creating lots of extra headers as though lots and lots of people make the comparison. The majority POV of commentators, according to the two academics we quote, is that they deplore the use of the term. And yet we're creating more headers indicating that the term is in widespread use. We have to watch the undue weight issue regarding the table of contents and the text.
 * I appreciate your efforts to be neutral by moving the criticism higher. Thank you for doing that. My own feeling is that we should radically prune the list of people who have used the term, or place some of them in a footnote, in part because it is too list-like, and in part because of the undue weight issue. If we were to add a section containing lists of names of people who deplore the use of the term, the page would quickly become unreadable. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The first section "Overview" now has almost nothing to do with allegations of Israeli apartheid.
 * We must first introduce the use of the term, and then who criticizes that use and why. The criticism of the term section makes little sense without the use of the term section preceding it, in my view. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, "Overview" is confusing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"South African anti-apartheid leaders, Nobel Peace Prize winners, a President of the United States"
Kiyosaki has now inserted the phrase "South African anti-apartheid leaders, Nobel Peace Prize winners, a President of the United States" into a very long paragraph about those who have used the term. Are you sure this isn't double counting? After all, the Nobel peace prize winners consist of a South African anti-apartheid leader (Tutu) and a former President of the United States (Carter). Unless I've missed someone, we shouldn't be misleading the reader. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They overlap but that's not double-counting. It's not misleading the reader to provide information about who makes "allegations of Israeli apartheid", the very subject of the article. It's misleading to remove it.Kiyosaki 19:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you are double-counting them then? Please pick how you'd like them to be described. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they overlap but are not double counted. Do you want to list Jewwatch but not Nobel Prize Winner or President of the United States? That is heading into bad, bad, bad POV territory.Kiyosaki 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how what you're saying relates to what I have said. You've listed some people twice; please decide which designations you wish to use, so as not to mislead the reader. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


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

'South African anti-apartheid leaders, Nobel Peace Prize winners, a President of the United States' should be simpler 'South African anti-apartheid leaders, Jimmy Carter.' People know exactly who he is and dont have to say a President of the United States.Opiner 23:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The whole point was to puff him up; he's got a very flowery description elsewhere in the article as well. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay I changed it.Opiner 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your points are not compelling.Kiyosaki 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Term" vs "Analogy"
I notice there is a lot of the use of "term" when really I think it is an "analogy" being made and rejected/criticized. It would help clarity to change this focus, but it is a minor point. --Deodar 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This terminology is used to allege the analogy. Seems clear to me. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the terminology descibed the analogy which is alledged? -- Kendrick7talk 02:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


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

Undue weight
We have an undue weight problem with the first section and the subsections. The academics we open with (who appear to be authoritative and neutral so far as I know) say that most commentators on the use of the term/analogy deplore its use. Therefore, that has to be the position we stress in the article, according to NPOV.

Our current table of contents does the opposite. We have:


 * 1.1 Use of the Term [pro]
 * 1.2 Users of the Term [pro]
 * 1.3 Criticism of the term [anti]
 * 1.4 Viewed as an outcome of the two-state solution [mostly pro]

We should incorporate 1.2 and 1.4 into 1.1. Headers that don't affect the TOC can be used for clarity if needed. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on your specific suggestions, I don't believe NPOV requires us to endorse the view expressed in one academic publication (even if we quote that publication in the intro). Let's not use the "appeal to authority" fallacy in order to stress one side of the debate. CJCurrie 01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't it fair to stress the side of the debate that is itself the majority position? Otherwise, it looks like there's a 50/50 split which there isn't, right? IronDuke  01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only is it "fair", but, in fact, it is what the WP:NPOV policy demands. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But what is the majority position? We needn't revamp the entire article to reflect the assertions in one (1) academic publication. CJCurrie 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The authors of that publication appear to be the most qualified to Talk: about this subject, and that particular work appears to be perhaps the only (and certainly the best) academic quality source on this specific subject. As such, the views expressed in it should be heavily weighted. And they make it quite clear what the majority's position is. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, this proposal is based on an "appeal to authority" fallacy. It may be the only sustained academic +summary+ of the subject, but it's still only one (1) source. CJCurrie 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We always appeal to authority (that's what V is) and it isn't a fallacy. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, shouldn't we change or delete this article? CJCurrie 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is, there are almost no academic sources on the subject, because it's not a serious topic, it's just political grandstanding/demonizing. In reality this article should be one paragraph in a larger article, listing the opinions of the authors of the one academic work that deals with it. However, it's been promoted into a massive, messy article for the exact same reason that the allegation is made in the first place. Given the article's almost inevitable execrableness, we should at least try to mitigate the embarrassment to Wikipedia by heavily favoring the most intelligent and scholarly sources on the topic, as few as they are. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

