Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel and the apartheid analogy

Nature of the dispute
Have just nopticed that Harlan has been editing the opening statements about the nature of the dispute. I don't think this is appropriate - the involved parties signed on to a mediation of the title of the article as describing in the original request details, not a mediation on the broader issues Harlan has outlined. I don't have a problem with the addition of the notice of the ARBCOM remedy, that's on-topic for the title discussion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think a natural evolution here may be:  the article's name is improved; then the article grows over time and - if it gets too large - it is split into sub-articles.  The article already has a section "Crime of apartheid and Israel", and if that section gets too large, it can be split-off into its own article.  Harlan:  I would suggest that, if you (Harlan) have more content for that Crime section, you propose adding it into the article via the Talk page.  If any editor objects that "it would make the article too big" then you could propose a split/content-fork on the Talk page.  If mediation is required to create the split/content-fork, you could initiate a new Mediation effort at that time .... or, if the time is now (meaning you already proposed new Crime content and it was rejected for size reasons), go ahead and initiate a new Mediation now ... but it may be confusing to have two Mediations progressing simultaneously, so perhaps you could wait for this one to finish?  --Noleander (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ryan and Neolander, genocide and apartheid are not human rights, they are International crimes and the relevant conventions prohibiting them are part of a body of International criminal law. WP:WPIL is trying to improve Wikipedia coverage on international law and the case law developments in the International Courts. Ryan, you've removed the POV and WP:OR tags from the article in the past without settling this dispute. You've also ignored posts asking for Moderation or Arbcom on this subject and a separate article.


 * The Arbcom remedy says "If negotiation is unsuccessful, interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter." We have now arrived at that point and it is long since time to descope the analogy nonsense. The sources that I've been citing don't mention it. Surely we don't need clarification from Arbcom on basic WP:Synth policy? If you and the other participants don't want to enter into mediation, then you obviously can't continue to raise objections about the creation of article(s) as part of WP:WPIL efforts on genocide, colonialism, the crime of apartheid, & etc. harlan (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Harlan: I hear what you are saying.  If you want to, go ahead and open up a second mediation on "Proposal to create a new article on 'Israel and the crime of apartheid'", I would not object to that. (I'm only objecting to expanding this mediation to include the issue of creating a new Crime article).  If you have enough sourced content to support an entire article on the "Israel and crime ..." subject, I would support your effort to create such an article. --Noleander (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to help this mediation stay focused, Harlan. If this mediation is successful in agreeing a name that includes the crime of apartheid in its scope, then many of the problems you've raised will go away. So I recommend we see this through before looking for other solutions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice that such changes were being made. I'll fix it if it needs fixing

Harlan, let me be explicit: I am ok with almost any change to the nature of this mediation that is arrived at by consensus discussion, but please do not unilaterally change the focus of the proceedings. we're here to talk, not fight, and I'd appreciate it if you would shift into that mode. -- Ludwigs 2 15:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

IP additions

 * I saw an attempt to censor some of the contributions for this discussion. This is Wikipedia, not George Orwell's "1984", so please stick to the content, and don't try to act as censors. 79.177.35.158 (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, neither you nor the other ip are mediation participants. This page is not a free forum for discussion.  if you would like to contribute to the mediation, please register an account and sign onto the mediation formally.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

is this mediation active?
There has been no activity on this page for the last couple of days (despite the straw poll that was organized). It seems that people are not all that interested in pursuing mediation at this time. should we close this as unresolved, or is there still some interest in the matter? -- Ludwigs 2 06:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in seeing it through, but having voted in the straw poll and seeing some divergence of opinion, I'm not sure what to move to next. I'm 100% certain that if this mediation doesn't reach some conclusion (even if that's to keep the status quo), we'll see the name continue to be an issue on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, the mediation isn't getting a lot of the parties who've expressed interest in the subject involved - it probably doesn't help that the process had taken a long time before you came onboard. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is still active. Maybe people are busy with the World Cup :-)  I suppose you (Ludwig) could pro-actively remind the participants that their input is needed?  Or maybe announce a tentative outcome, that may stimulate some input :-)  --Noleander (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll drop notes on everyone's talk pages. however, I am looking at patterns of behavior: there is far more interest in debating the content of the article on the article talk page than in debating the name of the article here.  that leads me to believe that the mediation might be malformed.  maybe it's worth considering closing this mediation and reopening a new one on the content issue?  -- Ludwigs 2  15:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A mediation on whether it's okay to remove unsourced material from articles? I wouldn't sign on for that, the policies are clear. The article's talk page usually has some disagreement or other. But the naming discussion is the most recurring one. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Anything that's a subject for dispute is open to mediation. my main worry is that this mediation (which actually feels more like something to be resolved with an RfC than something that needs to be mediated) is nothing more than an outgrowth of the real dispute on the article (which is a deeper issue about how to handle the opposing sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict).  If that's the case, mediation on the article title won't do a darned bit of good, since the underlying dispute won't be resolved at all.  don't get me wrong, I'm happy to do it, I'm just not convinced it will actually achieve any meaningful results.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ARBCOM said that that if negotiation on the name fails, we're required to enter good-faith mediation. That's the guideance we're following here, and I'm not sure how a Request for Comment would help. Except perhaps to canvas a broader range of editors to hopefully come up with a stronger agreement on one title or another? I suppose if that happened, then it could be argued that negotation hasn't failed. But the real test would be what happens next if the name actually gets changed - grudging acceptance or edit war? My hope was that if we have a decent discussion of the options in mediation and all views are taken into account, any change agreed to would be more durable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also the "silence is acquiescence" (WP:Silence) principle: This article has been hotly debated for years, and the title is a recurring sore spot.  This mediation was initiated after lengthy debate on the Talk page, and it follows the process outlined above by Ryan P (resorting to mediation).   There may be several reasons that some editors choose not to participate in this mediation:  (1) too busy;  (2) trust other editors to work it out in mediation and implicitly accept the result; or (3) deliberately avoid the mediation as a form of protest.   All of those reasons  suggest that we should still continue the mediation with only the handful of interested editors.  Good-faith editing requires bellying-up to the mediation bar :-)   --Noleander (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * well, I don't like applying "Silence=consent" in mediation unless I'm fairly certain it really does. A bad assumption in that regard won't resolve anything, since the silent but non-consenting user will surely complain at some point or other.  best to get as much input from everyone as possible to be sure that the outcome really does have consent.  Also, the reason why this feels more like RfC territory is that there's not a lot of meat in the debate.  As you'll see when we get a few more votes and comments, the dimensions of this dispute are pretty simple and clear cut (and I suspect, thoroughly dug-in). It may be more effective to get a bunch of opinions from non-involved editors and let that decide than to involved parties lock horns over it.


