Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 43

Delegitimization

Further to previous discussions with Tempered around the content he wished to introduce based on sources who regard the apartheid label as an attempt to "delegitimize" Israel, here is my draft re-working of his text.

Some critics of the apartheid analogy state that it is intended to delegitimize and demonize Israel and Zionism, applying a higher standard of behaviour to the Jewish state than to other nations or to the Palistinian Authority in order to justify the boycotting, ostracism, or elimination of the State of Israel. Philosopher Bernard Harrison describes the apartheid label as "hyperbolic". He states that while there are reasonable grounds to criticize Israel for the establishment of settlements in the West Bank, or for the treatment of Christians and Muslim Arabs in Israel as "second class citizens", the apartheid comparison is a politically-motivated exaggeration of the situation in Israel intended to undermine its moral basis for existence.

Historian Robert Wistrich has argued that the apartheid label is a continuation of the historical vilification of Jews using accusations such as deicide and blood libel, and that it is propaganda used by the Muslim world resembling that used against Jews by Nazi Germany. Arguments have also been made that historical Russian antisemitism later manifested in the Soviet Union as accusations that Israel's policies resemble apartheid, a discourse that was designed to help Arab states allied to the USSR.

Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian political scientist specializing in international law and human rights, considers that delegitimization of Israel was pursued at Durban as part of a campaign to legitimize Islamist and leftist terrorism as justifiable "popular resistance," not just against Israel but against liberal democracies and Western societies generally.

I don't consider this draft anything like finished, if I worked on it longer it would become more concise and I'd take a closer look at the references. In particular, there are two long lists of references that should each be culled down to the 2 or 3 best references that support the preceding statements, but I'm not able to go through them all assessing which are the most relevant and reliable sources at the moment. So my inclusion of those long lists of references in this draft doesn't mean I'd want them in the article, I just haven't finished culling them. These two paragraphs don't need more than about 10 references, as opposed to the 28 it currently has. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

One or two references per sentence should be sufficient. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that this section be moved to the actual section above that it is responding to and commenting on, called "New version of proposed contribution," as a sub-section entitled "Version 2: First and Second Paragraph." The source text and all the footnote references are from and reflect the contribution from that section. In fact, rather than repeat anew every citation reference, it would be sufficient just to use the citation number of the footnote given in the original source text. I will respond to the specifics of this version 2, both the first and the second paragraphs, above under the rubric title suggested.Tempered (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That would stop those sections being archived, and it's quite a lot of text. Large amounts of text on the talk page make it unweildy to download and edit, especially for people on slower connections, which is the reason for archiving, so new sections are desirable for long-term conversations on a busy page. People can still refer to that text when it's archived. As for the refs, I wanted editors to be able to easily see and choose among them.Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, people are less likely to read that section because it's at the top of the page so doesn't look "new". Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you're replying to this contribution way up in an old section. I'm not going to reply up there to discussion about my contribution that is down here, it's confusing. In any case, your response suggests we're going nowhere fast on this, rather you're going back to old arguments that you already know there is a consensus against, your interpretation of Hadar being the most obvious. If you'd like to move your comments about this contribution down here (in the logical place, under the contribution), and discuss it without endlessly making the same points that there is a consensus against, then I'll continue helping with this. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

One would almost think you did not read the response, Ryan Paddy. Your characterization of it is incorrect, to such a degree that anyone just relying on it would have no idea of what it contains. Moreover, you simply reject the suggested modifications I put to your first paragraph when it first appeared, without even discussing any one of them either then or now, and as for the second paragraph and its flaws, you are not willing to consider any of my points, which are all entirely new and arose in response to them. Effectively, then, all this is special pleading to allow you to reject any serious or critical discussion at all. As an essay in seeking a "consensus" text that is laughable. As for your creating this section here rather than in the sub-section you yourself originally created just for this purpose, you indicate that your chief reason is to force the archiving of my original contribution, so that it is not available for immediate reference or reading, even though it is the source for all of your own text and citations. You actually bring nothing new of your own research to this, but solely rely on the research contained in my proposed contribution. This is not fair-dealing. I therefore do not want that contribution to be archived until a consensus document is reached. The contribution is the standard against which your own version must be measured, whether pro or con. To seek its removal from this page prematurely is already rather a suspect and prejudicial motivation. Neither is it true that the text would be unwieldy to download and edit, especially for people with slower modems, etc. That is because when a sub-section is created, only text in that sub-section is downloaded for editing, if you click on the "Edit" link for that sub-section. So the excuse is not a valid one. Tempered (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Further point: you say the entries there might be missed by editors because it is not in a "new" place, here at the bottom of the page. However, almost all sections have entries added well after they are started. And any editor not aware of the new discussion at the sub-section "Version 2: First and Second Paragraphs" will be aware of it now from this discussion at the bottom of the page, and can easily check on it above. If you want any feedback at all from me, it will only come at the sub-section I mentioned.Tempered (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that there appears to be no prospect of successfully helping you with this, so I give up. Good luck, feel free to use any aspects of my contributions that you like, or discard them, as you see fit. I may comment here and there, but I won't be driving this with you. My suggestion, which you are free to disregard, is that if you take my contribution and trim the long lists of references down to 1 or 2 per sentence, then you may be able to get consensus to add it to the article (I for one would support it, subject to consideration of other editor's objections). Once that core content was present, you could attempt to add further sentences and references to the article to build on it, as consensus allows. Given that your main objection to my contribution appears to be that it's too light on detail (not that the details it provides are inaccurate), this would allow you to have a partial success that you can build on. This softly-softly approach would be more likely to meet with success than a big-bang approach of trying to get consensus for a long, detailed and controversial contribution here in talk and then adding it all at once. All the best - I still think the "delegitimisation" perspective is significant and should be represented in the article per NPOV, it's just unfortunate we couldn't see eye to eye on how to write it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My response is above in the proper place.Tempered (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

It is incomprehensible that this article exists. This article has no topic. The article space merely provides an area to lodge complaints against Israel. In the absence of a topic there should be no article here. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Busstop: This seems like trolling. Look at the AfDs that have been attempted before (there have been nine AfDs). WP doesnt need this kind of drama. I'd suggest that you self-revert this Talk page section (feel free to remove my comment also). Instead, let's go work on improving articles and creating new ones, okay? --Noleander (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, the article is about the accusations that some notable people and organizations, from Jimmy Carter to the United Nations, have made comparing Israel's treatment of Palestinians to how South African treated blacks under their state of apartheid. These are numerous, in-depth, and reported by reliable sources. The article gives some historical background to the debate, notes who has made the comparison and the context in which it was given. It also details those who defend Israel's actions and reject the analogy, and why. I hope this clears up your confusion as to the article's subject matter. I realize that the Wikipedia's concept of "verifiability not truth" is a very difficult concept for new users to understand, but it really is quite simple. An encyclopedia does not take a position on what is true or false, it serves as a summarization or concise reflection of what others of note say on a subject. Just because a Wikipedia article exists, does not mean that said existence is a champion of or a supporter of the subject matter. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Stated" and "argued"

There's an edit war brewing over whether a source "stated" something or "argued" it. According to WP:SAY, the word stated is "almost always neutral and accurate." Stated is used 26 times through this article in relation to all points of view. Argue is not mentioned in WP:SAY, but it is also a neutral term that's widely used on Wikipedia (and also happens to be used 26 times in this article). The two terms are fairly interchangable and equally neutral with regards to the accuracy of what the source is saying. They are used together with said and wrote to provide variety in the writing. My suggestion in this case is that the editor who made the first revert self-reverts the text back to using stated. The argument given for not using stated that "its an opinion not a fact" is clearly not relevant, given that stated is given as a prime example of a desirable neutral term by WP:SAY. Going forward, either term should continue to be be acceptable in this article so long as they fit well into the paragraph in question. When in doubt, "stated" is the preferred term because it's given as an example of a preferred term by WP:SAY. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"argue" is worse then "claim", which the aforelinked guideline specifically says to avoid. I don't know why "argue" is not included therein, but it's quite obvious that it should be avoided.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel "argue" would be a poor choice? --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

see the manual of style guideline linked linked right here in this section.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone, and I think it's clear from your comment Ryan that the section of WP:SAY to which you refer is in need of a tweak, because "state" is clearly not "almost always" a neutral term. It certainly isn't a neutral term when applied to a tendentious argument, because it implies neutrality where there is none. The bottom line of WP:SAY is that expressions should be avoided that "may introduce bias [or which] lack precision". Foxman's comment is more accurately described as an argument than a "statement", therefore we should avoid the more imprecise term which introduces the possibility of misreading, per the guideline. Gatoclass (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's precisely because of comments like these that we have the guideline in place. It's your opinion that the statement of the National Director of probably the most famous organization dedicated to fighting antisemitism is a "tendentious argument." Whilst your entitled to your opinion, most reasonable editors would not describe his statement as a "tendentious argument." This is why we have the guideline in place - so that we don't have these silly arguments.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I argue that the term argue is very precise in this case, 'states' makes it seem like he is stating facts when really he is giving an opinion. And brewcrewer please stop the personal attacks, do not call me and other editors unreasonable and silly because we do not agree with you. Passionless -Talk 04:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

hmmm. as this is your first comment here, it is unlikely (or is it impossible?) that I called you "unreasonable and silly." i suppose falsely accusing me of personally attacking you is itself a personal attack. but don't worry my friend, you're not being unreasonable and you are certainly not silly. if someone ever tells you otherwise you tell me right away.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your insults are aimed at all who oppose you, whether they have opened their mouths yet or not, you have split all editors into two groups all those who oppose you are irreasonable, and those who agree with you are reasonable. Passionless -Talk 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

good night, my friend. let the record speak for itself.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly brewcrewer, argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Secondly, like Passionless, I hardly think it appropriate to begin a discussion in this topic area by immediately labelling the other POV "silly".

In regards to your objection to the word "tendentious", there is little point in having a debate about whether Foxman's argument qualifies as such. It's not really the word I was looking for anyway, so for the sake of discussion I will substitute the word "contentious". The point is, Foxman has made a highly debatable assertion here that I'm sure would be repudiated by Carter. We should not employ "neutral" language for such an argument, but rather employ a term which accurately reflects the contentious nature of the statement. Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

argument from authority may be a logical fallacy, but it is squarely within our NPOV and RS policies. Those polices teach us that the statements of National Directors of notable and widely respected organizations dedicated to fighting one of this world's worst evils should not be considered a "tendentious argument."

i did not label another POV is silly, i labeled the argument as silly. just look - we have all these strawmen and other false accusations of personal attacks (in of itself a personal attack) for what, for a simple change consistent with WP:SAY of "argue" to "state." I'll say it again, its a silly argument.

now i'm really going to sleep.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, hopefully when you come back to this discussion it will be without the red herrings and dismissive comments. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

To state something is to say it. There's no argument that the source said (or wrote) the statement, so stated is an appropriate term. To argue is to make a statement using logic. The source also did this, so argued is also appropriate. They're both appropriate words, which is why they're the most common terms of attribution both here and throughout Wikipedia. Both sides are engaged in needless pedantry on this point. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. To "state" something implies that it is an irrefutable truth; to "argue" implies that it is a reasonable and tenable assertion, but not necessarily the sole possible interpretation. It implies neither the truth nor the falsity of the assertion. It is a neutral term, and in this instance it is preferable as our verb to describe Foxman's comment. A non-neutral, weasel term would have been "claimed", which strongly implies the unreliability and likely falsity of the assertion so described; nobody has used or suggested using this term. RolandR (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There, a perfect explaination from RolandR. Passionless -Talk 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I can:

• State a point correctly
• State a point incorrectly
• Argue a point successfully
• Argue a point unsuccessfully

A statement can be false. An argument can be correct. Both are neutral. In particular, there is a strong consensus on Wikipedia "state" is neutral, as it means to "say". That consensus is reflected by WP:SAY, which is not some backwater guideline, it's on one of the most frequently referenced pages in the Manual of Style, especially when it comes to neutral wording (and especially under its old name of words to avoid). Editing this highly contentious page with reasoning in contradiction to the Wikipedia consensus on this word, and specifically reverting a use of the word "stated" because you want to emphasise the unreliability of a source, is very weak sauce, and I can't see any admins seeing this in your favour should this edit war continue. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I can state "The Moon is cheese", which a statement. I can also argue that since the Moon is cheese, it's the best solution to the global food shortage. That's an argument. Those terms don't cast the material in a positive or negative light, which lets the material speak for itself (which is perfect for Wikipedia). In my opinion, the phrase where it's easiest to go wrong is "point out" which at least in my mind creates an assumption of correctness and a possible NPOV breach. --Dailycare (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There are Wikipedia consensus on this matter.So all editors should act according to it.--Shrike (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are we even having a discussion about this? Ryan has stated that both terms are neutral. He has pointed out that both are used in the article 26 times. So what objection can there be to the use of the term here? I've laid out my reasons for opposition to use of the term "stated" in this context, and Roland has expanded on the theme. There are several users here who object to use of the word "state" in the given context on the grounds that it is potentially misleading; no-one has supplied any good reason why "argued" is not a valid alternative. This is beginning to look increasingly like a dispute for the sake of having one. If there are no objections to use of the word "argued" in 26 other instances in this article, why the fuss over this one? Gatoclass (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Before this edit war started the wording was "stated", which is a recommended term in the Manual of Style. The real question is therefore why people are edit warring to change it to "argued" on the basis that that is a more accurate term? I see that you were the editor who made the original revert that started this edit war, and provided a reason that was contrary to the Manual of Style recommendation. So the real question is why don't you revert your original edit and admit that your reasoning was contrary to the broad community consensus on "stated" as put forth in the Manual of Style? Both terms are acceptable, but "stated" is preferable and considered entirely neutral (as a synonym for "said"), so your reversion that started this mess was misguided. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Manual of Style never says state is better than argues, so I'm not sure what your talking about. It does say "Said, stated, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." Though I think its obvious that this case is why it says "almost" instead of always. Argues is a much more accurate and equally neutral word in this case than is stated. Passionless -Talk 09:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly Ryan, I must reject this notion that I somehow "started an edit war", I am not responsible for what other editors choose to do. Thus far I have made a single edit to this article, which was to change a single word in one of your many recent edits. If somebody has been "edit warring", it's not me.

Secondly, you still haven't answered my question. Why are you objecting so strenuously to this iteration when there are another 26 on the same page - iterations of a word which by your own admission is "equally neutral" with the word "stated"? Your only response so far is that "stated" is a word "recommended" by WP:SAY - but you yourself concede that "argued" is "equally neutral" and acceptable as a means of introducing "variety" into the text. If that is your only concern, then why not simply agree to the use of the word "argued" here, as you have tacitly done in the other 26 cases, in order to avoid prolonging this disagreement? I put it to you that by your own testimony you have no substantial objection to use of the word "argued", and that your opposition to its use in this one particular instance is both inconsistent with your own stated position and needlessly disruptive. Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with either word to be used in most cases. What I'm not happy with is for editors to change text from one use to the other while giving reasons that are contrary to the consensus in MoS. This page makes extensive use of both terms. If we followed your logic, we should go through all these usages change them to "stated" if the sources are '"accurate" in their statements, or to "argued" where we want to imply that their statement is merely the source's opinion. Who is to be the judge of which sources are accurate in their statements? You? This article covers a highly divisive subject and is subject to highly partisan editing. The partisan nature of your edit and the partisan reasoning given for it was likely to start an edit war, and lo and behold it did. Any further struggles over "stated" and "argued" - which are in fact used in an almost interchangeable manner throughout Wikipedia - will be equally partisan in nature, with those wishing to denigrate sources (as you do in this case) pushing for "argued", and those wishing to promote sources pushing for "stated", if your reasoning about their implications is accepted by other editors. This will only cause to inflame an already difficult article, for absolutely no benefit. For this reason, I am suggesting that the text be returned to its original state before you kicked off this mess (because it doesn't matter which term is used, so you shouldn't have changed it), and we all back away from this can of worms before it becomes necessary to involve admins. I wrote the text, and I wrote "stated" because I knew that it's a preferred term in the MoS. I can assure you there was no partisan intention on my part in using this term, or in suggesting that it be put back, becauseI personally find the source's statement not terribly convincing. My initial thought when this turned into an edit war was that we could change the text to read "wrote", which no-one could deny is accurate. However, to allow for a flowing writing style it's important that we don't get into a situation where every attribution term in the article must be "wrote" or "said" and can't be "stated" or "argued", synonyms are necessary for variety. Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Stated, argued, wrote, said, all are fine, synonymous and neutral, and for style keep switching between them. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, there are so many self-contradictions in your response, it's hard to know where to start. But this is as good a place as any: it doesn't matter which term is used, so you shouldn't have changed it is just plain illogical. If it doesn't matter which term is used, then why object to the change? Oh, because my change was "partisan". Apart from the gratuitous bad faith assumption, how could it be partisan when by your own admission "it doesn't matter which term is used"?

But then in another part of your response, you contradict yourself again by conceding that there is a difference between "stated" and "argued", I quote: If we followed your logic, we should go through all these usages change them to "stated" if the sources are '"accurate" in their statements, or to "argued" where we want to imply that their statement is merely the source's opinion. Okay, but we don't need to deal with hypotheticals, least of all ones based on bad faith assumptions about the motives of other editors. We have a particular case here, so please let's stick to discussing that. Foxman claims that Carter has contradicted himself. Surely you would agree that that can only be at best an argument, rather than an established fact? If so, then there can be no question of unfairly implying it "is merely the source's opinion". We are simply stating a fact, ie that it is "merely an opinion". That's not partisan. It's simply accurate. Which, in a nutshell, is precisely the aim of WP:SAY. Can you now agree to drop your opposition? Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the solution is being consistent either we use in the article word "argue" in all cases or we will use the word "stated" in all cases.--Shrike (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not necessary, but does no particular harm except for reading dully. When the article has been improved it can be submitted for copyediting. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We don't need such draconian solutions. All we need to do is exercise a little common sense. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the edit summary of your original revert was "its an opinion not a fact". That reasoning is partisan. Wikipedia is driven by verifiability, not truth. We, as editors, should not be attempting to differentiate the "facts" from "opinion" via our wording in articles, we should merely be describing the significant perspectives on the subject. You continue to express the view, that is in contradiction to the Manual of Style, that "stated" implies a statement of fact, and you wish to apply this logic to the article in relation to source statements that you consider to be "merely" opinion. This approach contradicts WP:SAY, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and incites the POV-warrior approach to the article that we have seen in the edit war following your reversion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not partisan at all, it's a fact that Foxman is expressing an opinion. It's not "partisan" to ensure the reader understands this. What would be partisan would be to intentionally employ language which obscures this fact, or which opens the possibility of misleading the reader.

