Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 5

Protected (edit war)
I have protected the page again as it seems that the edit war just continues since the unlocking this morning. However, edit warring is not the solution to a content dispute. To admins who are asked to unblock, I suggest that the block is only lifted when there is a consensus text. Please remember, the blocking of current version is not an endorsement of the current text by me. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. First off, thanks, Kim for protecting this page. Clearly, it was out of hand. To the rest of us, let me just say a few things about where I'm coming from in my take on the intro in particular, and then everyone can weigh in on it. The first thing that strikes me is how similar this discussion is to Islamofascism. Like Israeli apartheid, the word is new-ish, controversial (although not nearly so much as Israeli Apartheid) and offensive to some. Unlike this intro, however, a number of us labored to make the intro as neutral and NPOV as possible. The article should not be trying to lead the reader to think that Islamofascism is "accurate" or "true," merely that it's a word people made up to describe a particular phenomenon (or phenomena) and that others object to. Pretty simple. So what does the intro there not have? Quotes. Why doesn't it have them? Because it's an intro. Everyone from Tutu to Duke can have their say later in the article. WP:LEAD means that the intro is just a summary of the text, not a place for edit-warring and POV-pushing over what the text will eventually delineate. So, to that end, I'd say no to Tutu, no to Duke, no to Dershowitz, no to whomever having space in the intro. Quotes (which are, by the way, a lame substitute for analysis) can and should come later. Also, I notice a lot of people attacking the criticism sentence of the intro. That's a really bad idea, and an invitation to edit war. On the Islamofascism page, I objected to criticism of the term appearing in the intro. It was pointed out to me that eliminating the controversy from the intro violates WP:LEAD. Myself, I can think of good arguments for leaving crit out of leads, but whatever we do, it has to be consistent. All the intro has to do is two things. 1) Say what the people who use the phrase "Israeli apartheid" mean by it and 2) Why people object to it. We don't have to lard it up with POV. IronDuke  05:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you say but not with the end. What people mean by it is clear: They want to compare israel to south Africa. (this is already clear from the name and thus should not be over emphesised). The term itself is much POV that the intro  must  balance it imeeditly to create an NPOV (name +lead together should be NPOV) this means that the intentions of those who use it (i.e. to drive for a boycott on Israel, much like the boycoot that brought down SA) should be explained as well as where do they want to get by using this term (to a binational solution - which in the eyes of many Israel means a palestinian majority and loss of the jewish people only homeland. Zeq 05:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking the suggestion by Iron Duke above to heart, and adding a desire to avoid poisoning the well by associating the term with anti-Semites and nazis in the lead (or conversely to sanctify it by associating it with Nobel and Israel Prize winners) what about a neutral, non-judgemental intro that says:


 * The phrase Israeli apartheid (or the terming of Israel an apartheid state) is a political epithet used by some critics of the country's policies towards the Palestinian population. It is controversial because it draws an analogy between Israel's practices and those of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations.

and leave the article itself to develop the controversy, the merits and demerits of the phrase etc. Homey 05:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As for Zeq, his suggestions make the article read more like an argumentative essay ie one with a particular thesis (in this case against the phrase Israeli apartheid). Suitable for a polemic but not for an encyclopedia article. Homey 05:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * never theless, accuracy and NPOV should be in the Lead:


 * The phrase Israeli apartheid (or the terming of Israel an apartheid state) is a political epithet used by minority fringe group of critics to Israel's right to exist in an effort to define the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solely on the basis of Race while ignoring the broader spectrum of issues which influence this conflict. The term is used by groups such as Extreme left, Neo-Nazis and pro-Palestinian activists who work to create a boycott (like the one that brought down SA) on Israel with an intention to bring Israel to annex the Palestinian territories and create a binational solution in which Palestinians become a majority inside Israel. Opponents of the term usually favor the more traditional two state solution which would include an independent Palestinian state side by side to Israel. Zeq 05:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's your idea of an NPOV intro I'm curious to see an intro where you are promoting your POV. One of your most glaring factual errors is your falsely counterposing the binational solution with use of the term against the two state solution. In fact, many who support the two-state solution also use the term "Israeli apartheid" while many who oppose the two state solution and favour Greater Israel oppose it. Homey 06:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I hope nobody takes it amiss if I say I'm glad we're all talking civilly here and making good points. Zeq, your analysis is intriguing but not really WP policy. In the first place, article names can't really be POV in a WP policy sense, only our edits can. So while you might be mathematically correct, that a POV title needs a countervailing POV intro, I don't think that's going to give us the best article and it’s not WP policy. I will say I don't think this is a very good article to have here, I think it's just an invitation for people to bash each other over the head (rhetorically) and only further polarizes WP. But it passed the AfD, so that doesn't matter what I think (unless or until it is deleted, in which case this argument doesn't matter). Okay Zeq, I just saw your new proposal. Well, maybe the most constructive thing I can say is, that's just not going to pass muster. It's waaaaay too argumentative and heavily POV. Let's all be clear: the intro is not going to say or imply "The Israelis are racist pigs" nor is it going to say or imply "Anyone who uses this phrase is an antisemite and an idiot." Homey, I think your effort is a start, but the crit sentence just ends up being a tautology. That is, it basically says "Critics don't like the term because the term means what it means." We need to be more specific about why people object to the term, and we can also be clear about what people who use the term mean as well: that (according to them) Israel is practicing a system that is in fundamental respects like that of South Africa under apartheid. And then the frenzied free for all of dueling quotes can begin below (as always).  IronDuke  06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Repsonse to Homey:
 * 1) My proposal is NPOV since it does not go into the issue of "good and bad". You may support the binational solution, I may support instead in palestinian independence - but we should only focus on describing the issue without saying if one view is better on top of the other.
 * 2) As for your NPOV: The use of the word "apartheid" is by itself polemical and strogly POV . The use of this word is designed to create negative emotional response so we need to mention this intent right at the start in order to NPOV the impression this word creats.  Zeq 06:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PS since the dream of Greater Israel was abolished even by Sharon and most of the Likud I don't see how it enetr into the discussion. Zeq 06:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone should tell the settlers that their dream has been abolished. There are still some in Israel who cling to it. And your claim that all those who use the term Israeli apartheid want to annex the West Bank and/or bring down Israel is utterly ridiculous. There are Zionists who use the term because they are concerned about where Israel is going, see it leading to distruction and want it to mend its ways. Homey 06:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone, yse everyone who uses this have the goal of One state solution in which all the poeple between the river and sea have voting rights to the same parilemnt. (this is the fact)
 * Some may think it is a good idea, others think it will lead to great violance like in the Balkan where many different nationalities were all part of "Greater Yoguslavia". So it will be POV to argue that the solution id good or bad but it is NPOV to describe  accuratly  how the term is used, by whom, and for what purpose. Zeq 06:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Iron Duke: If article title can not be POV than the word "apartheid" must be put in context right at the article title. Instead of hinting that Israel is an 'apartheid state" (as could be understood from the term "israeli Apartheid" (which exist in wikipedia although it redirects to "Israeli apartheid (epithet)0" we should use a more accurate and NPOV title such as "Use of the epithet "Israeli apartheid" by some critics of Israel" Zeq 06:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving Forward
Judging from the behaviour of the participants I doubt this debate is going to go anywhere, but in case there is some hope of compromise, I think we should build on Homey's introduction, but add in a better summary of criticism, e.g. "The phrase Israeli apartheid (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial political epithet used by some critics of the country's policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the phrase do not consider Israel's practices to be comparable to the actions of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations, and regard the phrase as misleading polemic." --Coroebus 09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If we do ever sort out the intro, can I suggest that we then go through with a structure roughly similar to the current one, but ensure that we only reference the main reasons given for the usage (and reference them) in 5 or 6 concise points, without any original research (e.g. 'Israel is bad, see here'), followed by usage where we can counterpose Tutu and Duke to interesting effect, and finally an objections section, which is only sourced from people actually talking about (and rejecting) the phrase, and that is only as long as the argument for its use. My impression is that there are actually enough direct uses of the phrase (either for or against) to obviate any need for original synthesis or research.  This article is only about the usage of a phrase, we mustn't let it turn into a POV fork, or a debate about the wider Israeli-Palestinian question --Coroebus 09:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If they did not think it is paratheid why use the word "aptheid". Certainly all they want is to evoke an emotional response.
 * The issue if "it is going somewhere" is ony depended on the ability to describe accuratly:


 * Who uses the term
 * What are their reason for using it
 * Zeq 09:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Zeq, I don't understand what you're saying. Obviously those that use the phrase do think it is apartheid, or analogous to apartheid.  We are addressing who uses the term, and their stated reasons for using it.  We cannot speculate as to their motivation as that would be WP:OR, unless we have external sources that either reveal that motivation (from the horse's mouth so to speak) or we have someone that has speculated about those motivations in an acceptable source, that we can then quote/reference.  --Coroebus 12:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You think it is "obvious" that "those that use the phrase do think it is apartheid, or analogous to apartheid" and I say that this is your POV. Those who use it havea  goal  in mind. They clearly describe this goal (i.e. their goal is not a conspiracy theory of any kind). Those who use the phrase want a boycott on Israel and want a unified one-state solution. This is clear from sources I have brought and if needed I will bring more sources. it is easy cause most of them say so openly. Zeq 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the press start to understand and change direction
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/05/israel_the_unfair_target_of_selective_outrage/

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149460817799&call_pageid=970599119419

as for proof of my argument about the intentions of those who recently pushed the use of the phrase "israeli apartheid" it is all over the globe: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=boycott+Israel+OR+israeli+apartheid+++-%22apartheid+wall%22&btnG=Search  and more. Zeq 07:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * so did anyone bothered clicking this last link above ? Zeq 20:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Move
, it might've been nice to discuss the page move given the tension here, no? --Coroebus 11:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the page move by Humus sapiens (admin). While the phrase is used by some as an epithet quite a few use it as a serious comparison -- Uri Davis and Desmond Tutu are two such prominent individuals whether you agree with them or not.  Thus from my perspective, the move seems to be motivated by POV.  --Ben Houston 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole article is based on sources which are strong POV. The discussion to delete this article created a 50-50 battaleground, so the name move is just one more issues that the existence of this article is causing. The best name should be:


 * The use of the term Israeli "apartheid" in the propeganda war against israel

This is a very accurate NPOV name. It does not take sides. Zeq 20:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While it is true that some are in a war against Israel, Desmond Tutu and Uri Davis do not seem to be so basely motivated. Rather they appear to believe they are saying.  Maybe we should have two articles or two sections in this article -- one dealing with assumed good faith use of the term and another article/section about those who are using it from an anti-Semitic stance?  --Ben Houston 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

ya right, Uri davis became a member of the PLO in the 70s....Surly the PLO was not against israel. As for Tutu, read his use of the term and ask yourself is he suportive of Israel ? Zeq 20:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I did not say antisemitic (you did) but that is of course something to consider. as for WP:AGF it is about wikipedia not about the real worldZeq 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Being supportive of the human rights of Palestinians is not the same thing as being against Israel -- you are so caught up in an ethnocentric view of the world that exclused any ability to see how one's actions may be percieved or interpreted from another point of view. To think in those terms is forcing one to choose which national struggle is more legitimate.  I personally think that both people deserve the right to self-determination and the right to not be abused, terrorized or discriminated against by the other.  (Also, I don't know what you are talking about when you say I brought up anti-Semitism.  The article lists in the current lead a number of clearly anti-Semitic groups that use the label as a means of delegitimizing Israel.  I am trying to make a distinction between these uses and those of others.)  --Ben Houston 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, referring to this as an epithet is a POV as there are some who have used the charge sincerely. Homey 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely if offensive pejorative designation is made, it is proper and neutral to call it an epithet. Whether "there are some who have used the charge sincerely" or not is absolutely irrelevant. Again you show extreme POV and Orwellian logic. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
As "political epithet" is a POV term which assumes bad faith by those who use the phrase "Israeli apartheid" I support moving the article back to Israeli apartheid (phrase) and having the following intro:


 * Israeli apartheid (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics to describe the country's policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the phrase see it as a political epithet and do not consider Israel's practices to be comparable to the actions of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations, and regard the phrase as misleading polemic.

Homey 22:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your intro - very much.Bless sins 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we unprotect the article and try for a more NPOV version? This might be easier now that Zeq has been banned. The protected version is especially egregious. Homey 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, if Kim van der Linde is acting as an informal mediator, could he make some of the changes that there is consensus upon and keep the article protected?Homey 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That would indeed be better, once we agree what those changes should be. I don't think zeq was a hiindrance in making it NPOV. He just felt misunderstood and was unable to communicate himself in a more NPOV fashion. Perhaps he should be an acitve part in the discussion of this article, he can definetly share with us important POVs.Bless sins 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your intro is getting better, but we have to be more specific about why it is people object to the term. Saying that people object to it because it's "misleading" is, well, misleading. IronDuke  23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation and unprotection
I am not willing to unprotect this page yet because it is not only Zeq who was the problem because in that case, I would have blocked him alone. This article went to two recent edit/move/revert wars and subsequent full-protections, that was enough. I am perfectly willing to make consensus edits, but I am NOT going to be involved into the content dispute. I am willing to act as a informal mediator as I indicated above as I think this page needs one, with the current tensions. If the latter is desired, please indicate it below so that I can get an idea if all major players do agree, because if not, it won't work. Because of all the tensions, I will start somewhat formal until I get a better feeling about what everybody means. (And as a minor note, I am female). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree

 * --Ben Houston 04:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (although I am not a major player in the dispute)


 * We're probably going to need a mediator -- I see too much POV on both sides, editors are probably not going to agree without outside pressure. IronDuke  15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * From the comments so far, you seem to be fair. Your efforts can hardly make things worse.  My one problem is that the article Apartheid (political epithet) has been "speedily deleted," and as I have posted elsewhere, my ultimate solution would be to have that (or something like it) end up being the title of the remaining article, into which this Iraeli apartheid (epithet) article, Apartheid outside South Africa, Apartheid (disambiguation) and perhaps others, would all be merged.  I suppose a work-around would be to have everything merged into Apartheid outside South Africa and then rename that to the name that was deleted, but that's one extra step, which I am sure will be hotly contested.  6SJ7 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Coment

 * I did not edit war. I made 3 edits (and  no reverts what so ever ) while Homey have reverted twice (after the protection was removed, more before that) and made noumouros edits. It was un-fair to ban me and Tony already admited that he was doing so only because I was under probation (i.e. "bannable" while others were not. Zeq 05:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not looked into detail in who did when what wrong, and I am not going to either. The page was locked the page because of an edit war between to many editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Page move
1) Move page back to name before move. I will do that, as I get the impression that most editors did not agree with that move. However, if there substantial resistance against that, I will move it back, so this is a conditional move back for the moment. So, let me know whether you agree or not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to "Israeli apartheid (phrase)"

 * Agree --Ben Houston 04:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't really mind, 'epithet', 'phrase', it's all the same to me. I was just annoyed that no one consulted before moving it --Coroebus 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree -- see [Apartheid in international law]. The view that any reference to apartheid outside of the South African concept is an epithet is obviously not shared by the UN or intenational law and is therefore contestable and a POV. Homey12:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree "phrase" is sufficient to indicate that the article does not concern a commonly accepted neutral fact. I think it was quite unethical to move this page so shortly after the AFD in which many people predicated their votes upon an article which corresponded to the then-title.Derex 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree an acceptable compromise between Israeli apartheid and the POV Israeli apartheid (epithet)Homey 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree By preferred choice would be Israeli apartheid, but there's little chance of a consensus on that.  This is an acceptable compromise.
 * Agree I share Derex's opinion that using (phrase), instead of no parenthetical modifier, indicates that Israeli apartheid is not an established fact, but that there is much disagreement about it. I also think that (phrase) is more NPOV than (epithet) in this case.  I'd also be happy with the move to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" mentioned below. -- DImfeld 07:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree I'd urge deletion of this highly unencyclopedic article, but if it must stay, let's not call it "Israeli Apartheid" as if Apartheid in Israel were accepted fact: it's plainly not.Timothy Usher 01:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to "Israeli apartheid"

 * 1) Agree - Why do we need a parenthetical commentary?  Is there such a thing as "Israeli apartheid (fruit)" or "Israeli apartheid (dog)"?  Al  17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, in the view of many there is no such thing as "Israeli apartheid," that is why a qualifier is needed in the title. 6SJ7 18:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See my argument below for why that's irrelevant. Snoutwood (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree - moved vote here.  --Ben Houston 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree - this would be my ideal location, as per Islamofascism and New anti-Semitism, but I am well aware that this is very unlikely to gain consensus, so I'd like to point out I'm not that bothered. --Coroebus 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly Agree - For the same reasons I gave for Islamofascism. Since I can't say it any better than I did there, I'm just going to quote myself. "Bits in parentheses after article titles (such as, in this case, "term") are disambiguations. As there isn't anything to disambiguate between, adding "(term)" is unnecessary. I see two main arguments to oppose: that it's a term and should be labeled as such, and that without the label "term," the article would sound like it is something undeniably real. The first isn't correct: we don't label the George W. Bush article (president) or (man), nor the Democracy article (politics). The second is also wrong: we have Holocaust revisionism, for example, with no modifier." I'll add that the lack of the (epithet) dab does not in any way, shape, or form imply that we agree that Israeli apartheid exists, or otherwise. The dab has absolutely nothing to do with neutrality, and everything to do with disambiguation. That's all there is to it. Snoutwood (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree  As noted above, there's little need for a qualifier when the actual term does not require disambiguation.  "Israel apartheid (phrase)" might be a fair compromise, but there's little need for any paranthetical addition. CJCurrie 03:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Comment. I would most certainly change my keep vote to delete on the next AFD if that occurred. The unmodified name suggests a factual description, which is to say the least a matter of dispute. I suspect you will lose the entire article in a couple months if you do that. Derex 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid"

