User:HG1/sandbox

People are encouraged to participate in this straw poll  exploring possible alternative names for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Prior to voting in this non-binding straw poll, it is recommended that one read at least part (I) of  Exploring the grounds for a consensus. Thank you for your consideration. HG | Talk 04:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Requested Move for "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid"
Please assume that I am acting in good faith as I suggest this straw poll, even though it may be rushing the process somewhat. Please be civil etc., per the earlier suggested guidelines. Thanks!. HG

Important Guidelines for Voting:
 * Please read the materials before voting
 * When voting, state whether you could accept Option A, B and/or C.
 * Place your vote, signed with four tildes ~ in your preferred subsections
 * You are encouraged to state which grounds support your vote, e.g. G1-3. Keep editorial comments concise.
 * We probably should not use this poll to argue against other people's votes.
 * Suggested deadline: This time tomorrow (?!) HG | Talk 03:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please help clarify these steps if necessary, thanks very much. HG
 * If somebody did not seem clear about how to vote, please help them out

Goal of Straw Poll: To test whether general acceptance might emerge around 1-3 different Article Names that are consistent with the necessary supporting grounds (G1-2) and optional (G3). By general acceptance, I mean: Many parties, acting in good faith in accord with Wikipedia policies, could reasonably prefer a recommended name (Options A, B, or C) as significantly more neutral than the current Article Name, and live with the Move, even though it may not be their first choice.

Background Proposal (incomplete). The background for the Requested Move (RM) would consist, at a minimum, of two supporting grounds (G1-G2) and at least one of the Options for a new Article Name. In addition, the RM proposal could contain a brief preface and a concluding appeal.


 * You are encouraged to endorse as many of the three Options (A-C) that you could live with the Option, as preferable to the current name, even though each is not your first choice. For friendly amendments, you may use the List of terms and headings (above) or be creative.


 * Caveat: If a Requested Move is adopted, it would still allow further refinements of the Article Name. I would hope such changes be less contentious. The straw poll votes should assume that the Move would NOT prejudge the need to edit, delete, merge, etc the Content of the renamed article, please. Thanks for your cooperation!

Option A. Article name: "Similarities and differences between South Africa and Israel"


 * This option includes an Article Template: "Note: This article centers on apartheid in South Africa as a basis for comparison. For other comparisons, see the country-related articles and such topics as climate, topography and philately."


 * Rationale: Besides satisfying grounds 1 and 2, this option avoids disputes about the neutrality of the term 'apartheid' and it includes scholarship on such matters as demographics and discourse, which are not necessarily linked the understanding of 'apartheid' as a political system.

Option B. Article name: "Similarities and differences between apartheid-era South Africa and Israeli policy"


 * Rationale: Some parties would prefer to specify 'apartheid' in the title, rather than the template, and the proposed wording would minimize the concern of some people regarding the word's negative and POV connotations.

Option C. Article name: "Debate on the similarities and differences between Israeli policies toward Palestinians and South African apartheid."


 * Rationale: This is a simple description drawn from statement G1. However, it is very long; 'debate' may overemphasis rhetoric at the expense of substance, and it is limited to policies, potentially excluding non-policy aspects of apartheid.

I could endorse at least one Option
''Vote here to endorse the Proposal and Requested Move. Identify which Options A,B,C (or friendly edits thereof) you would accept, though not your 1st choice. Sign.''

I could accept at least one Option with reservations
''Vote to accept with reservations. You may request certain conditions with the Move, state different grounds or suggest alternative Article Names.'' Nevertheless, if your reservations are not passed in the RM, this vote suggests that you could accept the Requested Move if need be. Therefore, please identify which Options A,B,C (or friendly edits thereof) you could accept, though not your 1st choice.''

Unreserved opposition
People who oppose all 3 Options, regardless of friendly rewordings, without reservation, may vote and comment here.