We, as editors, should not be attempting to differentiate the "facts" from "opinion" via our wording in articles

I'm sorry, but this is simply a misreading of policy. On the contrary, we are enjoined to "differentiate facts from opinion". NPOV states clearly that editors should avoid stating opinions as facts and avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. On the other hand, users should also avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. NPOV, in effect, insists that users "differentiate facts from opinion", because to do otherwise is to mislead the reader.

You continue to express the view .... that "stated" implies a statement of fact .... This approach contradicts WP:SAY

No, it doesn't contradict WP:SAY at all. WP:SAY does not state that the word "stated" is always neutral, the phrase it uses is almost always, which I think is an exaggeration, but which nonetheless admits that some instances may not be neutral. Several users have expressed the view on this page that this is one of those instances where the word "stated" is misleading; no-one has yet explained why "argued" would be an inappropriate substitute. Gatoclass (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If 'stated' is a term which implies that what is being said is a fact, then it wouldn't be "almost always" accurate and neutral. Then it would be pretty much never neutral. Those words mentioned in WP:SAY, are all words for conveying opinions. 'Stated' is a verb, which means that it has to be attributed to a subject. And facts shouldn't be attributed to anyone, except when talking about who discovered it, like "Newton discovered universal gravitation", but 'stated' wouldn't be the right word to use in those situations either. In my opinion the "almost always" in the guideline clearly wasn't meant in the way you want to use it. I think it was meant for much more obvious instances, like 'said' wouldn't be accurate for something written in a book, and 'wrote' wouldn't be accurate for something said in an interview. And that it wouldn't be neutral use to 'said', 'wrote', 'stated' or 'according to' for uncontested facts. If you really think 'stated' is a word which implies what is being said is a fact, then you shouldn't be trying to phase it out just through a tiny loophole in the guideline. In that case it would be a serious problem, giving undue credibility to statements all over Wikipedia, and you should start an RFC on the words to watch talkpage to get the word removed as a recommended word, and probably put on the list of words to watch. But if you wanna do that, you probably should provide some better evidence than "Well, that's what I think the word means".TheFreeloader (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, no-one is trying to "phase the word out". This is about horses for courses. If someone presents an argument, it's appropriate to describe it as such. "Stated" is a much more general term, and a core principle of the guideline is that one should avoid general terms that can be misinterpreted when a more precise and accurate term is available, which is the case here. Gatoclass (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "stated" is a more general term, but it is no less accurate in my opinion. The only difference there might be between 'stated' and the other recommended terms, 'said', 'wrote' and 'according to', is that stated might convey a bit more resoluteness. While this might be a little more than can be verified (it can be difficult to know exactly how certain people are in their statements), it says nothing about whether or not the statement is true. All it might say is that the person who said is himself pretty certain about it. I also again have to say, the problems you seem to have with 'stated' seem to be quite general problems, and contrary to the wording of current guideline (which says that 'stated' comparable to 'said', 'wrote' and 'according to' in its universality). I therefore think this discussion should be taking place over at the words to watch talk page instead of here.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Huckabee calls Israeli policy Apartheid

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/mike-huckabee-on-israeli-settlements-racism-and-apartheid/ Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, traveling in Israel, said Wednesday that bans on Israeli settlements in the West Bank is “apartheid.”

Since the only group enforcing bans on what they call "illegal settlements" is the Israeli government, shall we add Huck to the pro-analogy side? Hcobb (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Huckster is engaging in a bit of schoolyard "no, you are!", calling the attempts to stop Israel from building more settlements "apartheid". Not within the scope of this article, though. Tarc (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Very aggressive popup windows on that site, doesn't really speak well for it as a reliable source. I assume this is an attempt at light-heartedness anyhow? Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Israelis

Under Israelis who support the apartheid analogy, it's worth mention this site[1], of some 200 Israelis that are pushing for the boycott of Israel in the same manner of boycotting South Africa under the apartheid rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.218.41 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have links to any independent reliable sources about this, e.g. discussion in news media articles, academic books, etc? Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is their own site[2], and that of their opponents who denounce them as traitors [3]. The group is mentioned in the newsletter of the British Committee for Universities of Palestine [4], and there is an interview with one of its activists on the Alternative Information Center site [5]. There are also mentions on Electronic Intifada, Facebook and in several blogs; though not, as yet, any English-language press coverage. There seems to be sufficient corroboration that the group exists, and that it has made a statement denouncing "Israel's apartheid and other daily violations of international law" signed by (so far) 228 Israeli citizens, including notable figures such as Uri Davis, Ruchama Marton, Nurit Peled-Elhanan and Dror Feiler. RolandR (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds a bit like a "no" to me. Where is the coverage in independent reliable sources, to demonstrate that this group and their perspective are a significant aspect of the apartheid label discourse? If they matter, why haven't they been covered in news stories, for example? Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote-farming

I certainly appreciate the criticism against the analogy, and how it comes from victims themselves, both those of the South African apartheid, and the allegedly "Israeli apartheid". However, currently there are 6 quotes down the right hand side of the criticism section, and none in those who support it. Probably one cquote in each section should be enough.VR _talk 04:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The quotes in the Criticism section margins have often been from authorities whose comments were moved there from, or were merely cited in, the actual text. On occasion, the quotes themselves are cut-down versions of what had been in the text, in effect reducing their impact or salience (I for one tend not to read marginal items when skimming text). In comparing quotes in the Proponents (section 9) and earlier pro-apartheid-accusation sections (1 to 8) to those in the Criticism section 10, all quotes including those in the text itself must be taken into account, so that the one quote in the Proponents margin must be added to those in the whole pro-apartheid-accusation text. There are lots of those, far more than in the Criticism section. Thus none should be removed from the "Criticism" section, for there is no imbalance in its favor, or those quotes that are removed should be added back unmodified into the "Criticism" text so that their views are not simply obliterated.Tempered (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The format of the quotes should then be consistent.VR _talk 03:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There may be a case for including some of these quotes in the main body text, but I agree that the series of quoteboxes is inappropriate and untidy. Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Last list item

I've finished removing all the stuff in lists and moved them to prose (or removing them if the source wasn't about the apartheid label). There's just one left, regarding this article by Beryl Wajsman. This source is very wide-ranging in criticising various aspects of the apartheid label, and I'd appreciate some help regarding what to do with it and where to use it. Thoughts? Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, Ryan Paddy, this source is distinctive for taking up almost all the alleged specific evidences of "apartheid" practices in Israel and countering them effectively and concisely. Most critics of apartheid allegations just focus on one or two general issues and refute them. Wajsman's article dealing knowledgeably with details and specifics is therefore important in itself and because of Wajsman's notable media status. I think that his comments on specific accusations can be entered where appropriate under many of the sections 1-8 of the main article, where those charges are made, and where critical responses to those charges are often (but not always) missing, so that the charges are treated as fact in the main article at present, and not as allegations (even the terminology often betrays this tendency). Other critical responses to those charges might be added at those places, but Wajsman's article provides one such starting point. I will compose a few such edits in coming days; you might wish to do so too, or other editors as well.Tempered (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. After you add something into the prose from the Wajsman source, then you can remove Wajsman from that list, and remove the warning tag saying we shouldn't have lists. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert party

It took me 5 minutes to slowly move tho mouse pointer from "undo" button to "discussion" -> "new section", just not to miss this revert party. Anyhow, would please Tark, Nick or Daily explain why this change has to go, and Casaubon, Brew or Soosim - why it's better to stay? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Elimination of that sentence is unjustified. See the above section discussion "Accusations of Arab Apartheid." The topic is relevant, important and notable, and most of the sources cited are within WP:RS parameters. Those that are not can be weeded out, but there are plenty of good sources to replace them, since the complaint summarized here has often been made by highly notable critics of the apartheid analogy.Tempered (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

elcomandanteche - thanks for being succint. a) it is a real idea, written about by verifiable and reliable people on verifiable and reliable websites. b) when i gave the quick list of some talk around the web about it earlier, i was merely saying that in less than one minute, i found those top 5 articles on google. wasn't looking to see who, what, where, when or why. just saying that it is out there, it exists, and it is real. c) maybe we need to find the authors of this article or this one or this one to help us.... Soosim (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the previous section. Please disregard. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of Arab Apartheid

from the piece to be put in: "Others charge hypocrisy, claiming that egregious forms of racist apartheid practiced in Arab states including the Palestinian territories go largely uncriticized"

not sure why anyone would not think that this is directly relevant or not well sourced? several editors have tried to put it in, and several have tried to take it out. any comments? Soosim (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the assertion that "others charge hypocrisy". This, rather than the actual allegations about Arab states and societies, is what might be relevant for this article. RolandR (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Other than to say "you're wrong" about including it, not really, no. This article is about Israel and the apartheid analogy; what it applies to, who has made it, and who opposed the analogy. It has no connection to alleged Arab apartheid, other than as a very pointy "those guys are doing it too!" screed. Once upon a time, editors tried creating a whole slew of "apartheid in...", not because those topics were encyclopedia, but because they were perpetually enraged that this one that they hated still existed. "Accusations of Arab Apartheid" is not a legitimate topic, but even if it were, it has no bearing on this article. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so, Tarc. Many critics of the apartheid analogy make an issue out of these blatant double standards, which apply demonizing terms like "apartheid" solely to the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. You may say this comparison and charge of double standards are irrelevant issues, but your opinion is not the relevant question: they do not have the same view as you, critics of the Israel apartheid analogy very often make a major issue out of it, and therefore it has to be reported and summarized in an article on views about "Israel and the apartheid analogy." By the way, accusations of Arab apartheid have been made by many authorities, including many Arab authorities, with detailed evidence provided for the accusation, and relating to quite a number of Arab countries, and so it is indeed a legitimate question in itself. The history of Wikipedia treatment of this issue is not evidence for the contrary, only for the workings of editors and their political biases or knowledge base at that time in Wikipedia fora.Tempered (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

see [6], [7], [8], [9] and many more. all use the word 'hypocrisy'.... and all use the arab apartheid analogy alongside the israel apartheid analogy. the two are very much tied together. Soosim (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1 is an OpEd non-profit think tank's website, 2 is the same from a similarly named organization, 3 is a Q&A with readers of a right-wing media watchdog organization, and 4 is a blog. None are reliable sources that can be used an article, other than perhaps to report basic, factual information about themselves, if they had their own Wiki article about them. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

didn't say they were RS, just that there is tons of stuff out there. Soosim (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that kinda what we do around here y'know; an online encyclopedia that reflects what reliable sources have to say about a subject. There's "tons of stuff" about a wide variety of subjects out there in the wild and crazy internet, but that doesn't mean it all can be used here to create articles, or to provide support and evidence for existing ones. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "hypocrisy" is indeed used in some of these sources, but all complain of double standards. And Tarc, your objections to the RS of sources are unfounded in several cases. Some of the sources listed just above are indeed outside WP parameters (e.g., [6] does not seem to refer to apartheid issues per se, and [8] and [9] do not present notable authors but merely random mostly anonymous comments), but [7] citing Khaled Abu Toameh is perfectly legitimate and proper for citation. Opinion pieces in general are permissible for citation; the question of RS relates to whether the webpage source is well edited and responsible, and even more whether the contributor cited is him- or herself an authority on the subject, well-recognized and notable. See, on this, WP:RS, which states in its introduction: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Note: "or both." The website is not the determinative question, unless as above in two cases we are dealing with anonymous comments, which clearly are not reliable sources nor citable websites. Further specification on each of these issues is given at that page. Where opinions are at issue, web sites that are reliably and responsibly edited and provide full properly credited opinion pieces are legitimate to cite: the chief question relates to the notability of the specific author cited.Tempered (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The websites cited by this person were unmitigated garbage. I admire your deft attempts to massage them into something else, but lipstick on a pig still leaves you with a nothing but a very pretty piggy. Tarc (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reasonable basis for removing the aforediscussed line. The vast majority of the sources utilized in this article are either primary sources or opeds. Any snobbery directed at the proffered sources is really WP:IDONTLIKEIT hypocrisy (pun intended) doing a bad job dressing up as a policy argument. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I sorta have to agree with the "vast majority of the sources utilized in this article are either primary sources or opeds" comment here. This entire article could sorely use a rewrite so that it might rely a little more on high quality RS. But Brew, the solution to this issue is to try to pare down the bad sources, not throw on more bad sources to even it out.... NickCT (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nick, it seems there are two ways from here: 1) provide more balance with the same low-quality sources - that's what Casaubon was trying to do I guess, or 2) clean up the article all over. We can't say "yes, this article is crap, but don't try to balance it by putting in more crap" - without providing a reasonable alternative. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Che - I agree with your perspective. I think option 2 is the ideal solution here. Perhaps we need to form some kind of bi-partisan task force to simply go through this article and strip it of everything that isn't referenced by mainstream/high quality RS.

Unfortunately, as this article is so mired in debate, I imagine any substantiative effort to raise its level of quality will immediately be quashed be the POV pushers...NickCT (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the presence of the link. There are reliable sources out there (some cited in this article, as I recall) that argue that there is greater apartheid in Arab countries than in Israel. Harrison, which we are discussing at length somewhere above, is an example of such a reliable source. It's part of the "Israeli apartheid" discourse, so it's relevant to this article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that an easier task than re-writing the article would be to discuss here on Talk some of the sources that are questionable, and then just delete material based on them from the article if we can reach agreement on the sources. Which sources are we now discussing? --Dailycare (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but I will do so as often as necessary: opinion pieces are entirely legitimate sources to cite in articles on contemporary debated issues, and this is stated in WP:RS. There are criteria for acceptance as a "reliable source" in Wikipedia articles, of course -- not all opinion pieces are of equal worth, relevance, notability or reliability. Opinion pieces as such, including on well-edited websites devoted to opinion pieces, such as Huffington Post, Hudson Institute, bitterlemons.org, etc., etc., and also opinion pieces in newspapers and journals such as in the Commentary blog, especially if by notable authorities or representative spokespeople in their field, can certainly be treated as "reliable sources" for the purpose of this article, which is after all precisely about contemporary debate on a specific topic.Tempered (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Largely Misguided

Since the issue of Israeli Apartheid(outside Wikipedia) focuses more so on the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories, this article is largely misguided. MIXING THE ISSUES of Arab treatment in Israel with the treatment of Arabs in the West Bank/Gaza(by the Israeli government/security forces) massages the apartheid comparison, nullifying some of its overarching consequence. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic. If the article is about the possibly 'apartheid-like' policies of the Israeli state in regard to Palestinians in areas under Israelis control, why is the West Bank or Gaza not as relevant as within Israel itself? In any case, what changes are you suggesting should be made to the article as a result of your comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

He has made his edit already, with this being the explaination for it. I don't agree with the edit/explaination though as I do believe the analogy is used in reference to aparthied both in and outside of Israeli territory. Passionless -Talk 01:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The West Bank and Gaza should be the FOCUS of the article as they are MOST RELEVANT. My suggestion is to rename the article, "Israel and the apartheid analogy(within the occupied territories)", and remove the majority of information regarding the treatment of Arabs in the state of Israel itself. Only then will this article begin to make more sense and focus on the actual issue of apartheid which this current article claims to represent. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the article

The article ought to be be split in two Tthe two articles would be something like:

• 1)The apartheid analogy as applied to Israeli citizens
• 2) The apartheid analogy in the Palestinian territories

Reason for this is that the legal status of both the land (Wset Bank/Gaza vs. pre-1967 borders of Israel) and the people (those Arabs who did not flee in 1948 are now citizens of Israel, those who live in Gaza ans the West Bank are not) is distinct. Apartheid, if the word has any meaning at all, is about legal status. Material that does not address legal status belongs elsewhere, in an article on ethnic discrimination or racism. The two groups of Arabs have entirely different legal status vis a vis Israel. It is not really possible to write a coherent article about the effect of allegedly apartheid laws as they impact two groups with shared ethnicity but such different citizenship situations.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think splitting the articles may be a good idea. Regarding legal status, I think this is why "analogy" is the proper word to use. Apartheid-like policies can be imposed on a people by the occupying force, even when, legally speaking, they are a separate entity. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The very assertion that the Palestinians form two (or more) distinct communities is itself a product of the existence of the state of Israel and the 1947-8 partition of Palestine. Many Palestinians reject this partition, and see a political and legal continuity between the experience of Palestinian citizens of Israel and that of Palestinian residents of the 1967-occupied territories. The same legal instruments, the same political and ideological justifications, the same institutions, and in some cases even the same individuals. It would not be accurate or helpful to split this into two separate articles; particularly when many of those who actually employ this analogy see this as one phenomenon, not as two. RolandR (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lots of peoples who see themselves as one are split by borders. Roland's argument fails in two ways. 1) If what he maintains is true, we would have a single article for all countries in which Palestinians have a separate legal status than is given to Arabs resident before 1948, Lebanon, Egypt, Kuwait and several other Arab states have laws specifically denying rights and status to Palestinians that are not denied to other peoples and several Arab states have been accused of practicing aparthied against Palestinians on these ground. If Roland sees "a political and legal continuity between the experience of Palestinian citizens of Israel and that of Palestinian residents" just over the border, this article needs major expansion to cover apartheid laws targeting Palestinians wherever such laws exist. 2) Many peoples in the world are divided by borders against their will. Kurds, Azeris, Basques, Roma (Gypsies) and many more peoples are separated by borders not of their making. Like Palestinians, Wikipedia acknowledges the ethnic unity with articles such as Palestinian people , Kurdish people, etc. but the articles about their political situation are separate Kurds in Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan, Kurds in Azerbaijan and Kurds in Syria, which has a sub-section titled Racism and Apartheid. What Wikipedia now has, and what Roland demands, is that Wikipedia treat the Palestinian people differently that it does other peoples. Sorry, Roland, no special treatment. It violates every policy in the book, in addition to justice and common sense.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article should deal with two separate things separately. The possibility that some Palestinian Arabs see no difference between Israeli citizens (some of whom profess their allegience to Israel and do not see it as a foreign country) and residents of the PA is something worth noting (if it's properly sourced), but shouldn't enter into the decision here. For that matter, there are Palestinian Arabs who see the same sort of continuity between the Arabs on both sides of the Jordan River, and others who see it between all Arabs. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to serve as a platform for ideologies, but to be encyclopedic. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

for sure, splitting is a good idea. if one reviews the current list of reliable sources, one can see that they clearly talk about these specific issues as well. in fact, i am surprised that other editors let this slip. i agree with I.Casaubon and with Lisa. let the wiki facts speak for themselves. Soosim (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the assertion that "the Palestinians form two (or more) distinct communities", it's to bring focus to some differing policies practiced in the West Bank. Without this distinction being made abundantly clear, the current article lacks insight/clarity. For example, from the current article, "Palestinians living in the non-annexed portions of the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship or voting rights in Israel, BUT ARE subject to movement restrictions of the Israeli government." "In the occupied territories, Palestinians and Israelis are subject to DIFFERENT criminal laws leading to prolonged detention and harsher punishments for Palestinians than for Israelis for the same offences".