 * 1) Agree - thought this might be a compromise, it then allows it to be a subpage of Apartheid outside of South Africa (not sure about that title though if we want gender etc. but I see they've been integrated anyway), we could then get rid of the disambig page, have a link to Apartheid outside of South Africa in the History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era page (which is the redirect from apartheid). Then maybe unilateral WP:POINT renames of e.g. Islamofascism to Islamofascism (epithet) could be left up to a vote without the overtones of this debate --Coroebus 06:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to Apartheid (epithet)

 * 1) The content of this article should be integrated into Apartheid (epithet). ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with move from "Israeli apartheid (epithet)"

 * 1) Disagree - the article title is a pejorative political epithet. To call it a "phrase" is to give it legitimacy (which would be wrong per NPOV). Would we "neutralize" Fascism (epithet)? Similarly, a proper title for an encylopedic article should be Apartheid (epithet). ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I draw (again) the parallel with Islamofascism and New anti-Semitism, neither of which have qualifiers of "phrase", or "epithet" or "allegation", the latter despite specific inclusion of the AUT boycott, Livingstone, and Galloway, none of whom would be pleased at being called anti-Semitic (hmm, seems like many of the current set of editors are also involved in those articles, well). --Coroebus 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * NAS is an imperfect article. If reputable sources mention the persons/actions as relevant to a cetain phenomenon, I don't have a problem citing them. Back to our topic: "Israeli apartheid" is not a phenomenon, it is an pejorative political epithet. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fascism (epithet) has the dab, not for neutrality, but because there are other articles with the same title. Were there no other articles, it would indeed hold its rightful seat at Fascism. Thus, your argument is incorrect. Parenthetical disambiguations have nothing to do with neutrality or "legitimacy," and everything to do with disabiguating in such a way that it is easy to find the article you're lookng for. In this case, no such disambiguation is needed. Snoutwood (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a further aside, "epithet" is far from being the neutral term you seem to think it is. It either means a term used to characterize a person or thing, which would be meaningless as a dab, and is not the usage I think you mean it as, or (from the same source) "an abusive or contemptuous word or phrase," which is hardly NPOV. Snoutwood (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely "Israeli apartheid..." is not a fact but rather is an accusation, indeed "an abusive or contemptuous word or phrase". If you are truly looking for NPOV, do not title articles like so in the first place. Your second argument is, "it is easy to find". I do not know how do you reconcile these two contradictory positions: they seem to cancel each other. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Analogy: South African apartheid was indeed a fact, and calling it as such would be accurate, not an accusation. I am unaware if the Israeli situation has reached that point, but am certainly not going to assume that it's false. Secondly, this appears to be an article about the epithet. As such, the article should be named what the epithet is, and no neutrality is gained by using the disambiguator, seeing as a disambiguator's sole purpose is to differenciate article titles, rather than to give some ket insight into the existence or non-existence of their subject. As for your second point, I was attempting to say that the only reason parenthetical disambiguators are necessary are to disambiguate, and they should be phrased in such a way so as to make the article you're looking for easy to find. However, this is irrelevant because there isn't anything else to disambiguate between in this case. Snoutwood (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Disagree - per Humus. What is this article realy about ? It is not about Israel (already an article by that name), it is not about Israeli Arabs (already an article). It is not about the palestinian territories all these articles already exist. This article is about  use of the phrase Israeli "apartheid"  - this should be the name. Zeq 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not what you said here about moving 'Islamofascism (term)' to 'Islamofascism': "Support...Using this logic the term Nakba should be called nakba(term) Zeq 10:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)" --Coroebus 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Disagree per Humus.  Ironically, I was the person who argued for (phrase) before the idea of (epithet) came up.  But I prefer "epithet" on the grounds that a strong qualifier is necessary in order to balance the very objectionable word "apartheid."  I would not object to a slightly"softer" qualifier if someone can produce one... "pejorative phrase"?  I don't know.  But absent an acceptable compromise I would stay with "epithet."  6SJ7 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Disagree per Humus- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, It is clear to me, there was no consensus for the move to be conducted at this time. So, I have moved it back for the time being to let this poll conclude first. If people feel there are other options (as indicated), please indicate them and feel free to add your name under all options you are ok with. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree Consider homosexual agenda, which is a pejorative phrase, yet it doesn't have "(phrase)" appended to it. Al  07:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You do realise you're voting for the phrase to stay as (epithet) and not be moved back to (phrase) don't you? --Coroebus 10:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but I do now. I want to vote for the article to simply be entitled "Israeli apartheid", without the parenthetical commentary.  Al  17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What kind of example is this. The words homosexual agenda by themself does not imply anything (excpet that homosexuals have an agenda and indeed we do and this is not pejorative). On the other hand "Israeli Apartheid" imply that Israel pratice Apartheid (which it does not). Is the difference clear ? Zeq 07:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A procedural question: I voted "disagree" on the move from "epithet", do I also need to vote on the move to no qualifier, or to "phrase."?  Also, the comments between the numbered votes seem to have messed up the numbering in two places (only one of which was done by me), I don't know how to fix that.   6SJ7 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh, sorry, that was me, feel free to move my comments to fix the numbering, I would do it myself but I'm not sure how --Coroebus 18:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Coroebus, we seem to disagree quite a bit, but on this we are together: Neither of us knows how.  :)  6SJ7 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Does that make the disagree = stay as epithet more clear?, have also fixed comments. --Coroebus 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