 * well, we'll see. let's see wat happens with the straw poll.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur there is "not a lot of meat" in the Mediation page itself. But there is a lot of meat in the article's Talk page archives.  Speaking personally, I have not added much detailed info into the Mediation page because there are 14 candidate titles, and it is just too broad right now.   I'm waiting for it to get narrowed down to two or three finalists (my prediction is "Israel and apartheid" and "Allegations/accusations of Israeli apartheid").   At that point,  a detailed discussion can begin to pick one of the two.  But until then, it would be confusing/wasteful to add much detail.  Therefore, my suggestion is:  wait for a few more days, then narrow it down to 2 or 3 finalists, then begin the detailed discussion.  At that point, more editors may weigh-in with their ideas. --Noleander (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a more flexible and general title
None of the proposed titles so far could win strong support; which appears to me because they are too rigid, and too caught up in the moment. I think we should strive for flexibility and generality. Flexibility is described by the question "Will the title still be accurate when some of the current facts change?" (E.g. "allegations" ceases to be accurate when they are confirmed or refuted.) By generality, I mean the question "Does the title apply to the topic independently of the position of the reader?" (E.g. a title like "Israel and apartheid" will not invite readers who believe that Israel's policy has nothing to do with South Africa's apartheid.)

A title that seems to meet these criteria would be "Racial policy in Israel". Would it be OK to add it to the list? &mdash; Sebastian 07:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, on second thought, I realize it's not that easy. As the article says, "The question of whether Israelis and Palestinians can be said to constitute "racial groups" has been a point of contention". And the marriage law "applies equally to a Palestinian spouse of any Israeli citizen, whether Arab or Jewish", so it arguably doesn't fit under the headline of racial policy. So, here's another idea: Currently, the lead starts with "The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians"; that could be condensed to "Israel's treatment of the Palestinians". Would that be flexible and general enough? &mdash; Sebastian 07:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The author of the Counterpunch article that you mentioned is not a lawyer. His opinion should not be given too much weight. The original prohibition against Apartheid or similar policies and practices of racial segregation was contained in Article 3 of the ICERD. That convention entered into force in 1969, and ever since then "racial discrimination" has been defined as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."


 * Article 1 of the 1973 apartheid convention defines the crime of apartheid as policies and practices of apartheid AND "similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination". Ryan and I discussed a title based upon racial segregation. Add it to the list if you want.


 * The argument that discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in the OPT is not racially motivated, but is based purely on citizenship, is tautological. Under Israeli law, Palestinian refugees born on the Israeli side of the Green Line and now living in the OPT would not be prevented from returning to their homes, marrying in Israel, or obtaining Israeli citizenship if they were Jews. harlan (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That may be right, but it is off topic for this section. My goal in this section is to find a more flexible and general title, and a title that relies on one side of an argument doesn't fit that bill.
 * To reiterate why that is necessary: If you want your cause to be heard by the largest number of readers, then it's smart to resist the temptation to pick the title you like best. Think of your readers. If only those who already agree with you read the article, then you're just preaching to the choir. (I find this especially sad because it reinforces dug in positions and forestalls truth and reconciliation.) To reach readers who are sitting on the fence, pick a title that they understand as being unbiased. If a reader already perceives the title as biased, he or she won't read the article, and you lost your case before you get to make it. &mdash; Sebastian 21:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You raised the subject by saying "the marriage law arguably doesn't fit under the headline of racial policy." Israel and 172 other countries are contracting state parties to the ICERD which contains the internationally agreed-upon definition of the term "racial discrimination". The contracting parties elect their own panel of legal experts to a treaty body called the CERD. It monitors the implementation of the convention by the member states. The CERD panel has taken several early warning and urgent action procedures because many families and marriages have been adversely affected by the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) of 31 July 2003. The CERD decided that it raised serious issues under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. e.g. See  and para 20 . The latter contains several concerns in connection with article 3, which prohibited apartheid and similar policies of racial segregation. Apartheid and segregation are certainly suitable topics for an article title. The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. harlan (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Sebastian 18:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Time to narrow down to final 2 or 3 choices?
Mediator: !voting has died down, so it may be time to pick the 2 or 3 most supported choices and start the detailed discussion. My suggestion would be to omit candidate choices that had zero or one supporting editors. Also: omit candidate titles whose only supporters chose it as their 2nd or 3rd choice and their 1st choice is one of the finalists. --Noleander (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)