There would need to be 2 separate apartheid analogy articles, not just one for the West Bank

Here’s some info from the article regarding the apartheid analogy to Israel proper, not the West Bank:

• ... in 2010 the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee finalized a bill intended to bypass previous rulings of the High Court of Justice which had ordered acceptance committees of communal villages of Katzir and Rakefet to accept Arab citizens of Israel as members. The amendment would enable committees of communal villages the authority to limit residency in their towns exclusively to Jews. (Did this bill pass?)
• ... the law does not enable the acquisition of Israeli citizenship or residency by a Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza Strip via marriage.[36] The law does allow children from such marriages to live in Israel until age 12, at which age they are required to emigrate.[37]
• ... since 2002, if the bearer of the identification card is Jewish the Hebrew calendar birth date is included on the card, but if the bearer is non-Jewish, it is omitted.[64] Chris McGreal, The Guardian's former chief Israel correspondent, reports that the ID system determines "where [Arabs and Jews] are permitted to live, access to some government welfare programmes, and how they are likely to be treated by civil servants and policemen." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm undecided, while I know there is a difference between 'apartheid' in Israel than in Palestine, I feel we already do seperate it out somewhat in the first half of the article. Also I think it would be absolute hell to try and split up the sections of support the analogy and criticism of the analogy because many do not specify if they are talking about apartheid in Israel, Palestine, or both together. Passionless -Talk 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are someone who is sophisticated about Israel and the Palestinians. Imagine how confusing the article is to typical reader, who has come to Wikipedia for clarification. I believe that the separation of the material is the only way to avoid confusing readers.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would support splitting another article off from this, as well. POV aside, this is a very long and often confusing article to the point that we're doing a disservice to our readers. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You're engaging in the worst kind of sophistry and pretending to advocate on behalf of "confused readers". Have any of these mythic beings left a message on this page asking for clarification? No, because there is no confusion. The fact is, with rare exception, the sources—on both sides—are tone-deaf to nuance and don't distinguish between Arab citizens of Israel and Palestinians, or between the Occupied Territories and within the Green Line. What you're trying to do is 100% original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Malik, and my other friends listed above: there is no place on the wiki page to write 'comments', like on a blog. i actively follow about 200 articles and not once have i seen anyone write in the edit section 'help, this is confusing'. (and it includes some very long and confusing articles!). so, rather than try to guess what is NOT being said, just look at the facts that lisa, I.Caus, Qrsdogg and others are presenting. it appears that the same folks who lobbied for delete on the arab apartheid page are now lobbying for keeping things blurry on the israel apartheid page. as i said in the discussion over there (before the page was deleted a few days ago), just let the articles be written. let the editors edit them. and then let the process take its course. Soosim (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my position here, I haven't examined the sources in great detail-so I'm not completely sure of the distinctions that they make. I just think that its length could present an issue to readers and the possibility of a split should be considered. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other side of this analogy, apartheid South Africa had several legal regimes: for blacks, coloreds, and Asians, and for South African territory and bantustans. The existence of multiple regimes under Israel sovereignty does not imply multiple analogies to South Africa, and is even consistent with the analogy to apartheid in South Africa. In any case, as has been said multiple times, this a matter for the sources. I think we can identify two tendencies among those making the analogy: a likely majority who use it to describe Israel, Gaza and the West Bank; and a probable minority who use it to describe only the West Bank (and maybe Gaza). The thing is that group A also embraces all the arguments of group B, so the case for division into two pages is extremely weak. The case for explaining the different perspectives here is, of course, rock solid.--Carwil (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in South Africa was remotely comparable to the situation of Arab citizens in Israel, who are free to vote, sit inthe Knessed, and run for Prime Minister if they can win enough votes (before you respond, ask yourselfif you would have put serious money in 2009 on the chance of electing a black president of the United States?) In Israel Arabs have full legal rights. That is why separate articles are needed.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I.Casaubon, please reread the beginning of this section. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A proposed way forward

All the material about how people actually live in Israel and Palestine is off topic and should go into other articles about society in those countries.

The section on the allegations that Israel is formally guilty of the Crime of Apartheid in international law should become a separate article.

I endorse this excellent suggestion.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This article should just be about the use of the analogy in political discourse. It should be divided by the types of organisation or parts of the world that the analogy has been used or opposed. The current support-oppose structure isn't conducive to NPOV. So I would put all the comments by South Africans together, including for and against and neutral. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the structure of this article violates guidelines set down in WP:NPOV. See especially the section WP:Structure, which reads in part: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." This reads like it was written with the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" in mind. The entire article should be rewritten; at present, it very obviously pushes the Apartheid analogy line and is anti-Israel. Of course, a really NPOV rewrite is very unlikely to happen, given the weight of editorial POV already vested in the article and comments even on this Talk page.Tempered (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Good fences make good neighbors

• And separate articles bring organization to a tangled topic.
• I continue to believe that the only way to improve this article is to divide the jumled assembly of accusations into two articles

1) dealing with allegations of apartheid as applies to Israel proper

2) dealing with allegations of apartheid that apply to Israel's relationship with the West Bank and Gaza.

• I make this suggestion because it is hopelessly confusing to discuss the rights of Arab citizens of the state of Israel and the rights of residents of the Palestinian Authority in one breath when every aspect of their legal and economic situation is different.
• The section on the allegations that Israel is formally guilty of the Crime of Apartheid in international law should become a separate article.
• User:Itsmejudith makes a good suggestion when she writes that : The section on the allegations that Israel is formally guilty of the Crime of Apartheid in international law should become a separate article." I endorse the creation of such an artivle.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Split and merge into appropriate articles

Since raising this question I have come to realize how very different this article is form the way Wikipedia treats similar material in other cases. This article treats the Palestinian question entirely differently than it treats other virtually identical situations. Many peoples in the world are divided by borders against their will. Kurds, Azeris, Basques, Roma (Gypsies) and many more peoples are separated by borders not of their making. Like Palestinians, Wikipedia acknowledges the ethnic unity with articles such as Palestinian people , Kurdish people, etc. but the articles about their political situation are separate Kurds in Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan, Kurds in Azerbaijan and Kurds in Syria, which has a sub-section titled Racism and Apartheid.

• I propose that material on the legal treatment of Palestinians be merged into articles about Palestinians in the several legal jurisdictions in which they reside. There are already articles about Arab citizens of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinians in Lebanon, Palestinians in Egypt, etc. would have to be created, but they are overdue. This is essential to bringing material on discrimination against Palestinians into line with similar material on other ethnic peoples.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You can go create those articles if appropriate, but it has nothing to do with the claims of apartheid in Israel/Israeli occupied territory. Passionless -Talk 18:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not! There have been so far nine attempts to delete this article, and the clear outcome has been that it is indeed a notable subject, and that the article is appropriate. There is a great deal of reliably sourced material relating to the use of this analogy, both by supporters and by opponents. The article could have course be improved (what article could not?); but to attempt to sneak through a backdoor means of deleting it would be totally unacceptable. RolandR (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• No one is speaking of deletion. Simply of splitting this material up and merging it onto appropriate pages. Please explain why Palestinian issues should be treated differently than Basque or Kurdish issues?I.Casaubon (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a question for the people who write sources not for those people who put all the sources together. Passionless -Talk 19:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No. It is a Wikipedia question. Wikipedians decide how material is to be allocated among articles. Wikipedia strives to achieve some degree of uniformity. For example, I started an article called Turkish lobby. There was an immediate attempt to delete it [10] it was kept because it is one of a number of articles about foreign governments that pay lobbyists to influence opinion in the Untied States. In other words, Material about lobbying teh U.S. government is handled by creating articles on governments with major lobbying efforts. Material about the political and economic situation of populations in Wikipedia is handled by creating articles on populations Algerian Women in France, Turks in Germany, Arabs in Europe, Arabs in Bulgaria, British Pakistanis, Roma in Greece, Roma in Romania, Roma in Hungary, and Roma in Bulgaria. They you have sub sections called things like Problems of exclusion and discrimination. This is the normal way of handling discrimination on Wikipedia. I see no justification for treating the Palestinians differently than the Roma people.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

While you can create the articles you wish to create as long as there are no policies against it, we still will not delete this highly notable article. Passionless -Talk 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, you can order the tide to stop, but on Wikipedia decisions are made by people who make compelling arguments. Not by declaring yourself Czar. No one is proposing to remove any material. Only to move it to its normal place. Please make an argument, don't simply assert that articles about Palestinians should be treated differently than articles about Roma or Kurds or Basques.I.Casaubon (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said any of the things you say I did, please don't do that again. Passionless -Talk 20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You declared that "we still will not delete". The royal "we" certainly sounded imperious to me. And you cannot know what other Wikipedians think until this is discussed. I am still waiting for you to explain why articles about discrimination against Palestinians should be treated differently than articles about other peoples. To me it seems like a form of Wikipedia apartheid: Special rules for Palestinians, separate rules for everybody else.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is merely a collection of references from the real world, if the real world treats Palestinians differently, such as labelling the treatment of them as apartheid, than wikipedia, as a mirror of the real world, will also treat Palestinians differently. Passionless -Talk 23:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

and please do NOT delete it. just split it. please read what was written, in case it wasn't clear. thanks! (who is "we"?) Soosim (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"we" was in reference to all those who discussed this article the multiple times it was brought to AfD and survived. Passionless -Talk 20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not a good idea. With the NOTABILITY regarding Israel and the apartheid analogy, I disagree with idea to merge the article with any other one. One article should be about "Israel and the apartheid analogy(in the occupied West Bank)". It should definitely remain separate and not merged with any other article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can find evidence that the sources this article is based on are treating the two cases as different, any splitting would probably contravene WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. This distinction is used routinely in the major sources in this article. Probably because the distinction between Israel proper and the territories is real and legally significant. here's Jimmy carter

"It's not Israel. The book has nothing to do with what's going on inside Israel which is a wonderful democracy, you know, where everyone has guaranteed equal rights and where, under the law, Arabs and Jews who are Israelis have the same privileges about Israel. That's been most of the controversy because people assume it's about Israel. It's not." "I've never alleged that the framework of apartheid existed within Israel at all, and that what does exist in the West Bank is based on trying to take Palestinian land and not on racism. So it was a very clear distinction."

I.Casaubon (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I.Casaubon, there's nothing you can do to prevent people from treating the Palestinian Arabs as a special case. The UN treats them differently than any other "refugees", giving them a perpetual and hereditary refugee status. While Kurds and Basques and Roma have had specific national identities for centuries, identities which don't depend on the destruction of anyone else, Palestinian Arab peoplehood was created for the express purpose of preventing or destroying the State of Israel, and no Palestinian Arab nationhood existed until after the State of Israel came into being.

Why do you think Wikipedia should be any different? NPOV applies everywhere else, but not here. Even the article on Palestinian Arab terrorism is called Palestinian political violence. You're certainly right that this article should be split and merged into Arab citizens of Israel and another article on the Arabs living in the administered terroritories, but I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I would support a split of the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do people keep saying my name and then give replies to statements never made? It's really weird.Passionless -Talk 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, you really had to spare that kittens. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• HULK RAGE* ARGHH! Passionless -Talk 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Lisa and I.Casaubon, while the meta-questions of Wikipedia trends are fascinating, they are never decisive in making decisions on wikipedia. In fact, they are more or less excluded per the arguments at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please blog about the trends that trouble you, or if you want to be a controversy argument, write a policy-related essay, but don't expect these kind of arguments to carry the day.

Articles can exist here if they discuss a distinct concept, are notable, and are potentially NPOV (i.e., fixing POV is a problem for editing, not for deleting or splitting). This article here has gone through quite a few deletion processes and survived because the topic is notable. The other stuff in question represents totally reasonable wikipedia content, and most of it is already in Wikipedia. See also Racism in Israel. (For the life of me, I can't imagine however the overlap between this page and Palestinians in Lebanon or Palestinians in Egypt.)

There's no good reason to try and restrict the amount of Palestinian-related content on Wikipedia or to streamline. Wikipedia is not paper. Elsewhere I've heard arguments that content on the oppression of/discrimination against Palestinians on Wikipedia is "whining" or far worse terms, but frankly such arguments are pure POV-pushing and don't hold weight in merge/deletion discussion.

Speedy keep on this article which has been discussed extensively and has clear notability.--Carwil (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is not about notability. No one here is trying to delete or restrict any content. The questions are 1) should there be separate articles for Israel and the Palestinian territories? And 2) since Palestinians also live under conditions described as apartheid-like in Lebanon, Egypt and elsewhere, why is material on Israel and the apartheid analogy an independent article while material on Kurds and the apartheid analogy or Shia in Bahrian and the apartheid analogy or Arab apartheid in Sudan against black citizens is simply folded into larger articles?I.Casaubon (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia should be accountable to the public and that you owe the world some answers.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I already answered this above' "Wikipedia is merely a collection of references from the real world, if the real world treats Palestinians differently, such as labelling the treatment of them as apartheid, than wikipedia, as a mirror of the real world, will also treat Palestinians differently." Wikipedia is not a primary source for any information, maybe reading WP:OR would help you understand. If that doesn't help than please re-read the discussion for why your last article was deleted. Passionless -Talk 00:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My article on Accusations of Arab Apartheid had scores of reliable sources discussing the concept that Arab apartheid exists in countries form Sudan to Bahrain where disadvantaged groups (Christians in Egypt, blacks in Sudan and Mauritania, Palestinians in Lebanon, Shia in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) are subjected by Arabs to apartheid-like conditions and second-class legal status analogous to apartheid. Kurds are subject to apartheid-like conditions and second-class legal status analogous to apartheid in Turkey and Syria. I read it on Wikiepdia. What I am asking and you are not answering is why such information is deleted when it applies to Arabs and relegated to sections of articles when it describes Kurds, but given a lengthy article when it is about Palestinians? The separate laws are not more painful for Palestinians than for the South Sudanese Christians or Muslims being people murdered by Arabs in Darfur, or the Shia being killed by Sunnis in Bahrain as we write. Why is material about Palestinians treated tdifferently by Wikipedia than material Kurds, South Sudanese, or Bahrainis?I.Casaubon (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I.Casaubon, to enlarge on what Passionless is saying, what 'you believe' is beside the point. This article exists because an analogy has been drawn (many times, by many people) between Israel's treatment of Palestinians, and the former apartheid system in South Africa. If you can demonstrate that those making the analogy have made a distinction between what they see as happening in the occupied/Palestinian territories, and in Israel proper, and consider them two separate issues, then we can too. I don't see much evidence for this, at least as a general trend. We should report what the sources say, no more, no less.

Regarding articles on the treatment of Palestinians elsewhere, if there are reliable sources, there is nothing to prevent articles being created - but you'll need to find the sources first, that demonstrate that the apartheid analogy is being made, not that it should be. Wikipedia isn't here to right the wrongs of the world, but instead to reflect it as it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter isn't good enough for you?I.Casaubon (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy carter makes clear that he sees the distinction, and doesn't see it as applying to Israel proper. Others see it differently. He seems to be very much in a minority amongst those drawing the analogy. Our article makes his position clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And you Grump? Can you see a distinction between Israel, where Palestinian Arabs vote, demonstrate, run a free press, and have equal status before the law with all other Israelis, where Druze and Bedouin soldiers serve in the military alongside Jewish comrades of every color, and the situation in the Palestinian territories? Can you see that? And what about the distinction between life in Israel where Christian Arabs live freely and the situation in the Palestinian territories where Christian property is confiscated and Christians are often beaten and murdered for their faith. Can you see that? What about the distinction between Palestinians in Lebanon who are prohibited by law to vote, to buy land, to hold any of the better jobs or collect the social insurance that they pay for in their manual labor jobs and the fact that Miss Israel is an Arab and Arabs sit in the Knesset? Can you see that? None are so blind as those who will not see.I.Casaubon (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the apartheid analogy is a little questionable - one can make a case that there are similarities, but there are significant differences too. None of this is of any relevance to the article though. It isn't about what you or I think, but about what the sources we cite say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that there can even be any challenge to the proposition that "apartheid"-like conditions apply in the countries named by I.Casaubon: there are plenty of sources that can be cited for this contention that explicitly make use of the term "apartheid." I have come across plenty of them myself in casual reading, without even trying. Some sources in fact are cited in my proposed contribution at the top of this page, see notes 14 to 20 relating to the treatment of Palestinian refugees even in the P.A. itself. But there are plenty more, not just relating to Palestinians, but to the treatment of Jews in Arab lands, Christians, Bahai'is, Sunnis in Shi'ite lands and Shi'ites in Sunni lands, "guest workers" throughout the Gulf states, and so on. So there are plenty of sources. Lack of relevant sources cannot be a justification for deleting such an article; the sources merely have to be located and cited.Tempered (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is no cause of reason to split the article, which would effectively water down and minimize the content. We have one subject here; the accusation that has been that Israel's actions, in both the OT and within the state itself, are akin to South African apartheid. That is all. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Muslim World Today

Well I took it to RSN, as seen here, and it is clear many editors agree that this website is not reliable, neutral or notable, and as such should not be used to source anything on wikipedia. If someone could re-delete the section which I had in this edit, that would be great, as I cannot. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 21:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reformatting the future

• I think the current article is somewhat confusing due to its lack of clarity. This is actually a matter of editing/formatting.
• The opening section would be a general overview (somewhat similar to the current opening regarding the situation/apartheid analogy) and would make note that "there are policy differences between Israel proper and the Israeli-occupied territories". Below the Table of Contents would be the "Crime of apartheid and Israel", followed by a clearly defined section on Israel which in turn would be followed by a clearly defined section on the Israeli-occupied territories (or vice-versa). The remainder of the article would consist of Support for/Criticism of, etc. With these changes implemented, the Table of Contents would now reflect a marked distinction between the Israeli-occupied territories and Israel proper and would help in reigning in the current lack of clarity. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not also separate the Support for/Criticism of sections according to whether the speaker is criticizing the situation in Israel proper, in the West Bank or in Gaza?I.Casaubon (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still neutral to it, as I don't see a huge difference between organizing the details by the subject in the heading which is than split between in Israel and in Palestine vs. having each area as the heading which is than split by the subjects.

@ I. Casaubon, the ambiguity in most of the comments in the Support for/Criticism of sections makes it unclear if they are speaking about apartheid in Israel or the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, so it is quite impossible to split them between the two. Passionless -Talk 21:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I read your comment, and went to have a careful look at the section about critics who agree with the apartheid analogy. There are a number of vague remarks that do conflate the two jrisdicitons.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Carter, commented that the absence of a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is likely to produce a situation which de facto will resemble apartheid.