About twice as many "voters" are against epithet as are for it. I think this calls for the compromise name choice rather than sticking with this one. Homey 02:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * WP does not operate on the simple majority rule and such move would be especially wrong in the light of recent rename of Islamofascism into Islamofascism (epithet). ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ... which was carried by User:Humus sapiens on 22:56 8 June 2006, without any prior consultation. This may not be the best possible comparison.  CJCurrie 03:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Change first sentences
Request was to change first sentence to:
 * Israeli apartheid (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics to describe the country's policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the phrase see it as a political epithet and do not consider Israel's practices to be comparable to the actions of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations, and regard the phrase as misleading polemic.

Agreeing with the current change does not need to inply that you agree with this as the final wording, but maybe consider it as a better starting point. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No. we need perhaps to do the other option: DElete this article and start a new one . The fact that someone created this and was here "first" should not give the benefit of us getting stucj with a mild compromise just we can not agree on the final outcome. This article need to start from blank. Zeq 06:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Discuss the content, not the editors. If you want it deleted, the AfD should have taken care of that, it did not. So, this is where we are. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree

 * Agree --Ben Houston 04:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree --Coroebus 06:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Bless sins 12:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree I'd say, that the first sentence should explain the meaning of the phrase rather than who has used it before. Raphael1 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Not perfect, but a clear improvement over the current version.  CJCurrie 03:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