When a President of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize winners refer to it, it is a serious topic. When South Africans who are experts on the subject discuss it, it is credible. Jayjg, do you have any expertise on this? If so, what is it? There are plenty of RS quoted and footnoted. Thanks. Do you deny this? Kiyosaki 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm... the Google Scholar search returns over 10,000 hits, and I could add sources from JSTOR to this article all day. But as long as we have very good web sources which cover the topic and are publically available to all editors, there's not much need. The article is more or less complete as is. For academic sources, though, my cup runneth over. -- Kendrick7talk 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the first page you link to, I count 4 of them referencing "Resisting Israel's apartheid (by noted Israel scholar Noam Chomsky) 2 from "Zed books" who, according to their website "publish a variety of student textbooks, polemics and original research." (emphasis added), one by (ugh) Norman Finkelstein, Tutu again, twice, and one book that puts the countries in the same sentence (but I can't tell what the author's thesis might be). 10K scholarly sources on IA? Hmmmm... IronDuke  03:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. It's all polemics and nonsense, virtually no scholarly sources on the topic at all. That's why the article is doomed to be a sorry mirror of the political propaganda that produced the term in the first place. Jayjg <small style="color:DarkGreen;">(talk) 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, do you have better qualifications than Desmond Tutu? If so, what are they. You are in no position to deny or call Tutu's comments or any of the experts' comments "nonsense" or "propaganda", that is exhibiting extreme bad faith and POV. What expertise do you have to say such? Thanks.Kiyosaki 08:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a word for willful ignorance? I thought there was, but then I couldn't find it on the first page of a google search. So, gee I guess not. -- Kendrick7talk 04:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite right. There is little doubt that the other 9,990 pages each contain a scholarly reference of breath-taking impartiality and sober judgment (you needn't link to them, we can all agree to assume they are there). My bad. IronDuke  04:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In April Avoid_neologisms was revised to include a new section that is useful for this discussion. Here's the first para: "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources... To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term &mdash; not books and papers that use the term." We have very, very few secondary sources about the term "Israeli apartheid" and that is why it's so difficult to come to consensus on how to weight this article. Kla'quot 04:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article cites a source talking about an apartheid regime in Israel in 1971. The concept thus predates disco, pro-life, video cassette recorder, punk rock, crack cocaine, and lap top, just off the top of my head. It's not a neologism. -- Kendrick7talk 06:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The terms "apartheid" and "Israel" have been around since the 1940s. When was the neologism "Israeli apartheid" first used? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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


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

Question: How does it work in Wikipedia, if for instance, there are more (but no more or less credible) sources for a given POV? Let's say for simple illustriation it's 80%-critics/20%-pro one way or vice versa, take your pick. Should the article reflect that balance, or does it go 50/50? I realize there may not be a "correct" answer, but what is the spirit here, as it is done on other articles? Thank you.Kiyosaki 01:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if Wikipedia editors would put aside their egos, and their non-expertise in the subject, and focus on the experts and reliable sources, of which there are many with footnotes. Let's focus on reading the sources and doing the research before speaking nonsense. Thanks.