These are not serious analysis. they seem mostly to be here to prove that important people line up on this or that side. they can go into the same sort of section at the bottom of both articles. But I see many longer and more detailed criticism by people who have written at length on the topic. like this

Adam and Moodley argue that notwithstanding universal suffrage within Israel proper "if the Palestinian territories under more or less permanent Israeli occupation and settler presence are considered part of the entity under analysis, the comparison between a disenfranchised African population in apartheid South Africa and the three and a half million stateless Palestinians under Israeli domination gains more validity."

and this

John Dugard (of the U.N.) described the situation in the West Bank as "an apartheid regime ... worse than the one that existed in South Africa."

I believe that it would be a lot of work to separate the mishmash/laundry list of the present article into two articles. But quite possible.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• With the title, Israel and the apartheid analogy, we know that this article must be comprehensive. Continuing from the first comment in this section, we come to the Support for/Criticism of part of the article. 2 of the options. 1) Leave it how it is. 2) Create subsections to distinguish between the Israeli occupied territories and Israel proper. In general this would look like: Support for Israeli apartheid analogy (regarding the occupied territories) followed by Support for Israeli apartheid analogy (regarding Israel proper) and Criticism of the apartheid analogy (regarding the occupied territories) followed by Criticism of the apartheid analogy (regarding Israel proper).

• Regarding the removal of "questionable" sources, this may shorten the article a bit. In order for the process to be effective, everyone involved would need to agree to remove some content.

• In regards to the edit summary, people would need to write something like, "See talk page regarding this edit. We are currently revising the article." This may help prevent an "Undid Revision War". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The article as it stands is, according to Wikipedia guidelines themselves, "unencyclopedic." It needs replacing, not tinkering with it, and it seems to me that the suggested structure outlined by Somedifferentstuff would only continue but now in the two proposed divisions (Israel proper, the Disputed Territories) the chief flaws in the present article. Those flaws are described in the WP:NPOV article, in the paragraph WP:Structure, as follows: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." That supplies some direction for any proposed total rewrite of the article.

As for the suggestion that two separate articles are justified, or at the least two separate parts of the one article (I think this a better option), dealing separately with Israel proper and the West Bank and Gaza territories, this would certainly aid in clarifying the issues and is a good idea. The arguments made in each regard are very different ones and this needs to be pointed out clearly.

I.Causabon's remarks about the Brzezinski comment are also relevant. As Ryan Paddy has pointed out in an earlier discussion, there is a big difference between those critics who say that Israel is presently an apartheid state, and those who say it might become so if this or that is done in the future. E.g., those against a two-state solution or any separation between Palestinian territories and populations and Israel proper want to call this effort at radical separation "apartheid," e.g., Omar Barghouti (see endnote 49 to my proposed contribution at the top of the page here), and talk of an "Apartheid Wall," while those like some Israeli politicians who are against a one-state solution in the future try to discredit it by saying it would create an apartheid situation. These are very different sorts of criticisms, both in their motivation and in their content. Tempered (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with User:Tempered that separate articles dealing with Israel proper and the West Bank and Gaza territories are needed.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Since the article deals with one subject, Israel and the apartheid analogy, it is best kept as a single article with formatting/content changes applied for clarity. Because the apartheid analogy applies to both the Israeli occupied territories as well as Israel proper, these differences need to be elaborated upon and clarified. They are not "chief flaws in the present article", as assumed above, but simply aspects of a comprehensive article on a multi-faceted subject. Proper editing will suffice and should also be reflected in a comprehensive opening that does the subject matter justice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The option of separate treatment within a single article is granted by Tempered, but the chief flaws, it is obvious from the quote from WP:NPOV, relate to the very structure of the article itself, and this is not faced by Somedifferentstuff, who apparently wishes to continue the same basic structure in his preferred version. As an outside observer, it is evident to me, looking over this article and the discussion on its Talk page, and also looking into the archives where the same thing has been going on for over a year at least, that strong bias has characterised the whole treatment of this article from start to finish, and the shabby treatment given Tempered's edits and sources shows the probably fatal weaknesses in Wikipedia itself when dealing with such contentious subjects. It is interesting to speculate on what Wikipedia articles would have looked like if they existed during the 1930s, for example, in all articles dealing with Jewish topics. The Nazis and their fellow-travellers had a lot of numbers then, and antisemites existed also amongst non-Nazis, and were quite dominant in Soviet-controlled Communist discourse under the title of "anti-Zionists," just as now. Tempered's proposed addition to the article makes this link between the various totalitarian movements when dealing with Jews and Zionism clear. But truth is not a matter of having the numbers, nor whose position has most fanatics supporting it. This is the fatal flaw of Wikipedia itself.124.179.214.21 (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Formatting/content changes for clarity (proposals)

It seems to me that necessary formatting/content changes to reflect Israeli policy differences in relation to the Occupied territories and Israel proper are required. This does not require changing the title of the article nor an article split. To begin, I think it would be a good idea for editors to propose their formatting ideas, in terms of layout(using bullets). Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Proposal 1

• Proposal 2

• Proposal 3

• Proposal 4

Doing this would risk contravening WP:OR. We can only split the article into sections that the sources we use do. This is not supposed to be an analysis of whether there is any validity in the Israel/apartheid analogy, or of where, if anywhere, it is applicable. If the sources don't treat Israel proper and the occupied territories separately, we can't do that either. This idea is a non-starter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been established that some sources do treat the Occupied territories and Israel proper separately. So the next step is to see how those differences can be applied thru formatting changes. There would have to be a discussion regarding the information where it can't be distinguished. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this can work, even though in some respects organising the content like this makes sense. Some sources do differentiate between the situation inside Israel and that in the occupied territories, and different arguments are used about each. In fact, many of the sources critical of Israel focus largely on the occupied territories (where dubious behaviour on the part of Israel is easiest to find), and many sources defending Israel focus solely on the situation inside Israel (where they can point to some degree of integration and equal rights). In this way the sources are often talking past each other. "There's a dog in your backyard" is responded to with "We don't allow dogs in my house." However, there is a problem with the idea of separating the uses of the analogy. Many of the most reliable sources, like the reports to the UN and the report from South Africa's HSRC, specifically combine the charge of apartheid by Israel with the charge of colonialism. When separating "Israel proper" from the "occupied territories" for consideration, where is the boundary? The green line? That would put East Jerusalem in the "occupied territories" category, along with the Israeli West Bank settlements. What about Gaza? It seems like the clearest case of "occupied territories", but it's currently only occupied in the sense of boundary controls and military actions by Israel within it (and the edges of it not being usable by Gazans). What about the separation barrier? Is it an aspect of Israel proper (i.e. part of its "internal" defenses), or also a tool for colonisation (for example, by deliberately dividing Palestinian communities on the West Bank, as some allege). The question of Israel's borders is very fuzzy, and without clear borders it's hard to say what's Israel "proper" and what isn't. This is reflected in the sources, so that the question of what is an aspect of "Israel proper" and what is part of the "occupied territories" (a term seldom used by defenders of Israel) in regards to the application of the apartheid label is itself a point of view. In the end, that's why we can't organise the article this way, or split it into two articles. Apartheid means separation. In South Africa, it applied both to "South Africa proper" and to the "bantustans", which are often compared to the occupied territories by sources using the apartheid label. Those areas were kept separate, and different approaches were applied to blacks within them by South Africa, and the analogy includes the idea that this is being done by Israel in the area between the Jordan and the sea. The way the article is currently organised, breaking the subject down into smaller bites than that and dealing with specific issues like the barrier, marriage law, and settlements, largely avoids this issue, as there is a relatively higher level of agreement in sources over the definitions of these things. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Crime of apartheid

I have removed the first paragraph of this section As per [[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee writing on Apartheid in Saudi Arabia. He writes "We shouldn't have a definition of apartheid in every article that mentions it - we should link to Crime of apartheid, where it is defined." and he and User:Tarc have removed similar material form Apartheid in Saudi Arabia, so I assume that he is correct on this.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the text you removed. No general rule exists regarding how much information should be summarised on any given page and how much should be linked to - we have to work it out based on the needs of each specific article. Our article discusses some very specific aspects of the crime of apartheid, in particular in regards to the ICSPCA and Article 7 of the Rome Statute and the different ways in which these define apartheid in regards to "race" which is a point of contention in the Israeli apartheid label. We need to give the reader the minimum information they require to comprehend the text about Israel and the crime of aparheid, and that's all the introductory passage does. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Government participation

What about government participation? I believe there was an unwritten rule against Arabs as government ministers. FM Lieberman recently put a bedouin as his advisor, partly in an attempt to stifle that criticism. Maybe there should be a section on Arab parties and expanded discussion of voting rights and advancement. BrotherSulayman (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion is a good one. However, if it were fairly, knowledgeably and properly written it would refute apartheid accusations. For example, there is no unwritten rule in the Israeli government against Arabs as government cabinet ministers or in other government positions, including as senior civil servants in interior ministries, the Foreign Ministry, and in Israeli embassies abroad. In 2001, Salah Tarif, a Druse Arab, who had previously been on many Knesset committees (Foreign Affairs and Defense, Internal Affairs, the Constitution committee, etc.), and had been Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, was appointed to a cabinet ministerial position as Minister Without Portfolio, with particular focus on Israeli Arab affairs. In January 2007, Raleb (also spelled Ghaleb in some articles) Majadele was appointed Science, Technology, Culture and Sports Minister in the Olmert cabinet; the first two subjects covered by his portfolio are essential components of Israeli development. It is telling that the Balad Party, an Arab far left party in Israel that is explicitly anti-Zionist and whose leaders have appeared on Lebanese and Syrian television in support of Hezbollah's war against Israel, and some of whose Israeli Knesset members were on the recent Gaza flotilla that sought to break through the Israeli blockade, condemned the appointment; it ran against the Balad thesis that there is no equality in Israel. Of course, the very existence of Balad itself as a political party in Israel with members elected to the Knesset despite statements and behavior that might be reasonably seen as treasonous, shows the opposite. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's report on Majadele's new appointment noted the Balad opposition, but added: "Arabs have been slowly taking on a more visible role in Israeli society in recent years. There is an Arab Supreme Court justice, as well as several diplomats and senior civil servants. There is also a smattering of Arab TV journalists and actors, along with a former national beauty queen and the winner of the Israeli version of America's Next Top Model." See http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2007/01/28/muslim-cabinet.html. The Israeli Supreme Court judge is Salim Joubran (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Joubran); he has been explicit in his anti-Zionist statements. It is telling that the Tel Aviv Magistrate's District Court that found the former President Moshe Katsav of Israel guilty of rape and sexual harrassment in December, 2010, and sentenced him to seven years in prison was headed by an Arab judge, George Kara. This sort of thing would not even be conceivable in an apartheid state.Tempered (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

vanguard letter published in university newspapers

it is new, but already gaining 'notability' - so not sure why it was rv. in addition to the jpost, it was put out over jta, [11] - certainly two RS's and quite notable (otherwise, they wouldn't have reported it!). Soosim (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the "Vanguard Leadership Group"? The only references I can find to it are in connection with this letter. Does it have any existence other that as an ad-hoc pro-Israel letter-writing circle? RolandR (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As a more general point, I'll mention that "being cited in a reliable source" is only a necessary condition for something to be included on Wikipedia, not a sufficient condition. The fact that this letter was mentioned in a few news articles doesn't give it automatic encyclopedic merit. CJCurrie (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

CJCurrie is technically correct but it seems worth including to me. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And being 'technically correct' is an entirely adequate reason to exclude it, unless compelling reasons can be given otherwise. Do you have any? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Because of both the politically unique nature of the group (African-American's coming against a Palestinian narrative when usually African-Americans are not so pro-Israel) and the already mentioned media coverage by more than one outlet. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Has the letter been widely commented on in uninvolved media sources? I'd not question the accuracy of the Jerusalem Times, but I'd suggest that they are giving it more weight than media in other countries might. As for your generalisation about African-Americans, it is just that, a generalisation, and one I think might be best ignored - we really don't need to introduce stereotypes into the debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making a stereotype, I'm making a statement as it pertains to fact. It's basically akin to saying "[The majority of] Orthodox Jews voted for John McCain in 2008" or "[The majority of] English-Americans do not have blond hair." Thus going against type is a notability. Perhaps a good analogy is an openly gay political group criticizing Barney Frank for not doing enough to fight X,Y,Z.

JTA and the Jerusalem Times seems to be rock-solid and comparable in news to say Reuters I think. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what 'you think' doesn't answer the question I asked regarding this letter being seen as notable by the uninvolved. If it is notable, one would expect it to be 'noted'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Notable"

In the article currently most of the people making the analogy are described as "notable" (as in Notable authors) while people criticizing the idea are lumped as (Other people). This seems both (a)unfair and (b)factually wrong. Why are the fifty-three Stanford University faculty denied status as 'notable'? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The word "notable" tends to be misused in the content of Wikipedia articles, because of the special internal meaning it has here (i.e. WP:N). This happens even though citing a source does not relate to whether the author is notable, rather it relates to whether the view in that specific source is significant in relation to the article, per WP:NPOV. However, that doesn't mean we should stop abusing the word "notable" and start abusing the word "significant" in article space. Rather, we should stop describing sources as either notable or significant inside articles. If the source is significant to the subject matter then it should be included in article space, if it's not then it shouldn't. Either way, it shouldn't be be described as "notable" or "significant" in article space because these can be abused as WP:PEACOCK terms. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Israeli Arabs" not permitted, only "Israeli Palestinians" is consensus term?

RolandR has reverted references to "Israeli Arabs" in the last few days as not being a "consensus" terminology, replacing those references to "Israeli Palestinians" which he claims is a consensus terminology. Of course this is not so. But it certainly is an attempt to cement in the article an extremely one-sided view of things that delegitimizes Israel and Israeli citizenship, and thus justifies general criticism of the article as highly partisan. RolandR has even reverted a reference to Khalid Abu Toameh as an "Israeli Arab," although this is how he usually refers to himself and to fellow Arabs in Israel, so a fictional anti-Israel nationality is imposed on Abu Toameh against his will, as on all other Israeli Arabs. In Israel and amongst its citizens, there are many different ethnic groups, such as Israeli Jews, Israeli Ethiopians (Jewish, Christian and secular), Israeli Indians, Israeli Scandinavians, even Israeli Chinese. Arabs are amongst them. They are Israeli Arabs. "Arab" indicates ethnicity, while "Palestinian" indicates a nationality within that broader Arab ethnicity. Even the "Palestine National Covenant" defines its identity and its proposed future state as being racially "Arab." The term "Arab" is used everywhere in Israel. This is a simple matter of fact everywhere accepted amongst Israelis of all backgrounds: Israeli Arabs hold citizenship under that rubric, their political leaders in the Israeli Knesset, lawyers arguing cases before the Israeli courts, etc., insist on it, and they by and large refuse to adopt Palestinian nationality. They even have indicated in a recent poll that if they were to be included in a shift of boundaries so that they would be removed from Israeli citizenship and allegiance and given Palestinian nationality and allegiance, they would refuse to accept it. Thus, for example, most of them are against the suggestion made by Foreign Minister Lieberman to redraw the boundaries of Israel so as to include Arab regions in a proposed Palestinian state. Whether one is a PLO member or a Druze, all Arabs acknowledge that they are at the minimum "Arabs." This then is a consensus term acceptable to all. But "Palestinian" is a declaration of nationality, not ethnicity. In asserting that Israeli Arabs are actually Israeli Palestinians, RolandR implies that there is no legitiimate or agreed Arab Israeli citizenship and nationality. RolandR should remove his partisan reverts and restore a proper consensus terminology that recognizes the definitions given in the State of Israel, by non-Arabs and Arabs alike.Tempered (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RolandR is completely wrong. Not all of the Arabs citizens of Israel consider themselves Palestinians. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did not replace reference to "Israeli Arabs" with "Israeli Palestinians", which I agree could also be considered a non-neutral term. I replaced the reference with the perfectly factual, neutral and consensus term "Arab citizens of Israel". If you want to criticise my edits and attack my perceived point of view, please have the good grace to relate to what I said and did rather than to a distortion. RolandR (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing NPOV about not calling Israeli Arabs "Israeli Arabs". Your term is neither neutral nor consensus. Certainly not for this application. When we're talking about people who use the term Israeli Arab for themselves and their fellow, the neutral term is Israeli Arabs. To refuse to use that is an expression of a POV, and has no place here on Wikipedia.