 * disagree It is so diluted while wikipedia moto is "be bold". The title "aprtheide" and the fact that the wording describe "israel policies toward palestinians" are already strongly POV. The only attempt to NPOV it is that "others say it is no so" which is pretty lame. Much stronger words to describe who uses it and why are needede here) Zeq 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Disagree Ordinarily, we want to eliminate POV from articles. When we can't (as in this case, where pro and con are nothing but POV), we need to be sure that both sides are represented fairly. If we don't enumerate why people object to the term (and it only takes about four words to do that) then the article becomes unbalanced. IronDuke  15:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion as how to best say why people oppose the term? I'm sure you can see that Zeq's proposed wording is a mite unsatisfactory. --Coroebus 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Zeq's heart is in the right place, but I have already suggested to him why I think his version of the intro isn't going to fly. I think the sentence that's already there in the current version is perfectly good: "Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and is used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel." Now, full disclosure, I believe I wrote that sentence, so please pardon me while I pat myself on the back. But seriously, I don't see anything wrong with letting the critics have their very brief say at the beginning. As I said above "misleading polemic" is so mild a characterization of the crit that it is itself misleading. IronDuke  15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind 'historically innacurate' through to 'anti-semitic' (I think they're just an expansion of 'misleading polemic'), but do we have a source for claims that the use of the term itself has been used to justify terrorist attacks on Israel? It just seems a little hyperbolic to me (which is of course no guarantee that it hasn't been said). --Coroebus 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with....Coroebus, no need for antisemitic, causing terror etc..
 * Look we need to create symetry here (NPOV)
 * We can not do it by one one hand explaing "why Israel is apartheid" and on the other saying "what damage is caused to israel when it is described as apartheid"
 * We also can not create symetry by doing what this article does already saying "those who favor say it is because X, Y, Z, and those who oppose say it is because A, B, C.
 * This is because Wikipedia is not a soapbox and for other rasons.
 * So it brings me back to : We should say who use it (this is the key issue, any other intro just would give creadbility to a group that does not desrve it) and what they want to get by it (to infulance policy) . Next we should do the same about those who object the use, who they are and mention their POV that the analogy is in the wrong place since it is ignoring key issues. (details for both POV inside the article without turrning it to pissing contest or slur match) Zeq 16:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say, that symetry should be achieved by listing motivation (why), aim (what they want to get by it) and identities (who) of those who oppose the term and those who approve it. Raphael1 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with rapahel, this is the best way to explain without "buying in" or endorsing each of the diffrent sides POV . Zeq 09:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see this source has been used in the article for that claim, but it doesn't seem to be his main argument, I wonder about raising up that single point to the intro, unless there is anymore evidence that there is a widespread opinion that the phrase/comparison is a justification for terrorism? How about a compromise that is a bit more neutral talking about attempting to delegitimise Israel or something like that? --Coroebus 15:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Any progress here or is this a deal breaker (or are people too busy trying to get the article moved)? --Coroebus 09:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree but mainly as to the second sentence, per Iron Duke. I think the current second sentence is better.  I could live with the proposed first sentence but with the words "of Israel" added after "critics."  As I posted elsewhere (and I think I was agreeing with Iron Duke in saying this), the "laundry list" of references to who uses the epithet is not needed in the lead and should be dealt with in the body of the article (as I believe it already is.)  That goes for both leftist Iraeli MK's on one hand, and neo-Nazis on the other.  6SJ7 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree per 6SJ7.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * commentDoing this would be NPV from the get-go. Therm itself is VERY one sided, if start by "explianing" it you accpet the propeganda of those who use it. Zeq 12:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can understand, that those who support the political decisions of the Knesset, are very sensitive in this regard. OTOH explaining the meaning of a pejorative term does not necessarily mean, that you support its usage. Raphael1 13:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you accuse me of supporting the decision of the Israeli goverment I will see it as a violation of WP:NPA. Wikipedia is not the place to give any fringe group the floor to "explain itself" Zeq 16:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you feel personally attacked, if someone would claim, that you are supporting the decisions of the Israeli goverment, you are probably a strong opponent of Israeli politics as well. Though certainly not everybody who opposes Israelis policies approves the term "Israeli apartheid", it is certainly not a fringe group. Raphael1 16:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to describe me as Non conformist who disagree both with israeli goverment actions and with ctitism that is aimed at denying Israel right to exist I'll take this as a compliment. Zeq 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Usefulness of mediation
I think recent attempts at mediating every small iota about this article is pathetic and futile. Everything will end up as "No consensus". It is time to recognize that Normal wikipedia mechanisms do not work about this issue. Zeq 06:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Plees keep a positive attitude. Thanks
 * Well, if it stays a deadlock, the page will stay locked. The page has survived the AfD, so it will remain. The best hope is to get a purely descriptive page, highlighting who uses it, and why, and why it is such a controversial term. And everything fully sourced with verifiable and reliable external sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a clear demonstartion of misusing wkipedia policy. Clearly no policy had ever intdend to "freeze" forever an article that has very little consenus about it. Zeq 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the policies are there to avoid edit warring.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is simple: How can we avoid edit war and get an article that meets both WP:RS and WP:NPOV ?