jayjg: I think the mistake you are making on this page is to tell us what your personal opinions are, when all we're supposed to discuss and write about is what relevant, reliable sources say about this concept. There are plenty of reliable sources here including Nobel Peace Prize winners and South African anti-apartheid leaders.Kiyosaki 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse
Originally I had this under the previous heading, but didn't want to be accused of "hijacking the thread." Anyway: Has it occurred to anyone besides me that any efforts to make this a good article are futile? Almost every aspect of the perpetual debate over this article seems to go back to the fact that there is nothing to support an article here in the first place. I realize that this is a battle that has been fought and lost, although as I recently learned, there really never has been a valid AfD for this article. The first one was a fraud, the next one was over before anyone knew it, and the third one was defeated mainly because it was a "third AfD", which it really wasn't. I realize I am beating a dead horse here, but one of the reasons that I cannot bring myself to spend much time editing this article is that it seems like a massive waste of time. It's kind of like painting a pile of garbage in an effort to make it look nicer: All you end up with is a pile of garbage with paint on it. 6SJ7 01:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but how do you really feel? -- Kendrick7talk 02:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment behing what you are saying, but actually think we should have an article. IMO, the term is being bandied about all over the place by people who mostly don't know what they are talking about. The article is a place to set the record straight that the analogy doesn't hold water. I think we need to air that POV, and also let the people who think the Israelis/Jews are racists air their POV. Elizmr 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And I agree with the sentiment you are expressing, Elizmr. The POV in question does need to have an outlet somewhere on Wikipedia. However, I think having a separate article on the subject is what causes too many problems. Maybe there can be an article that collects all of the ideas that are "bandied about all over the place by people who mostly don't know what they are talking about." Hey, catchy title, don't you think? :) 6SJ7 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Make it part of Israel-Palestine conflict. Maybe one paragraph there.Opiner 02:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strange as this may sound, not all proponents of the term believe "the Israelis/Jews are racists". If you're starting from this POV, or if you think we should only have the article to disprove the allegation, then it's not exactly a surprise that you'd disapprove of the current version. As to the title, well ... that's another matter entirely. CJCurrie 02:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't Apartheid = Racism? Don't about half the world's Jews live and VOTE in Israel? What part of the equation Israeli Apartheid = Israelis/Jews are racists doesn't follow from this? I'm sorry, but you can't call Israel an Apartheid state and deny that you are saying Israelis/Jews are racists at the same time. Elizmr 02:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's oversimplifying. U.S. citizens have paid people to kill half a million Iraqis. That doesn't mean the average American hates Iraqis. Crimes against humanity, like wars, are complex sociological phenomenon. -- Kendrick7talk 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Too many people on both sides of this discussion make the mistake of conflating "Israel, the state" with "Jews, the people". Criticism of "A" is not the same as criticism of "B". CJCurrie 03:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Israeli Jews struggle under the iron boot of their liberal, parliamentary democracy. If only they could run their own country... but seriously: this article is less notable than Allegations of Jewish Naziism. Far, far more refs for Jews as Nazis. Do we have an article on that? Well, it is WP, so maybe. But I sure hope not. Most folks understand that calling Jews Nazis is classic antisemitism. That's why the antisemitism has gotten shrewder: Jews as Apartheid South Africans. Provides great cover for antisemites, while buffering renascent antisemitism for western lefties who can wax nostalgic about how they defeated apartheid the first time around. It's very, very depressing to have an article on this "topic" here. IronDuke  03:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You've saved me the trouble of deflating your argument. CJCurrie 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Deflating? Goodness! Please, please don't deflate my argument. It's so buoyant and pretty. Allons, ballon! IronDuke  04:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * and the color of your balloon so nicely matches your herring. There were a few lines in the sandbox discussing the merits of this argument, though its a little too "meta" to bring in here, I think. -- Kendrick7talk 04:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha! And people say these discussions are fruitless. You have inspired me to wave a smelly fish at the next Wikipedian foolish enough to offer me some kind of good-faith argument. Vive Villepin! IronDuke  04:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop its giving me a headache. Whether criticisng of Israel is or not anti-Semitism has NOTHING to do with the fact that article should be deleting!Opiner 05:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)