Since my edit was an edit, and not a revert, I'm not violating 1RR by reverting your good faith, but mistaken, revert. Please don't do it again. Certainly not without explaining yourself here first and discussing the matter. And simply stating as a matter of dogma that you believe your term to be "neutral and consensus" does not constitute discussion. You need to explain why, given the use of the term by the people cited in the section themselves, for themselves, you think their personal self-identification should be ignored in favor of different terminology. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how the article title of the peoples in question is Arab citizens of Israel (with Israeli Arabs being a redirect), I would say that the former is the proper term to use. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This really seems like 6 of one, half-a-dozen of another to me. I think RolandR's point is that many Arabs living in Israel probably don't consider themselves "Israeli" and hence "Israeli Arab" is a bit of a misnomer, which is probably true enough. Frankly, I seriously doubt the average reader will pick up on the subtle difference between "Arab citizens of Israel" and "Israeli Arabs". I'd give RolandR his little semantics POV here to avoid senseless dispute. NickCT (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, the title of the article is irrelevant. In fact, that title itself is questionable. But in this case, the fact that the people mentioned in the section identify themselves as Israeli Arabs trumps WP nomenclature. I'm not giving RolandR anything. He is pushing a POV against a very important Wikipedia policy. We call the Palestinian Arabs "Palestinians" because that's their self-definition. We call "Messianic Judaism" that because it's their self-identification, despite the fact that all Jews reject them. We don't second guess group identifications. If I have to wait 24 hours, I'll do so, but if it gets reverted after that, it'll be time for dispute resolution. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did not initiate this bout of edit-warring. The article originally referred to "Criticism by Israeli-Palestinians". Yesterday, Tallicfan20 amended this to "Israeli-Arabs".[12] Both of these terms are, to some, contentious. So I replaced the POV term with the entirely neutral and accurate "Arab citizens of Israel". This was an attempt to achieve consensus, and not to impose a disputed description on anyone. I do not agree that the form of words I used was in any way POV; it was studiedly neutral. RolandR (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Lisa", the title of that article is quite relevant, and if you have a bone to pick with it then I suggest you initiate a rename request at Talk:Arab citizens of Israel. For now though, it is what it is, and there is nothing wrong with making use of the term here. I will also note that 1RR simply means that that is the absolute cap on reverts that one may do in a 24h period, it should not be interpreted as an entitlement to revery once per day. If you are expressing an intent to edit-war as soon as the clock slips past 23:59 since the last one, that is going to be viewed very unfavorably at WP:AE. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long-standing preference for preferring the terms that are more commonly used in the media, even if there are questions about the neutrality of those terms. See for example, WP:POVTITLE. "Israeli Arabs" is a much more widely-used term than "Arab citizens of Israel". Searching Google News gives 52 references for "Israeli Arabs"[13] vs 13 for "Arab citizens of Israel"[14]. Google Books is about 33,800 for "Israeli Arabs"[15] vs about 3,500 for "Arab citizens of Israel"[16]. Stylistically, "Arab citizens of Israel" is also clunkier. GabrielF (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Whereas I don't see a huge difference between "Israeli Arab" and "Arab citizens of Israel", the title of the article is very relevant since has to follow the naming convention. Due to the same arguments that led the selection of that title, we should use the title wording here, too. Again, not that I see a huge difference. --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Israeli Arabs" and "Israeli Palestinians" are acceptable terms to use in certain contexts within Wikipedia. This seems like where 'Arab citizens of Israel' seems unobjectionable to me. It also follows Wikipedia naming conventions. There is a subtle distinction between the three which I think makes the current version best. Should we put this to a vote? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't really be Wikipedia's place to make a ruling on which term is more acceptable. The Israeli and international media clearly employ the term "Israeli Arab", in preference to any other - presumably because it is the conventional and legal term. Changing "Israeli Arab" to "Palestinian Israeli" or "Israeli Palestinian" or the convoluted "Arab citizen of Israel" (four words?!) is ACTIVISM. ItsOurHomeToo (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't the place to argue against the term "Arab citizens of Israel". That discussion can be taken to Arab citizens of Israel, and if the name of that article changes then the new name can be used here. In the meantime, "Arab citizens of Israel" is the term that has consensus on Wikipedia. That makes it the safe option to use if there is disagreement over the use of other terms. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Then clearly the Arab citizens of Israel title needs changing, as it doesn't reflect what the reliable sources say. ItsOurHomeToo (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's your opinion. I don't have an opinion on the matter of which name is better, but in terms of Wikipedia processes you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to denounce this term here. It's redundant to do so when there is so clearly a better place to do it. The place to seek change is Arab citizens of Israel, and this page can reflect any change that occurs there. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not a particularly constructive policy for an encyclopedia. But very well, I'll take it over to the other page. ItsOurHomeToo (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Reut institute

This organization was used as a source in this article, which I'd like to call into question since the material they produce seems very modest in terms of quality. Are they relevant, opinions? According to their wiki page they provide "material" solely to the Israeli government which comes across as Zionist advocacy (incidentally, that's what their material looks like too but that's just me). --Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are a funny guy, Dailycare. Your challenges to sources are so ludicrous they thoroughly discredit you, all from your own words. The Reut Institute, as we are told on its website, http://www.reut-institute.org/en/Content.aspx?Page=About, is a non-profit independent and politically non-partisan Israeli organization devoted to strategic issues facing Israel. It refuses all government funding, whether from abroad or from the Israeli government itself. Like independent strategic think-tanks elsewhere, however, it aims to provide well-researched background studies and recommendations that will influence government decisions. They do not "provide 'material' solely to the Israeli government." That is untrue. Anyone accessing their website can see this for themselves: all viewers can freely peruse their "material" (why the scare quotes around the word, Dailycare?). It is available to the whole world on the internet, and Reut Institute reports are indeed widely cited. That is of course why it can be cited here: it is freely available to all.

I especially relish your statement that "the material they produce seems very modest in terms of quality." You must know that this is false from reading the report itself. The study that we are specifically talking about, which is cited in the note, is "Building a Political Firewall Against Israel's Delegitimization: Conceptual Framework, Version A" The Reut Institute, March 2010, http://www.reut-institute.org/data/uploads/PDFVer/20100310%20Delegitimacy%20Eng.pdf. It is an extensive 92 page study that took "several years" (page 19) to research and publish. Its tone is calm and temperate, although its disapproval of anti-Zionism and antisemitism is clear. We are told in the opening pages of this report that around 100 experts in the various subjects, leading authorities representative of a wide range of viewpoints, Jews and non-Jews in Israel and abroad, pro-Israel and "its most exacting critics," were consulted. Aside from 20 who did not want to be named, they are listed on pages 5 to 9, and comprise a very impressive list indeed, ranging from heads of government institutions (in non-Israeli as well as Israeli governments) to heads of independent NGOs to media commentators to specialists in international relations to many academics in Israel and abroad who are recognized authorities at the top levels in the relevant disciplines. The authors of the report itself, drawing on a team of 23 contributors, are all university trained with higher degrees. The report they produced was subject to thorough review by a board that included academics who are widely published authorities and other leading figures. The report itself is well footnoted and covers the subject systematically in the course of several chapters, making it a major study of the subject. Very few other published studies if any cited in our main article have involved so many authors, have been so thoroughly researched, are so well supported by references, and have been vetted by so many experts in the subject matter. Hardly modest quality control, Dailycare. The truth is the exact opposite from your claim. It is precisely because of this very high quality, responsible formulation and wide research that the study has been taken very seriously indeed by Israeli government leaders; it has even been cited by Prime Minister Netanyahu. In give-away phrasing, you also sneer at their "material" being "Zionist advocacy," as if you take for granted that this is per se suspect and perhaps grounds in itself for ignoring it and not citing it in this article about Israel. Do you mean that "Zionist advocates" as such should not be represented in this article criticising Israel?

I note that you reverted the citation several days ago, and resisted restoration of it. It is therefore incumbent on you to restore it. It more than meets all Wikipedia criteria.Tempered (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, Reut Institute is a think-tank. This document declares itself to be a conference paper. It's on the margins of reliability. Can anything better be found? Has a newer version been published independently anywhere? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

How much better can it be, Itsmejudith? Since when are think-tank documents per se not reliable sources, anyway? Can you cite any Wikipedia guideline that casts aspersions on them, or rules that they are "unreliable"? No. What then can be your objection? And even if a conference paper, so what? Since when are conference papers "unreliable" per se? Both objections seem groundless and wishfully POV. But in any case this is more than a conference paper even according to the document itself: it is a 92 page research report directed to governmental, parliamentary and opinion-maker figures in the first instance. It says it was presented at a conference but was not limited to that nor even read through there (since it is too long anyhow). It is aimed for a much wider readership, ultimately to the widest possible readership. The conference was merely another sounding board and consultation opportunity for the authors of this report, on the way to its end goal (so far it appears there is no Version "B"). There is nothing wrong with this source, it is not "on the margins of reliability," and in fact it is a very high quality and reliable source, far better than most others in this article.Tempered (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A think tank with a wikipedia page that readers can easily find is a reliable source.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Can any better source be found?" - yes, and in fact there is a list of sources there already. Just saying that Reut is a think-tank doesn't make it RS. CAMERA could be argued to be a think-tank too, but there is a consensus it's completely unreliable. The purpose of this talkpage thread isn't to discredit or bash Reut, but to find out whether it's WP:RS. In the doc we're now discussing, Reut takes the position that criticism of Israel is wrong and makes recommendations how Israel should counteract it. That sounds like advocacy. In an earlier version of the document Reut recommended "attacking" and "sabotaging" those who criticise Israel, which sounds a bit like something that's against the law. --Dailycare (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We are not discussing CAMERA, Dailycare, although the treatment given it by Wikipedia is quite a scandal and is based on the kind of phoney beat-up and wilful distortion of content your own post just above blatantly displays. In any case CAMERA is not a think-tank. We are discussing Reut Institute and its paper on the delegitimization of Israel. Got that? And in regard to that, your objections appear increasingly irrational, fanciful and desperate. Now you claim it urges breaking the law: an outright lie. What next? I think we can ignore Dailycare's interventions and wilful obstructiionism. It is too obviously indifferent to the truth and also to Wikipedia guidelines.Tempered (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sources in use on this page incoude :CounterPunch and Electronic Intifada. Why are we quibbling about this one?I.Casaubon (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a somewhat questionable source:

“Dr. Tashbih Sayyed, a Shi'ite Pakistani scholar, has visited Israel in..."

Here is the source, Reference #51 -- Tashbih, Sayyed. "A Muslim in a Jewish Land". Muslim World Today. http://www.muslimworldtoday.com/land30.htm. Retrieved 17 June 2010.

The referenced article that was used came from http://www.muslimworldtoday.com which was founded by Tashbih. He founded another website called http://www.paktoday.com - Do the 2 websites look similar? Also, check out the archives. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is rife with questionable sources. That is why it cries out for a top to bottom overhaul. And to be split into manageable pieces.I.Casaubon (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing "questionable" sources and splitting up an article are 2 different things. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A good number of anti-Israel editors on this page seem very confused about what constitutes a "reliable source." This however has frequently been pointed out to them in the past. E.g., just above in another earlier section of this Talk page, I quoted "WP:RS, which states in its introduction: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." The Reut Institute report has both attributes in spades, which makes it a highly reliable source, by definition. As a document that has had significant impact on Israeli leaders, it is even more notable and worthy of citation just for that reason alone.Tempered (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Tempered, your comments above ("blatantly displays ... wilful distortion of content" (...) "an outright lie" (...) "wilful obstructionism" (...) "obviously indifferent to the truth") are WP:UNCIVIL and unhelpful. Likewise saying Reut is RS because, essentially, you say so doesn't really advance this discussion. One way to end this discussion would be to change the wording to include attribution. This would IMO be an improvement to edit that we're discussing. For example: "The Israel-based Reut Institute discusses what it sees as delegitimization and demonization of Israel in this document".--Dailycare (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This objection to the Reut Institute report comes after at least 8 months of such obstructionist responses of the same sort to sources and text that after endless debate we have only managed to put two sentences of the proposed contribution into the article. And the objections to the Reut Institute report themselves do indeed take the cake; they are so openly chimerical and wilfully contrarian that I did finally lose patience. However, I believe I have shown fully, point by point and in sufficient detail, quoting Wikipedia guidelines, that all the claims made against the Reut Institute report reliability as a source are entirely baseless. Not even one of these points and details has been refuted, since they cannot be. The criticisms have merely moved to other yet more fantastical claims, such as, now, that the Reut Institute supports criminality. That is a very serious charge, Dailycare, and your justification for it does deserve the word "ludicrous" at the very mildest. Such assertions cross into the category of baseless slander, and do not belong here. (By the way, while this is of course false, even if true it would still not prevent use of its report as a reliable source for opinion: e.g., Palestinian sources that support terrorism still have their views cited in Wikipedia articles including this one, as a matter of course.) Given the emptiness of the counter-claims, then, the reference to the Reut report can be added to the article again. No rewording is needed, since it was merely cited in an endnote as one source amongst several that supports the sentence assertion that the apartheid charge was aimed at delegitimizing Israel. The sentence can therefore stand unchanged, too. I will be happy to bring this to the WP:RSN Reliable Sources - Noticeboard, for adjudication, Dailycare, if you wish to persist in challenging it, and you will lose yet another appeal to an independent tribunal regarding "reliable sources." That's fine with me.Tempered (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have put the issue of the Reut Institute Research Report's reliability as a source for this article before the WP:RSN. See, on that page, the section entitled "Reut Institute."Tempered (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking this is a collaboration, not a process where "appeals" are "won" or "lost" before "tribunals". If there are reasonable arguments to the effect Reut is RS, I'm happy with having it in the article. Now whereas primarily we're expected to come up with reasonable arguments here, posting to RSN is another option. --Dailycare (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Going to RSN is a good idea. Conference papers have been discussed on numerous occasions before and are generally not regarded as RS. Think tank reports have probably come up too; you can search in the archives. I will refrain from commenting on this one at RSN although I am a regular there. Just pose the question and hopefully you will get some uninvolved opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The RSN has accepted the Reut Institute citation as being a reliable source as used in this article. I therefore request Dailycare to replace it in its proper place with its previous wording. I thank you in advance, Dailycare.Tempered (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Reut Institute:

• Israel Finds a New Way to Play the Victim, 21 April 2010: A critical essay by Ira Chernus which discusses the Reut Institure and a predecessor report to the one produced by it referred to in the article.
• In the context of this article, the Institute is not non-partisan.
• However, as Tempered said, the RSN has accepted the Reut Institute as being a reliable source as used in this article (meaning that it is a reliable source for its own opinions).

    ←   ZScarpia   06:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Muslim World Today (Revisited)

• I removed a passage by Dr. Tashbih Sayyed awhile back from this article and found today that someone has put a passage by Tashbih("Muslim World Today") in the current article here. Below is the archived text regarding "Muslim World Today". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived text from this talkpage:

Well I took it to RSN, as seen here, and it is clear many editors agree that this website is not reliable, neutral or notable, and as such should not be used to source anything on wikipedia. If someone could re-delete the section which I had in this edit, that would be great, as I cannot. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 21:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived text regarding "Muslim World Today" from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard:

This website seems to me to be an SPS, yet editors are fighting over it at Israel and the apartheid analogy, so I bring it here for some non-involved comments. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 08:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is an SPS? WP:SPS describes individuals publishing their own work, and this is clearly something more than a personal website. I am not saying that definitely means it has a reputation for fact checking, but I am doubting that SPS is the correct way to discuss it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some of the content appears to be from the Associated Press, which would meet RS standards. That would suggest the site as a whole can't be rejected out of hand. There's no indication of editorial oversight that I can see. Some of the contributors seem credentialed. Could you give an example of what has been added to WP from this source, as well as a link to the particular page that is being used as a source? TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning editorial oversight an editor in chief is named who is at least not the same person as the journalists, so there is at least an indication.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It does indeed not look an obvious case if WP:SPS, but in any case I would not use it as source based on its lack of reputation (and there should be enough more reputable sources be around). Also at least first glance I must say it reads a bit like an Israeli proxy posing as "muslim opinion". In short not WP:SPS, but I can't see any good reason to use it as a source and in the WP article in question there seems to POV battle going on, which is another reason to stick there to (highly) reputable/notable sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is a WP:SPS, it looks to be a questionable source for anything not clearly sourced elsewhere. It states that its editorial pages are sponsored by 'Council For Democracy And Tolerance', and the Council's 'Mission Statement' suggests that it has a clear purpose and agenda that is unlikely to meet required standards of neutrality. [17]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A source doesn't have to be neutral but reliable, however "muslim world today" most likely is neither--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to this site on any reliable source. I don't think it's reliable or even notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly a "captive" publication, in the sense that its owners do write much or most of its original content, and use it to publish their personal opinions. I had to put on my wiki-sleuth hat to determine this, and I'm not going to "show my work" here because to do so would expose the rather non-public family members that operate this web-only (according to this article) publication to undue scrutiny in this rather public forum .

I'd be happy to disclose that to any neutral admin who'd like to see it, though, to any admin, that is, who doesn't have "a horse in the race" re Wikipedia's I/P wars. Just send me an e-mail request if you fit that description, or ask a wholly uninvolved admin to do so. I'll also mention that any editor who's willing to spend the time can also verify my results using whois, corporationwiki.com, public directories, and a normal search engine, although it'll probably take a while. Please don't post any specific results from that search, though, if you choose to repeat it.

Alright, then: Muslim World Today was started by Tashbih Sayyed, who was listed on the site as editor-in-chief until he passed away in May, 2007. He was also the publication's owner. It appears to be a small project, and its assets, such as they are, very clearly continue to be owned by Sayyed's family. The project seems to have been kept up since the father's death by his two kids, especially by a young woman who appears to be Tashbih's daughter, Supna Zaidi.

That's fine in itself, and commendable, of course, but the current main page for Muslim World Today (.com) also lists Supna Zaidi as the editor-in-chief, and she certainly writes a significant part of the content/articles for the website, as did her father while he was alive. This seems to violate the "Roman Wall" that's necessary in a reliable source, and to tread pretty harshly on the toes of our policy against self-published sources. Supna has written for the website for quite some time, and at length, it appears:

• Supna Zaidi, Muslim World Today, 12 April, 2008
• Supna Zaidi, Muslim World Today, 30 January, 2009. Scroll down for photo and article.
• Muslim World Today, partial archives Scroll down for articles by Supna Zaidi.

You can also verify that Supna's dad, Tashbih Sayeed, wrote much of the content for the publication before he died in 2007; see its archives for some examples. And the current, 26 March, 2011 edition, has both Supna and her dad's photo on the "cover" or main page of the website. The site continues to re-publish the father's old articles.

Some of the site's content appears with no byline at all, such as this denunciation on Muslim World Today from a few days ago of UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk's "Lies against Israel", as the site puts it. That seemed something of a red flag to me - so small an organization has no reason to do that - so I investigated further. It turns out that, under its own copyright, as if it were an article that Muslim World Today had written itself, the site copied this Zionist Organization of America press release verbatim, without attribution. That action alone prohibits us from taking the site as a reliable source. That's not something a publication can do and still support any claim to being a legitimate news outlet.

I have no way of knowing for sure, but the limited nature of the web site lead me to wonder whether other unattributed articles might be pro-Zionist press releases, as well, or be written by family members. There are some stories on the site from Associated Press writers, and I saw a copy of an article by Caroline Glick ( an outspoken advocate for Israeli policies who has urged Israelis to engage in "an information war" on their country's behalf ) of the Jerusalem Post. But I'm not sure that Muslim World Today is actually an AP affiliate or has any business relationship with the Jerusalem Post, at all, and I'm inclined to suspect that it does not.

As further evidence of a pro-Israel advocacy orientation of this publication, I note that in one of its articles entitled A Muslim in a Jewish Land, Tashbih Sayyed, its founder, owner, and then-editor-in-chief referred to Israel as the "Promised Land", which seems an odd thing for a Muslim to say, as does his additional assertion that

Media bias against Israel reminded me of the Nazi era German press that was recruited by Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels who picked up every hate-laden word against the Jews. Just like the German press who refused to print the truth about the gruesome atrocities in Europe's death camps - or claimed that it was all an exaggeration, the media today also ignores the Arab terrorism. I wanted to see if there was any truth in the media allegations that Israel was an apartheid state, undemocratic and discriminatory... I knew that a true Jewish State could not be undemocratic since democratic concepts were always a part of Jewish thinking and derived directly from the Torah. (emphasis mine)

Sayyed reiterates his "Promised Land" theme by closing the article with a statement about Israeli agriculture that seems pretty racist to me: "Israelis have proved beyond any doubt why God promised them this land – only they could keep it green." In that same article he wrote the truly remarkable statement, "The Israeli faith in democracy also explains their refusal to respond to Islamist terrorism in violent ways." I'm somewhat doubtful that international consensus would support the proposition that Israel is a pacifist nation that doesn't meet violence with violence.

Based on these statements, on his books, and on the propagandistic films he produced, and on other evidence I won't disclose here, it's my strong opinion that Sayyed was "Muslim" only in the sense of his ethnic background, and not in any religious sense at all. He was as fervent an apologist for Israel and as strong an opponent of the Palestinian cause as it's possible to be, and that was clearly the motivation for his life's work, including Muslim World Today.