 * Zeq 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the question. As I indicated, I am willing to mediate here, but I first want to see whether people accept me as a mediator. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As for myself I will of course accept you as mediator. I may not agree with you but I 100% trust your Good Faith and that whats count.
 * To make our life about NPOV easier we should start by WP:RS. Anything that is not according to WP:RS (and arbcom rullings about sourced used for such articles) should be removed. Afater we finish with WP:RS we will have so little that it should not be an issue to NPOV. Zeq 16:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that Zeq has been banned from editing this page for a reason. Homey 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He has the right to contrinute to the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What so that means that anything he says is automatically wrong? That is essentially a red herring. He is allowed to contribute to the talk page. Anyways, if you were on probation you would have been blocked from this article long ago.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is Zeq on probation, Moshe? Because he has shown a pattern of tendenatious editing and has been banned from various articles on the MidEast, including this one (for probation violation), as a result. Given the reasons why he has been banned it should not be a surprise that Zeq is a consistent obstacle to consensus and his suggestions are systematically POV and counterproductive. Homey 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The same good be said about you just as easily.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would ask if you guys can get past baiting each other -- it is distracting and you are all just raising each others blood pressure. --Ben Houston 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, I want to say something very general: Don't waste energy on my behalf, I am not worth it. Zeq 17:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope it didn't violate any rule for me to change the heading of this section to something I think is less likely to confuse people wishing to participate in the mediation process. (See edit summary) 6SJ7 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am fine with it, the disucssion started about the first one, but evolved quite rapidly into the second, so it is now more accurate. My question to you would be, would you agree on mediation?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I did, see my edit of: 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC). I also included a comment that deals with the parameters of what it is that you are mediating; I think a global approach is necessary since there have been so many articles created, moved, merged, etc.  The discussion has become very fragmented and at least one article that could have been useful in the process has been "speedily deleted."  Su-laine.yeo made a great comment about the fragmentation issue on one of the pages, but in keeping with the confusion that this has caused, I do not remember which page it was.  6SJ7 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw that, which is effectivly saying, yes, but in a wider context. That will be a much larger effort, and would require a central discussion place. I can see your arguments, but it might not be feasable at the moment. What I can see as a logical road towarsds that is to get the seperate articles stable and based on consensus. My guess is that it then becomes more clear that they have so much over lap, that adding the different articles as sections to the larger article is the logical thing to do next, which by that time can be done with much less problems. At this moment, it would just result in a discussion about several subtopics with the main line discussion going trough it as well. I just do not see that working at the moment if it is sheer impossible to have a content discusion about a single subtopic at the time. Just my 2 cents. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually somewhat in agreement with 6SJ7 regarding a global solution (Talk:Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa) but I don't think many people will go for it, and I have some reservations about whether people will just use it is an excuse to AFD or merge away the article in the end. --Coroebus 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim, I understand what you are saying about the effort required to effect a global solution to this problem. I also understand that you have volunteered to be a mediator in one article, and basically what I am saying is that it is going to be very difficult to effect a compromise on one part of the issue at a time.  But you already knew that.  It is sort of like you volunteered to do someone a favor and now they just have eight or nine more favors they'd like you to do while you're in the mood.  It's just an application of the rule "No good deed goes unpunished."  As one example of the difficulty in doing this piecemeal, obviously the content of the first paragraph of an article is of concern to many people, but there is likely to be less arguing and more compromising if people know that the first paragraph is going to end up being the first paragraph of a section and not of an entire article.  Same thing applies even more so to a title, if it's just a section title in a larger article you are not going to get the kind of battling that has occurred over the title of this article.  And that leads right into the fact that the merge(s) is/are probably going to be the most contentious issue.  There is at least one editor/admin who seems absolutely adamant that there has to be an article with a title suggesting a link between Israel and apartheid, and who has resisted every effort to arrive at a different result, and who... well, I see your eyebrows starting to raise at that point (and we've never even met), so I will stop there.  If that individual has agreed to participate in the mediation, I missed it, though he did vote in one of the polls.  I hope that we can all resolve this situation, with your much-appreciated assistance.   6SJ7 03:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know yet if I am willing to wade in the wider context discussion. But maybe that is the only way. What I do think is that if there can be a solid consensus about thea lead, that lead can also be used for a merged section, the other way round might be more difficult. And for the title, I think the way to go is to think about how people find an article, which is either through a wikilink (which can be piped to anything anyway (e.g. where is my house), through an external link (less likely), though an external search engine (content based, or specific to a term anyway) or people search through wikipedia. In the latter case, they are most likely to get here through Israeli apartheid, as that is what people seach for. Just some of my ramblings. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I found several comments by Su-laine.yeo to be very enlighting, so if there is a smart person that also has detachment from the issue I suggest we follow his/hers advice. Zeq 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)