You can also use search tools to verify that the (rather misleadingly named, imo) "Council for Democracy and Tolerance", also founded by Tashbih Sayyed, has the same street address as Muslim World Today. You can further verify that Supna Zaidi, the current editor-in-chief of Muslim World Today is an officer of that organization, and that a person with the same surname, who's also intimately connected with Muslim World Today, and who appears to be her sibling, is its Registered Agent. It doesn't appear to be an independently contolled organization at all, in other words. Further, the web site for Muslim World Today says it's "sponsored by" the "Council" and, more specifically, that its "editorial pages are sponsored by Council For Democracy And Tolerance". The Muslim World Today website also lists the Council's principles there, which state, in part:

Islamists have established themselves here in US to destroy our democratic system. By doing so they want to achieve their goals of establishing a Theocracy (Sharia or Islamic State). CDT is committed to expose this Extremist Islamist leadership in the United States of America. CDT is committed to challenge the statements, sermons and theories spread by Islamist clergy in the United States that is aimed at creating a hate-filled mind. ... CDT is committed to bring about a change in the radical, extremist and fundamentalist thinking of Muslims in the United States by using the newspaper, radio, television and internet as a worldwide campaign media tool. CDT condemns campaigns of Islamist leadership in the USA to incite violence, promote fundamentalism, and encourage extremism in order to undermine the freedoms in American society.

In just that same vein, Tashbih Sayyed, who started both "Council for Democracy and Tolerance" and Muslim World Today, wrote the following in an article for that publication entitled "Fourth of July - Is America Safe?" saying,

We must realize that the real war to defeat America is not being fought in South Asia, Central Asia or the Middle East, but right here in the United States of America. Our enemies have adopted our ways, our mannerisms, and our language. Understanding our commitment to our values, the enemies of Americanism have become "Americans". They are using our democracy and our freedoms to subvert the very Constitution that is the source of them.

Mr. Sayyed is also reported to have "called himself a Muslim Zionist." Based on what I've read, I have to say that I find this description inaccurate. He wasn't Muslim in any religious sense of the word at all. Based on what I've read, I think it can be reasonably inferred that his religious sympathies, at least, in addition to his political ones, of course, were decidedly Jewish.

Ms. Supna Zaidi is also listed on the Muslim World Today website as being "assistant director of Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum". She has written on the website for Islamist Watch, that "Islamists are increasingly using lawful Islamism, or non-violent and legal strategies to spread Sharia, (Islamic law) in the West, encroaching on non-Muslim life everyday." The purpose of that organization, which also appears to be controlled by Ms. Zaidi or her family, is to oppose what it sees as that trend.

Hmm. I see I've made answering this question into more of a research project than I'd intended, and have written much more than I'd planned. There's almost enough for an article here, I think, or enough to contribute to multiple articles, anyway, e.g. Muslim World Today, Tashbih Sayyed, Council for Democracy and Tolerance, Middle East Forum. Anyone who has the time or inclination to use any of this for that purpose should feel free. ( We have a "this a minor edit" checkbox; I think I need one that says "this is a major edit" ;-)

Muslim World Today might have a debatably commendable goal in trying to keep extremist elements of Islam from what winning at what it calls "stealth jihad", i.e. from influencing Western society via lawful means in favor of radical Islam. But whether that's commendable or not, it's the captive publication of a pro-Israel advocacy group, not an independent news organization. As such, it's clearly not a reliable source for our purposes on Wikipedia.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Common sense: The site appears to be RS for its fact reporting (as it appears to use AP etc.) - and the opinions of its editor-in-chief are rs for his or her opinions (just like opinions of any editor-in-chief are for any publication). Thus his opinions are not SPS, but are opinion, citable as such. Collect (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd suggest that 'common sense' would imply that if they were getting 'facts' from AP, then we should find other sources that use AP too, and get the 'facts' from there. There can be no logical reason to do otherwise. As for 'opinions' on the site, one would have to demonstrate notability for such - the web is full of opinions, but we don't need to quote them all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow that grew quick while I was away...the page in particular which I am questioning is the one I linked to in the intro sentence. That piece was written by the editor- a complete non notable besides his non notable websites that publish his and a few others works. I did not see any AP work, but of course that would be an RS though it would be better to link from a better site that had the same article instead, no? here is what the source was backing.

@ Collect, I have tried to cite opinions from non-notable editors-in-chief before and had other editors delete them an non-RS, so I'm not sure that if someone starts a website, calls themself the chief editor, that their opinions are now allowed on wikipedia. Passionless -Talk 18:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In a word, Collect's assertion is nonsense. Reliable sources don't copy press releases verbatim from the web sites of partisan lobbying groups and present them as their own articles. Any AP story would have to appear in a genuine reliable source before it could be admitted here. And as I outlined above, the person listed as editor-in-chief is also very clearly related to the "owner in chief" of the website, a fact anyone can verify by using web search tools for 30 minutes. If Collect and his sister owned a web site, that wouldn't make his opinions notable or citable just because he gave himself the title "editor in chief" and copied some AP articles to it, nor would Wikipedia legitimize his site by referencing it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the site is an advocacy site. No need for us to opine about whether it is good or bad here, but just to keep in mind that it should be cited carefully if at all. (We do not blanket ban all opinionated sources, but we do have to be careful about them.) This is of course then not just an matter of WP:RS, but also WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the emerging consensus regarding this site. I personally don't feel comfortable with Wikipedia using highly partisan websites as sources that are run by a couple individuals. But is there a conclusion that can be drawn here, or a general principle that can be applied in future instances? Or a specific statement in a relevant guideline or policy that can help us in these instances? We tend to resort to "editorial oversight" but is there something specifically dealing with highly partisan mom-n-pop websites? Or could we propose adding to a guideline a point about the sort of "captive" website that OhioStandard characterizes? If this bears discussion, let's maybe move it to RSN Talk. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

AP is RS. However that this site has material from AP doesn't affect the reliability of material they have that isn't from AP. Material from AP would preferably be sourced directly from AP. --Dailycare (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I just learned that the founder of Muslim World Today and Council for Democracy and Tolerance, Tashbih Sayyed was, until his death, also a board member of Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch group, according to two subpages on that site. Jihad Watch publishes Pamela Geller (one of Spencer's bosom pals) extensively, which should tell you something: Spencer and Geller co-founded Stop Islamization of America, which both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have identified as a hate group. The SPLC hasn't formally named Jihad Watch itself as a hate group, that I could see, but if you search the SPLC site you'll get a pretty clear idea of their opinion of the group.

Muslim World Today appears to me to be nothing more than a skillful black propaganda site. Based on this and on other specific evidence that it wouldn't be appropriate to post here, it's my very strong opinion that the founder of Muslim World Today wasn't Muslim at all, his public assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. He wasn't, imo, what he liked to call himself, a "Muslim Zionist". He was, imo, just a Zionist. I am not using that word in any critical sense, please observe, but merely in a descriptive one.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I removed the Tashbih Sayyed related text. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The structure of this article is not in accordance with NPOV Wikipedia guidelines

I have called attention twice in recent discussions to the fact that when measured by explicit Wikipedia guidelines, the entire article "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" has a highly POV structure, and needs a thorough re-write. The present text is not acceptable as a Wikipedia article as it stands. It is not a matter of details alone nor of partisan wording for apartheid advocates positions, nor even of splitting the article into two separate articles, although all these are legitimate issues relating to POV flaws. But the POV distortions go beyond this, in fact are fundamental, and shape the entire article. On these structural distortions, see my quotations from WP:NPOV, above. They have been ignored so far by editors. Now for the third time, but somewhat more fully, I quote here the relevant passage from WP:NPOV, found in paragraph 2.2 on "Structure" (see WP:Structure), and suggest that we need to discuss how to rewrite the entire article so as to attain some degree of neutrality in it:

"The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."

The description of POV article structure applies in every detail to the present format of "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy." Undue weight, for example, is shown in the very extended exposition of the pro-apartheid argument, which stretches from section 1 of the article through to section 9, at least three-fourths of the article. Sections 1 to 8 are phrased, often in an anti-Israel POV terminology, as if presenting the allegedly indisputable facts justifying an apartheid charge in one category after another, with either mostly or only anti-Israel spokespeople, groups, or points of view being quoted or aired at length. Short shrift is given any defense of Israel or refutation of those charges, and editors trying to post such defenses or refutations are generally reverted, so it is hard to get text in that runs counter to the accusations. Section 9 only builds on the charges made in sections 1 to 8, making it seem that the proponents of the apartheid accusation who are cited there would naturally take this view given those alleged facts in sections 1 to 8. The forced and biased use of material even in section 9 is shown by the practice of quoting as supporters of the apartheid analogy people in Israel or outside of it who say that if this or that policy that the speaker or writer disapproves of is implemented by Israel in the future, then an apartheid situation could arise: a rhetorical and hypothetical political point-scoring statement that does not equate at all to the claim that Israel is an apartheid state. Section 10, given over to "Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy," then comes as a rather lame and quite brief after-thought, a kind of "give the devil his due," but, as we have certainly seen on this Talk page, even there it is a major struggle to get text critical of the apartheid accusation into the article, or, if it is admitted into the article, to give a fair and full presentation of what those critics say. So the question is, how can we as editors work towards "folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other"? What concrete steps can we make to this end? Or, if this is not accepted by editors, should the entire article be scrapped?Tempered (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, I'd say, after reading through what you produced above, you should propose content which is less ridden with opinion stated as fact, original research and weaselisms (not that I'm not guilty of those things myself, I hasten to add, but just not, I hope, quite so blatantly).     ←   ZScarpia   17:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your response, ZScarpia, is ad hominem, not to the substance of the problem. It is a non-response. Whether or not my proposed contribution is agreeable to you is irrelevant. The problem, and it is a big and objectively verifiable one, is the fundamentally slanted and defectively POV structure of the entire article -- the result, obviously, of opinion stated as fact, original research and weaselisms by the predominantly pro-Palestinian editors who created it. You are looking in the wrong direction, ZScarpia.Tempered (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• An ad hominem response would be one in which the premises of an argument were attacked by casting aspersions on the character of the proponent of the argument. What aspersions have I cast on your character?
• (Quoted from above, a reply by you to Dailycare made at 08:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)) You are a funny guy, Dailycare. Your challenges to sources are so ludicrous they thoroughly discredit you, all from your own words. By your standards, does that count as an ad hominem response?
• Whether or not my proposed contribution is agreeable to you is irrelevant. Possibly (but not definitely) true. The content of this article, as with all Wikipedia articles, is determined by a consensual process, of which I am a participant. The truth of your statement, then, depends on whether other editors find your arguments convincing or not and, in consequence, whether my opinion is an isolated one. Let's see how things turn out.
• It is objectively verifiable that the structure of the article is slanted and POV? How, exactly?

    ←   ZScarpia   05:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The reasons why the structure of the article violate NPOV are given clearly in WP:Structure, as already explained and elaborated on in my opening statement just above.. This is a matter of fact, not something that editors can make up new policy about or set aside through weight of partisan numbers, as you suggest. The other comments are not worth responding to, but do make your bias clear.Tempered (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"I have called attention twice in recent discussions"...maybe people simply disagree with you? Framing one's opinion as if it is the gospel truth, i.e. "This is a matter of fact", can be rather off-putting as well. Reconsider your approach or you will likely just be ignored. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some advice:

• Don't make personal comments about other editors, either individually (such as calling Dailycare a funny guy or making references to what you call my bias) or in the collective (calling the editors who've worked on the article pro-Palestinian).
• Don't misrepresent other editors (for instance, by saying that I've suggested that editors can set aside policy by weight of partisan numbers when I said no such thing — presumably you're referring to where I depicted the consensus process as editors judging the merits of arguments?)
• Don't misrepresent Wikipedia rules. The section from the Neutral Point of View rule that you have been quoting is hedged around with conditional statements and qualifiers; it is not proscriptive and requires editors to apply their own judgement. Therefore, statements such as that it is objectively verifiable that the article's structure is slanted are absurd.
• Don't misuse sources. For instance, you used the 2006 Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism to support the first paragraph of your proposed addition. That Report quotes the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism document, which lists (but not exhaustively) examples of ways in which antisemitism could, taking into account the context, manifest itself with regard to the state of Israel. Note the could: that means that the examples listed do not necessarily imply antisemitic behaviour. Also note that it says that examples of manifestations or antisemitic behaviour aren't limited to the list of examples given. As per Bernard Lewis and Anne Karpf, antisemitism may manifest itself as pro-Zionist behaviour (after all the most rabid antisemites of the last century were supporters of Zionism).
• Treat other editors the way you would like to be treated yourself: treat with respect if you want to be respected; don't patronise or condescend if you don't want to be patronised or condescended to; take other editors as seriously as you would like them to take you (which probably means as seriously as you take yourself); listen to advice given if you want others to listen to advice given by you.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Tarc, do you deny that "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false"? That is, do you deny Wikipedia policy guidelines in principle and as such, or merely that they must be applied to Wikipedia articles? Furthermore, going into particulars, do you deny that there is in actual fact, in the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article, a "segregation of the text into different regions or subsections based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself"? Do you also deny that in actual fact the article presents "a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents" which is criticised explicitly in WP:NPOV? And do you deny the fact that "an apparent hierarchy of fact [has been created in which] details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false"? It will be interesting to hear your answer.Tempered (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, you deny Wikipedia policy in general, or only in relation to this article? Perhaps you can clarify that most basic of the denials your "Yep" endorses and commits you to. Can you justify your "Yep" a bit more fully, Tarc? What do you deny, and why? The blindly partisan refusal to engage with this problem or even to recognize that there is one is certainly evident, but it will not do. On the contrary: it is very good evidence for the existence of the problem, and for the nature of the underlying cause. An exactly similar attitude by partisan editors explains why pro-Israel views, contributions and sources have been given such short shrift in this article, deeply compromising its point of view.Tempered (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Describing another editor as "blindly partisan" is uncivil, please desist. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will rephrase my response to Tarc as follows: "Yep" is more than a little vague: does "Yep" mean you deny Wikipedia policy in general, or merely if applied to Wikipedia articles? And, while we are at it, what exactly do you deny in the other questions I gave? Now, could you too address yourself to the issue, Ryan Paddy, which is the POV structure of the article?Tempered (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for rephrasing. I don't have an answer to the pro vs. con structure question. It's a question that occurs frequently on Wikipedia, everyone has their preferences on it, and every article is different. This article seems an especially difficult one in terms of structure. Also, feel free to call me Ryan. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"The structure of this article is not in accordance with NPOV Wikipedia guidelines" <-- I will simply say that that assertion carries no water. IMO, you approach this article with an opinion of "I do not like the subject matter", and then cast about for editing guidelines to support that. Clear enough? Tarc (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of ad hominem attacks, Tarc, your response 'I don't want to hear about it,' and blanket refusal to address the specifics but, again, attacking me as the messenger as you have done from the start of this discussion, invalidates your argument. It is a kind of confession that you have no convincing refutations to make of the specific charges and cannot contemplate taking the issues seriously. Using such a framing narrative would produce a situation where anyone supporting NPOV itself is defined as being unacceptably POV. This turns things on their head and would delegitimize NPOV in Wikipedia articles altogether, ruling it out. The worst sort of POV ad hominem attacks, I think, are those used to avoid and block the NPOV issue itself. But, Ryan, not only have you not called him on that, your own response seems very cloudy and unfocussed. Perhaps your "This article seems an especially difficult one in terms of structure" has some specific content? Structure is the issue. Why is its structure "difficult," what does "difficult" mean here, and how does this relate to the explicit NPOV Wikipedia guidelines already spelled out?Tempered (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did not say "I don't want to hear about it", though. If it helps you to condense my position into an easily-manageable sound byte, it would be "I have read your complaint, and reject it as being without merit". Tarc (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Giving no reasons does not constitute an argument.Tempered (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV policy says "Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral." (emphasis mine). So, it's explicitly stated that there is no blanket prohibition. In my experience, there are very many articles on Wikipedia that do have "Criticism" sections. These sections are often debated over, and sometimes retained because the consensus on the page is that having a criticism section is more manageable than any alternative. In the end, it's consensus that determines how policy should be interpreted in regards to specific pages. In the case of this specific page, it has a series of sections at the start that are not divided into "pro" and "con", rather the opposing positions are "folded into the narrative". Whether it's done well or not or in a balanced fashion is debatable, but it's done. This is followed by a section that presents the pro position in broad terms with reference to who holds it, then a section that presents the con position in broad terms with reference to who holds it. No special authority is given to the pro position by being placed first, it's simply necessary to state an argument before you can refute it. Some of the content in the "pro" and "con" sections could be moved up into the mixed sections and folded into the narrative (although this can be difficult to achieve well given the partisan editing of the page from all directions), and I did quite a lot of this when I was clearing out the bullet-point lists of people pro and con. However, some of the "pro" and "con" content would be hard to move. The "Differences in motivations" section is a case in point. It is about the position that while Israel may engage in some degree of "separation" of Israelis from Palestinians, it does so for reasons such as security, not with the motivation of racism that was the case in apartheid in southern Africa. If this were to be folded into a single section that covered pro and con, what would it be? "Motivations"? Such a section would have to first cover the pro position that Israeli motivation for separation is based on ancestry/ethnicity/nationality/religion, followed by the Israeli counterargument that it is for reasons of security - as it's nonsensical to posit a counter-argument before the argument it counters. Would such arrangements really be agreeable to you? Alternatively, it may be argued that such sections should start by positing the position most widely-held by experts, followed by positions less widely-held by experts. This would be consistent with the policy of giving due weight, however it would be difficult to reach agreement on who is an expert for this subject, where the most prominent "experts" are so often at odds over the subject, and the subject so often seems to be a question of opinion. That's the kind of thing I mean by "difficult". Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment, Ryan, is a pleasure to read in this context simply because it is a reasoned consideration of the actual issues. The previous non-responses were strongly inclining me to call for the deletion of the article altogether. You make some very good points, I think, but the question still remains how to make the article, at present so slanted in just the way the WP:Structure guidelines deplore, more acceptably neutral, and I would welcome any concrete suggestions to that end. I had begun this section with a request to editors either to suggest ways of rewriting and generating a more NPOV content to the article, or to accept its deletion and replacement with an entirely new and fairer article. Your points support the rewrite option. The sections 1-8, as currently written, are highly partisan, for example, as I explained in the first paragraphs of this section on article structure. Section 9 then follows on in seeming confirmation of those sections, as if it were a natural conclusion. Section 10 seems both in terms of its relative brevity and position a mere sop to the con side of the debate. So the structure IS a problem. It just by itself inclines the reader to the erroneous conclusion that one side is more valid or true, and thus it really is POV. Some suggestions of my own follow. First of all, the contextual reality of Israel, a very small state, being under constant threat from belligerent neighbouring states and groups in the entire region, including attacks by the Palestinians to whom Israeli Arabs are so closely linked by kinship and sympathies, and being forced to fight major wars in its defense in nearly every decade since its inception, needs to mentioned from the start. This impacts on every aspect of the topics discussed in this article. Israel is a Western liberal democracy, but it is not located in the West amongst other democracies. It is surrounded by too often hostile and anti-Western authoritarian states. It is not a minor issue that this matter is omitted from the article, in Sections 1 to 9, or even in Section 10, either in its introductory paragraph or later on in the "Differences in motivations" sub-section. It should certainly be referred to for example in the lead paragraphs introducing the article, since it is a front-and-centre reality in Israel itself and critics of the apartheid analogy often refer to security issues. And it needs to be mentioned as well in Section 9, both in its introduction and elsewhere.

There needs to be a very careful review of the terminology used in Sections 1 through 9 to remove from them word usage that presumes truth for the anti-Israel allegations. These just by themselves violate NPOV standards. And there are other matters needing attention; I will comment in the next few days, but must end now. Be it noted that I cannot make all these and the many other changes needed myself; I haven't the time. Other editors must be welcomed who can do this. Precisely however the unwelcoming and indeed stonewalling treatment of pro-Israel editors is the biggest problem of all, which is the real reason for the problem with the article as it stands.Tempered (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think most people would agree that the sources need to tell the story, not the editors. Taking due weight into account, when a source has described an Israeli crime, it should be put into the article. When a source has described an Israeli merit, it should be put into the article. What do the sources say? That's what goes into the article.

• Also, posted in the section below Regarding "back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents" is the proposed solution to one of the structural problems of this article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents"

• The notability of Israel and the apartheid analogy has been established which is why this article continues to exist. In regards to the "back and forth" which violates NPOV, the very structure of the current article is to blame. There is one way, and only one way to remove this problem. It would entail presenting the apartheid analogy information and all that it entails. At the end of the article would be a section dealing solely with criticism of the analogy. This would move all of the current criticism(opposing viewpoints, etc.) to this section. This would solve the "back and forth" and is in fact the only way to solve it inside this current article. The only exception in this "reformatting" would be to leave the criticism that currently exists in the introduction in order to establish it. To see what an article with a separate criticism section looks like, take a look at the wikipedia article on Capitalism, albeit the criticism section would be much larger. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit leery of any solution that insists that there is "one way, and only one way," to solve a problem. Life is a bit more complicated than this, and usually there are in fact several ways to solve any given problem. However, in terms of this specific suggestion, it could be a good one, but would be acceptable only if the full contextual information was provided for each of the allegations and categories of criticism, so as to be genuinely non-partisan. As already mentioned, security issues and the ongoing situation of belligerence have to be taken fairly into account. These matters have plenty of sources to support their relevance. Furthermore, as currently phrased, most of these sections studiously ignore wider contexts which would put their subject in a less black-and-white light. E.g., in section 4 of the article, entitled "Segregation of Arabs and Jews in Israel," it would have to be indicated that in fact Christians and Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, live throughout the state and can be found in every city, including in specific areas of predominantly Jewish settlement, something not mentioned for some reason in the present text although it is evident to anyone who visits Israel and there are plenty of reliable sources for such a statement. One would not guess from Section 4 for example that Arabs own homes (as much at least as Jews do -- most homes and properties, including Jewish towns and wholly Arab villages, are actually purchased on very long-term leases routinely renewed, since over 90% of the land is owned by the state), have employment, shop and move about without hindrance and without comment, everywhere in Israel. However, this is not true for Jews in areas of chiefly Arab settlement. Aside from Jewish women married to Arabs, and converts to Islam, Jews are treated very hostilely in predominantly Arab areas. They are at serious personal risk and have been attacked. Even Arabs selling properties to Jews in such areas have been threatened with execution by the Palestinian Authority, including inside Israel. There have been a number of cases reported in the press over the years, so there are certainly sources for all these statements. It was such security concerns that led to the creation of Nazareth Illit, for example, one of the largest Jewish towns in the Galilee, overlooking Nazareth. This applies in general to the Galilee (which is why the small Jewish communities located on isolated hill-tops there are gated and have careful security arrangements), to the Old City of Jerusalem (where Jews moving into its Arab quarters have spurred mass protests and riots), and to other areas. Such information would put the claims given in that section in quite another context. Just about every section needs such revision and more consideration of the other side of the question, so it does not read simply as an indictment. Naturally, someone familiar with the sources would have to add such contextual material, and I would be happy to research this and contribute myself except that I have very little time to devote presently to this. So I invite other editors to help make this article more NPOV by contributing such needed balancing material to each of the sections from 1 to 8. A further comment is that section 9, a roll-call of proponents of the apartheid accusation, slurs together sources and persons who seriously believe Israel qualifies as an apartheid state, and people who believe no such thing but use the term rhetorically to condemn policies that they wish to discredit in terms of possible dire future outcomes. These claims are not serious, but mere political point-scoring. In short, "apartheid" itself becomes a "weasel word" in the article, to employ a terminology used by Tarc. It ends up meaning nothing very specific. For example, the wriggling-around the issue of whether "apartheid" applies to clearly "racial" matters alone, or just to legal institutions, or to other forms of discrimination, shows much the same thing. In any case, clear distinction should be made between the various and sometimes quite contradictory uses of the term found in sources, to suit very different agendas and meanings. E.g., sometimes the accuser wants to term any one-state solution a likely apartheid situation. Sometimes the accuser wants to say that a two-state solution would produce an apartheid situation. These are very different claims. All this is slurred over in Section 9, to convey an unanimity that does not exist. That section needs extensive revision.Tempered (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The title of this section denotes its intended focus. My initial comment was mostly about the "back and forth" which violates NPOV. If you can just comment on that specific issue it would be helpful, otherwise you blur the focus of this intended section. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

New version of proposed contribution

(I re-enter here from the prematurely archived file the full text of my proposed contribution, which incorporates revisions made in response to specific criticisms made when it first appeared on the 25th of November. The text here includes the introductory explanation to the original contribution. I will leave out the subsequent discussion, since this can be accessed in Archive 37#New_version_of_proposed_contribution. Ryan Paddy offered in December a condensed and revised version of the first paragraphs of my proposed contribution, which I also include here. For the sake of space, I also leave out the critical discussion of the Ryan Paddy version that followed its posting on this Talk page, which can again be accessed in the archive. All of this consists of previous discussion. Following this, I present new material, consisting of my response and suggested revision of the Ryan Paddy version, to reach a consensus text.) Tempered (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As part of the process of attaining an agreed text, and given that there will also be a suggested version from Ryan Paddy, I would like to present the results of my own further research on the issues raised in my original proposed contribution. That contribution attempted two chief things: 1, it focussed on "delegitimization" as a chief motivation for those advocating the "apartheid analogy," and 2, it sought to give a brief historical background to this sort of advocacy and the current "Israel Apartheid" campaign. The determined and often merely obstructionist rejection of consensus over the past several months has enabled me to pursue the research further on both these topics, and leads to the following much improved version. It raises many important and basic new points highly relevant to the topics, and they cannot all be summarized even partly in a single paragraph; moreover, these points are distinct and important enough in themselves, and generally come from such impeccable and leading political, diplomatic, and academic sources, both non-Jewish and Jewish, that they deserve the allocation of several paragraphs without any fear of giving "undue weight" to their viewpoints. They do considerably advance the case offered in the main article under "Differences in Motivations." I offer them here, with the hope that they might be helpful also to Ryan Paddy and he might want to draw upon them for his own suggested version.

The treatment of footnotes is always a problem in such matters. I have tried in earlier versions to include the footnotes as indented material; this breaks up the text too much, and would especially do so in this case, where there are 60 footnotes. I have taken care to support every statement with cited sources in footnotes, generally at the end of paragraphs but often after every sentence. So I have collected the footnotes as endnotes below the text, and to save space have put them one after another without line breaks. I have also tried to follow what appears to be general Wikipedia style for footnotes, which is to give a separate footnote for each cited source. In general, I have only included several sources in a single footnote when the sources comment on each other.

Here is the contribution:

Many other critics of the apartheid analogy have considered "delegitimization" to be a key motivation behind the "apartheid" and "racist" accusations, stigmatizing and demonizing Israel through the consistent application of double standards. As these critics argue, such accusations differ from ordinary criticisms of particular flaws, such as we find in and about any other country, by their essentializing and generalizing demonization of Israel and Zionism per se, to justify rejection and elimination of the Jewish state as such.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]10][11][12][13][13a]

The double standards are evidenced, it is said, in a perfectionist invocation of universal principles used solely to delegitimize Israel: it is argued that they are used to condemn Israel alone amongst all nations for social practices and flaws that are similar to and no worse than those found in all countries including liberal democracies. As a number of commentators have said, none of these standards are used to accuse the P.A. itself nor neighbouring states of what the critics say are the much worse racism and/or "apartheid"-like practices there, nor to advocate boycotts, ostracism or delegitimization of them.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

According to the analytical philosopher Bernard Harrison, close linguistic analysis reveals deeper philosophical and logical problems and even frequent self-contradictions inherent in such delegitimization discourse, and in the use of racism and apartheid charges against Israel, particularly when proclaimed from what he terms "messianic liberalism" left and secular relativist standpoints. What he sees as the indiscriminate rhetoric, logical incoherence and moral confusion of this discourse arise in part from the many sometimes self-contradictory sources and interests involved and often uncritically merged together, ranging from secular relativism to absolutistic Islamism, and from historical indebtedness to "fascist" antisemitic propaganda both of the far right and far left (Harrison defines "fascist" as including both the Nazi and the Soviet Communist totalitarian systems).[21]

Some leading authorities on modern history, the history of the Middle East and the history of antisemitism, concur that the language demonizing and delegitimizing Zionism as "racist" and "oppressive" predates the establishment of the State of Israel, and had sources in non-Palestinian antisemitic movements. The Nazi propaganda to this effect, its meshing with Islamist anti-Jewish traditions and modern outrage at any part of "the Muslim world" being ruled by non-Muslims, and its resultant impact on Palestinian nationalist ideology and practice even before the establishment of the State of Israel, is discussed in a number of publications by specialists in German history and the Middle East.[22][23][24][25][26[27][27][28][29][29a][30][30a]

Bat Ye'or, a specialist in the history of Muslim-Jewish relations, sees the Islamic role as central: the Palestinian and general Muslim emphasis on such accusations as "apartheid" is according to her part of a wider campaign by them to delegitimize the Jewish state: that this is a larger pattern is notably shown, she says, in their denial that there are any Jewish holy sites anywhere in the Holy Land (including on the Temple Mount itself).[30b]

But another important source, according to scholars of the history of the Soviet Union, of the history of antisemitism, and the modern history of the Jews, was Russian antisemitism of the Tsarist period, which was taken up and continued in the Soviet Union as "anti-Zionism," often equating it with Nazism and by the 1960s with apartheid South Africa, as one of the regime's main ideological enemies within the U.S.S.R.[31][32][33][34]

Two U.S. ambassadors to the U.N. during the 1970s and 80s, Daniel Patrick Moyniham (Ambassador during 1975-1976) and Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (Ambassador from 1981 to 1985) have recounted and analyzed in similar ways the process by which the Soviet Union used the "apartheid" accusation against Israel in the United Nations and the wider international arena from 1967 on through the 1980s as a key part of a wider global attempt to legitimize Soviet client groups like the PLO as "national liberation movements," while delegitimizing self-defense against them by anti-Soviet "colonialist," "imperialist" and "racist" states that were liberal democracies or allied to the Western democracies.[35][36] Thus, they say, the delegitimization of Israel served wider Soviet geo-political goals against the Western democracies, of which Israel is one. The equation of Zionism to apartheid and racism, in a resolution by the U.N. General Assembly in 1975 was a major triumph in that U.N. campaign, involving the Soviet bloc and client states, the Arab bloc, the Islamic Conference, and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), although the Western liberal democratic bloc voted overwhelmingly against it.[37][38][39][40][41]

Palestinian and other anti-Zionist sources made central use of such language for decades.[42][43][43a] However, after the fall of the Soviet Union and subsequent rescinding of the "Zionism Is Racism" resolution by the U.N. General Assembly in 1991, this equation was discredited in most quarters for almost a decade. But following the collapse of the Camp David peace talks in 2000, some Palestinian leaders, such as Edward Said, a leading Palestinian intellectual, and Diana Buttu, then legal advisor to the Fatah Council, began to advocate renewal of the accusation, using the "racism" theme and apartheid analogy as part of what Said suggested should be a "mass campaign" in the West to gain support for replacing Israel with a single "bi-national" state.[44]

According to some commentators, the first full expression of this renewed mass campaign appeared at the UN’s World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001.[45] At that Conference, as described by critics, Zionism was equated again with "racism," "apartheid South Africa" and even "Nazism," Jews felt intimidated by the hatred around them, and particularly in the parallel conference of NGO groups, those supporting Israel were shouted down, physically assaulted and driven from the Conference altogether, leading to the withdrawal of a number of Western states from the proceedings or from the follow-up "Durham II" conference.[46][47][48]

Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian political scientist specializing in international law and human rights, considers the delegitimization of Israel pursued at Durban to be part of a current campaign to legitimize Islamist and leftist terrorism as justifiable "popular resistance," not just against Israel but against liberal democracies and Western societies generally.[49][50]

The use of the apartheid analogy to delegitimize Israel has been a chief focus and justification for the global BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign pursued since 2004. Omar Barghouti, the Palestinian founder and coordinator of the global BDS campaign, elaborated at length and explicitly on the delegitimization motivation in an interview published in December 2007 having the title: "No to the apartheid 2 state solution: Omar Barghouti: 'No State has the Right to Exist as a Racist State."[51] He strongly criticises Palestinian leaders who support a two-state solution as betraying the Palestinian cause.[52][53] However, some PLO and Fatah Council leaders state that they have the same goal, just different tactics, for they say they have never recognized the legitimacy of Israel nor its right to exist.[54][55][56][57][58][59] Some prominent Palestinian BDS leaders use not only the "apartheid" analogy but that of the Nazis, and have explicitly endorsed terrorism as a legitimate method as part of their overall goal to eliminate Israel.[60]

[1] The interaction of delegitimization, demonization, and double standards is analyzed at length, with bibliographical references, in "Building a Political Firewall Against Israel's Delegitimization: Conceptual Framework, Version A" The Reut Institute, March 2010, p. 11, et passim, http://www.reut-institute.org/data/uploads/PDFVer/20100310%20Delegitimacy%20Eng.pdf [2] Natan Sharansky sought to define how antisemitic criticism of Israel differs from legitimate criticisms such as those leveled against all other countries, in his "3D Test of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization," Jerusalem Political Studies Review, Vol. 16, nos. 3-4 (Fall 2004), available at: http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-sharansky-f04.htm, also see his "Antisemitism in 3D: How to differentiate legitimate criticism of Israel from the so-called new anti-Semitism," at: http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/sharanskyAntisemitism.pdf [3] Dennis MacShane, et al., Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, September 2006 (London: The Stationary Office, Ltd., 2006), a report made to the British Parliament to guide government policy, lists five ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel (p. 6; also see further discussion pp. 16ff.): "1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour; 2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; 3. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to charaterize Israel or Israelis; 4. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; 5. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." See http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf This definition is repeated verbatim in the policy "Ottowa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism," November 11, 2010, by the Interparliamentary Committee on Combating Antisemitism, summarizing conclusions from a conference in Ottowa, Canada, of parliamentarians from 53 Western states. See http://www.antisem.org/archive/ottawa-protocol-on-combating-antisemitism/ [4] The demonizing delegitimization theme of "apartheid," and the use of double standards to support it, is discussed in Mark Silverberg, "The Delegitimization of Israel," March 7, 2010, http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3381 [5] Ben Cohen, "Boycotting Israel: The Ideological Foundations," September 2008, http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/boycotting-israel%253A-the-ideological-foundations.html (focusses particularly on ideological rationales for leftist anti-Zionist agitation, and links this to the Soviet Union's furious campaign in the U.N. following Israel's survival in the Six-Day War of 1967). [6] Robbie Sabel, "The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False charge of Apartheid," at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2009 Global Law Forum, at: http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=110 [7] David Matas, Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism (Toronto: The Dunburn Group, 2005), pp. 53-55. [8] Alan Dershowitz, The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace (New York: John Wiley, 2009), pp. 20-25, 28-29, 36, 44-48. [9] Brian Blondy, "Debunk of comparison between Israel, apartheid South Africa," Jerusalem Post, 07.19.10, at: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=181845 [10] Gerald M. Steinberg, "BDS -- the New Anti-Jewish Boycott: Isolation as a tactic of Political Warfare," at http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12449&pageid=16&pagename=Opinion [11] Michael Herzog, "The Phenomenon of Delegitimization in the Overall Context of Attitudes toward the Jewish People," http://jppi.org.il/uploads/herzog_delegitimation.pdf [12] Leslie Susser, "Tide of Delegitimization," May 2, 2010, at: http://www.jpost.com/JerusalemReport/Article.aspx?id=174328, after describing the delegitimization tactics of Israel's enemies, criticises the Israeli government for not doing anything about it: present initiatives are almost all grass-roots responses. [13] The article "Debunking the Apartheid Comparison," at: http://www.gfantisemitism.org/aboutus/Pages/DebunkingtheApartheidAnalogy.aspx#why%20the%20apartheid%20analogy%20is%20false, states: "Labeling Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself. Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Attempting to describe its very existence as a crime against humanity, is not." [13a]Dennis Macshane, "'Kauft nicht bei Juden' will worsen the conflict," Jerusalem Post, 11.29.10, http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=197280. He highlights double standards and demonization in the apartheid analogy advocates, and says that invocation of apartheid accusations is per se delegitimization of Israel, indeed "it is hard to see how peace can be made with an Israel that so many seek to brand an 'apartheid state.'" [14] Barry Rubin, "The Hour of Hanging Judges: Demonizing Israel and Pretending It Is Ordinary Criticism," GLORIA Center, November 13, 2010, at: http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/11/hour-of-hanging-judges-demonizing [15] Gerald M. Steinberg, "The war on de-legitimization," Yediot Aharonot, August 12, 2010, at: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3935230,00.html [16] In terms of comparable practices in Palestinian society and elsewhere in the Middle East, and complaints about the double standards against Israel alone in this context, see Gil Troy, "The Double Double Standard," December 8, 2009, Jerusalem Post blog, at: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/troy/entry/the_double_double_standard_posted [17] Martin Regg Cohn, "Not all apartheid is created equal," The Star, July 6, 2010 http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/832423--cohn-not-all-apartheid-is-created-equal [18] Khaled Abu Toameh, "What About The Arab Apartheid?" March 16, 2010, Hudson New York at http://www.hudson-ny.org/1111/what-about-the-arab-apartheid, on discrimination against Palestinians in Arab states, and "What About The Arab Apartheid? Part II," March 23, 2010, at http://www.hudson-ny.org/1120/what-about-the-arab-apartheid-part-ii; and the same author's, "Palestinians in the Arab World: Why the Silence?" July 20, 2010, at: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1422/palestinians-in-arab-world [19] Abraham H. Miller, "Enforced Misery: The PA and the Balata 'Refugee' Camp - Where are the Flotillas protesting the PA's version of apartheid?" Aug. 31, 2010, at:http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/enforced-misery-the-pa-and-the-balata-refugee-camp/?singlepage=true [20] Maurice Ostroff, "Ethnic Discrimination in Lebanon is not called Apartheid. Why?" Aug. 2010, at www.2nd-thoughts.org/id289.html [21] Bernard Harrison, The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion (Philosophy and the Global Context) (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006). Among many other points, Harrison distinguishes between "social or distributive anti-Semitism," the sort visited upon individual Jews for no other reason than that they are Jewish, but which is generally not a serious threat, and "political anti-Semitism," which is directed at the Jewish community and group existence as such, which is a major threat to Jews and to the world. The "apartheid" and "racism" accusations, and similar demonizations and delegitimizations of Israel, are in the latter category. [22] See Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim (London: Hutchinson, 1969), pp. 52, 60, 272-96, etc., and Robert Wistrich, Hitler's Apocalypse: Jews and the Nazi Legacy (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 8-10, 154-73, 213-15, etc. [23] Matthias Kuentzel, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 (Telos Press, 2009). [24] Klaus Gensicke, Mufti of Jerusalem and the Nazis: Amin Al-husaini: the Berlin Years 1941-1945 (London: Mitchell Vallentine & Company, 2010). [25] Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine (London: Enigma Books, 2010). [26] Jeffrey Herf, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) [27] For some of the consequences of such "delegitimization," as he terms it, and use of terms like "racism" and "apartheid," see Giulio Meotti, A New Shoa: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism (New York: Encounter Books, 2010). [28] On the direct transmission of Nazi propaganda techniques and slanders to the Arab and Palestinian leadership, see Joel S. Fishman, "The Big Lie and the Media War Against Israel: From Inversion of the Truth to Inversion of Reality," Jewish Political Studies Review, vol. 19, Nos. 1 & 2 (Spring 2007), at: http://www.danielpipes.org/rr/4465.php [29] On Islamist outrage at any part of the Middle East being governed by a non-Muslim state, and double standards and projection in their use of anti-Zionism discourse, also see the terminological analysis of Raymond Ibrahim, "Muslims Project Islam's Worst Traits Onto Israel and the Jews," November 17, 2010, http://www.hudson-ny.org/1673/muslims-project-on-israel-jews [29a]Julius Gould, "Impugning Israel's Legitimacy: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism," in: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism in the Contemporary World, edited by Robert S. Wistrich (New York: New York University Press, 1990), pp. 178-194, esp. 188-91, and Yehuda Bauer, "Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism -- New and Old," ibid., pp. 195-207, esp. pp. 202-03 on the effect of Soviet propaganda since 1967, etc. [30] Robert S. Wistrich, "Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger," The American Jewish Committee, 2002, at: http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/WistrichAntisemitism.pdf [30a]Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1986). [30b]Bat Ye'or, "Delegitimizing the Jewish State," Middle East Quarterly (Winter 2011): pp. 3-14, at: http://www.meforum.org/2813/delegitimizing-the-jewish-state [31] Robert S. Wistrich, Hitler's Apocalypse, op.cit., pp. 194-235 (deals with the Soviet use of "Jewish Nazism" "racism," "apartheid," and associated themes). [32] William Korey, Russian Antisemitism, Pamyat, and the Demonology of Zionism; Russian Antisemitism, vol. 2, Studies in Antisemitism series (London: Routledge, 1995), cf. Chapters 3 ("Demonology of Zionism: International Dimension," pp. 30-45), 4 ("Zionism - 'The Greatest Evil on Earth'," pp. 46-59, and 9 ("Political Uses of the Demonology of Zionism," pp. 147-65). [33] Baruch A. Hazan, Soviet Propaganda, a Case Study of the Middle East Conflict (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1976). [34] Joel Fishman, "The Cold-War Origins of Contemporary Antisemitic Terminology," Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 517, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2-16 May 2004, at: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp517.htm [35] See Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. from 1981 to 1985), "How the PLO was legitimized," Commentary, July, 1989, pp. 21-28, http://www.aei.org/docLib/20030829_KirkpatrickPLO.pdf [36] Daniel Patrick Moyniham, A Dangerous Place (New York: Little Brown & Co., 1978). [37] See the detailed analyses by Kirkpatrick and Moyniham, cited just above. Compare Bernard Lewis, "The Anti-Zionist Resolution," Foreign Affairs (October 1976), reprinted as Chapter 28 of Lewis's From Babel to Dragomens: Interpreting the Middle East (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2004), pp. 274-83. [38] Yohanan Manor, "The 1975 "Zionism Is Racism" Resolution: The Rise, Fall, and Resurgence of a Libel," May, 2010, No. 97 of Institute for Global Jewish Affairs Publications, at: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=3670 (Manor documents the use in U.N. fora at this time of the "apartheid" analogy, and provides a breakdown of voting patterns on the resolution). [39] Ben Cohen, "Boycotting Israel: The Ideological Foundations," September 2008, at: http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/boycotting-israel%253A-the-ideological-foundations.html [40] Robbie Sabel, op.cit., p. 5. [41] Also see Gil Troy, "Fighting Zionism: Racism's big lie," Jerusalem Post blog, November 10, 2010, http://blogs.jpost.com/content/fighting-zionism-racisms-big-lie&newsletter=101118 [42] E.g., see the official declaration by the Fateh (PLO) movement in 1970, Fateh, "Towards a Democratic State in Palestine," reprinted in: Palestine: The Arab-Israeli Conflict, A Ramparts Press Reader, edited by Russell Stetler (San Francisco: Ramparts Press, 1972), pp. 205, 208. [43] Also see Yehoshafat Harkabi, Arab Attitudes to Israel (London: Mitchell Vallentine, 1973), passim. [43a]Raphael Israeli, "Anti-Jewish Attitudes in the Arabic Media, 1975-1981," in: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism in the Contemporary World, edited by Robert S. Wistrich (New York: New York University Press, 1990), pp. 102-120, esp. pp. 105ff., and Antony Lerman, "Fictive Anti-Zionism: Third World, Arab and Muslim Variations," ibid., pp. 121-138, esp. pp. 127 & 135, etc. [44] Leon Hadar, "Two Peoples, Two States," January 19, 2010 issue of The American Conservative, at: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jan/19/00012/; Hadar cites Edward Said, "The Only Alternative," reproduced March 03, 2001 on MediaMonitors.net - http://www.mediamonitors.net/edward9.html, where the "mass campaign" is urged, and an interview on October 28, 2002, with Diana Buttu, conducted by BitterLemons.org, entitled "Security for freedom," http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl281002ed39.html. However, according to Hadar, even a single Palestinian state would not end "apartheid" accusations by those predisposed to make them. [45] Sobel, op. cit., p. 5 [46] For a more detailed and legally grounded account see Anne Bayefsky, "The UN World Conference Against Racism: A Racist Anti-Racism Conference," American Society of International Law: Proceedings, vol. 96 (2002), pp. 65ff. [47] Another such account is by Elihai Braun, "The UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, South Africa (August 31-September 8, 2001)" at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/durban1.html; "NGO Forum at Durban Conference 2001," at: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_forum_at_durban_conference_. [48]On Durban II, see "Analyzing the Durban II Conference: Interview with Gerald Steinberg," April, 2010, Institute for Global Jewish Affairs, at: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=3446&TTL=Analyzing_the_Durban_II_Conference [49] Anne F. Bayefsky, "Terrorism and Racism: The Aftermath of Durban," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 468, 16 December 2001, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, at: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=1117&TTL=Terrorism_and_Racism:_The_Aftermath_of_Durban [50] Bayefsky's thesis is supported by the analysis by Eli Karmon, "International Terror and Antisemitism - Two Modern Day Curses: Is there a Connection?" February 16, 2007, International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/tabid/66/Articlsid/239/currentpage/7/Default.aspx [51] http://www.voltairenet.org/article153536.html There, Barghouti also connects the BDS movement he leads with the "Right of Return" demand, according to which all Palestinians have a right to "return" and set up residence inside the State of Israel, which he makes clear would necessarily mean the end of the Jewish state and of Zionism. [52] Ibid. Also see Barghouti's opinion piece in The Guardian of August 12, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/besieging-israel-siege-palestinian-boycott [53] See criticisms of this delegitimization motivation by Ricki Hollander, "BDS, Academic/Cultural Boycott of Israel, and Omar Barghouti," February 24, 2010, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=51&x_article=1803; Juda Engelmayer, "Palestinians Using Academics and Liberal Ideals to Promote an Extremist Agenda," at http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12443&pageid=&pagename; and Chris Dyszyski, "True Colours of the BDS Movement," 12 August 2010, at: http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/viewpoint-true-colours-of-the-bds-movement. [54]Dore Gold, et al., "Have the Palestinians Abandoned a Negotiated Settlement?" Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 1 no. 2, 6 September 2001, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-2.ht [55] Khaled Abu Toameh, "Kaddoumi: PLO Charter was Never Changed," Jerusalem Post, 23 April 2004 [56] Khaled Abu Toameh, "'Fatah has never recognized Israel,'" Jerusalem Post, July 22, 2009, http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=149571 [57] Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, "Fatah Official: Our Goal has never been peace. Peace is a means: the goal is Palestine," July 12, 2009 http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1032 [58] Also see, for a historical overview, Efraim Karsh, "Who's Against a Two-State Solution?" Jewish Ideas Daily and Middle East Forum, July 20, 2010, http://www.meforum.org/2689/against_two_state_solution [59] The PLO Ambassador to Lebanon, Abdullah Abdullah, has stated that the peace talks pursued by the Palestinian Authority also have delegitimization as their motivation and make use of the apartheid South African analogy to this end. According to an article in the Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, of September 9, 2010: "The PLO's representative in Lebanon, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah, emphasized yesterday that the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, which have started in Washington, are not a goal, but rather another stage in the Palestinian struggle... He believes that Israel will not be dealt a knock-out defeat, but rather an accumulation of Palestinian achievements and struggles, as happened in South Africa, to isolate Israel, to tighten the noose on it, to threaten its legitimacy, and to present it as a rebellious, racist state." http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3188 [60] G. Steinberg and J. Edelstein, "Turning the tables on BDS," Jerusalem Post Op-Ed, November 6, 2010 at: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=194275 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempered (talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Version 2: First Paragraph

Ryan Paddy has presented a revised and condensed version of the first paragraphs of my extended contribution. The three paragraphs of his revised version do not cover my entire contribution and are admittedly tentative formulations. The first paragraph of Ryan Paddy's revised version reads as follows (endnote references are to my original proposed contribution given above, from which Ryan Paddy's references are all selected):

Some critics of the apartheid analogy state that it is intended to delegitimize and demonize Israel and Zionism, applying a higher standard of behaviour to the Jewish state than to other nations or to the Palestinian Authority in order to justify the boycotting, ostracism, or elimination of the State of Israel.[1][5][6][7][8][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Philosopher Bernard Harrison describes the apartheid label as "hyperbolic". He states that while there are reasonable grounds to criticize Israel for the establishment of settlements in the West Bank, or for the treatment of Christians and Muslim Arabs in Israel as "second class citizens", the apartheid comparison is a politically-motivated exaggeration of the situation in Israel intended to undermine its moral basis for existence.[21]

I would suggest that the first sentence can stand as written, and recommend the retention of only citations [1], [5], [6], [7], [8], [13a] and [14]. Although this reduces the 16 references down to seven, less than half, they may still seem too numerous. However, all the cited sources are very notable, representative and significant contributions, and the magnitude of the issue of delegitimisation, and the fact of many analyses of it, is best shown by giving a good number of such examples, including both book-length studies and important articles by leading authorities. After it should be added, "The double standards, critics say, are shown when much more obviously "apartheid"-like treatment of Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian Authority territory, Jordan, and Lebanon, are ignored and are not the subject of delegitimisation campaigns.[16][18][19][20]"

The sentences dealing with Bernard Harrison in Ryan Paddy's version are very much more problematic. They give only a very poor idea indeed of the tenor and contents of Harrison's book. In that regard they cannot be said to convey his contribution and significance. They are also tendentious, in that they present him as endorsing criticism of Israel's treatment of Arab citizens and Jewish communities in the West Bank without giving much of an idea of his own strongly worded and heavily emphasized caveats. The brevity of the sentences, in fact, cannot do justice to the depth and thrust of his book, in any case. A fuller treatment, such as is given various proponents of the apartheid analogy elsewhere in the main article, is justified. After a second reading of his book, I think the following gives a much better representation of what he is trying to say, and also better indicates his contribution to the subject of this article:

British philosopher Bernard Harrison, in a book applying the linguistic and logical analysis and deconstruction skills of his discipline to the arguments of liberal leftists in his country who promote anti-Israel accusations such as "apartheid", says that these arguments fall apart under close examination.[21] For example, he states that while there are reasonable grounds to criticize Israel for the treatment of Christians and Muslim Arabs in Israel as "second class citizens", the apartheid comparison is a politically-motivated exaggeration in itself that also refuses to take into account the context Israel faces, of being surrounded by militant enemies with whom the Arab minority in Israel are closely tied by kinship and sympathies.[21a: Harrison, p. 133.] Such critics also refuse to consider that in this context, and compared with similar war-time situations in recent Western and non-Western history, or with the treatment of Jews in Palestinian and other Arab lands, Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens is "not only a shining but a virtually unique instance of racial and religious tolerance and forgiveness."[21b: Harrison, p. 134] The refusal to consider the relevant context when it favors Israel, but to use contextual justifications when endorsing or excusing Palestinian terrorism and "violent resistance," he says, indicate double standards, logical incoherence and moral confusion. These ultimately arise, according to his extended analysis of specific instances, from the reduction of leftist ideology in the last generation and recent post-Communist era merely to simplistic moral postures, in which he says cultural relativism and post-colonialist guilt is used to justify the lack of belief in capitalist Western liberal democracies and admiration for "resistance" movements against them in the non-Western world. This in turn produces black-white oppositions, he says, in which Western democratic nation states are per se dubious or bad, while even authoritarian states's or groups's "revolutionary violence" against them is justified and good. The outcome, in his view, is that an unself-critical and incoherent "climate of belief" has been created on the left against the only Western liberal democracy in the Middle East, the Jewish state of Israel, a climate of opinion that is accepting of and oblivious to even stridently antisemitic views and atittudes of the far right, far left, or Islamists. This gives such attitudes, discredited in the West since the Holocaust, revived currency in mainstream discourse.

Following this, I would suggest inclusion of a further three-sentence paragraph on a significant recent book written by another commentator that extends Harrison's argument:

The international relations specialist Robin Shepherd concurs with Harrison, in the course of a less philosophical but more comprehensive review of the groups and motivations responsible in Britain and Europe more generally for anti-Israel attitudes. He adds that in his view the result of unjust apartheid accusations and other such polemic is not only a (generally unintentional) revival of antisemitism in the West, and encouragement of some of the worst enemies of the West, but even more, an intensification of a fundamental moral and ideological crisis in Britain and Western liberal democratic society itself. This breakdown in Western civilisational self-confidence, he says, threatens its future survival. [Robin Shepherd, State Beyond the Pale: Europe's Problem with Israel, 2nd ed. (London: Orion Press, 2010), pp. 118-123 and passim.]

I will add further responses to Ryan Paddy's revised version in following days.Tempered (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the revision of Ryan Paddy's first paragraph are invited. Otherwise the amended version as given here can be taken to be a consensus version. We can then place it in the main article and go on to Ryan Paddy's second suggested paragraph in his condensed version of my proposed contribution.Tempered (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence is my suggested text, and I still endorse it (so long as the number of references are kept to a minimum). The rest is so far removed from my suggested text that I'd rather not have it associated with my name. I'm not criticising the text, I'm just clarifying that beyond the first sentence ("Some critics of the apartheid analogy state that it is intended to delegitimize..."), this suggested text doesn't have anything to do with me. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, since I was explicit that the rest is my suggested revision. I thought that that had been clear, and indeed I presented your own text at the start, so the differences are obvious -- my apologies if they are not. Any other more specific comments?Tempered (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A specific comment would be, for example, that "applying the linguistic and logical analysis and deconstruction skills of his discipline to the arguments of liberal leftists" is completely non-encyclopedic. What about just going with the first sentence? It's well sourced and I believe we can all agree with it. --Dailycare (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Completely non-encyclopedic"? How so? Just saying that does not make it so. You will need to justify such a claim with more than just a dismissal, Dailycare. Where in Wikipedia guidelines is such a sentence ruled out as "completely non-encyclopedic"? Nowhere. Actually, the sentence is completely in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines: it informs us of just why Harrison is significant as a commentator on this subject, and what features of his book make it especially distinctive, notable and worthy of mention. So it is crucial for understanding his contribution. Merely to reduce his entire book to a vague opinion that apartheid accusations are "hyperbolic exaggerations" hardly even begins to scratch the surface of what he had to say -- as my revised paragraph on him shows clearly. Lots of commentators say the same thing as that, so there is nothing new or particularly noteworthy in such a view. Harrison's significance lies precisely in the expertise he brings to the subject and the perspective he develops in it. What is valuable in his book is how he shows just why such anti-Israel language is hyperbolic, and even more so, logically inconsistent, morally confused, and ideologically predetermined. He is also distinctive for his discussion of the wider ramifications of such discourse for British and European culture and political self-understanding: e.g., his analysis of the "climate of belief" and its effects on legitimating antisemitism. These are the weighty parts of his book, and must be indicated. Also, what preferable "first sentence" is being referred to in your comment? Here, too, your comment is extremely vague, so it is not possible to respond to it.Tempered (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, by first sentence I referred to the sentence you and Ryan seem to agree on: "Some critics of the apartheid analogy state that it is intended to delegitimize and demonize Israel and Zionism, applying a higher standard of behaviour to the Jewish state than to other nations or to the Palestinian Authority in order to justify the boycotting, ostracism, or elimination of the State of Israel." One guideline that the non-encyclopedic sentence of yours runs afoul of is MOS:OPED. You should also consider WP:UNDUE and the related WP:LENGTH regarding the sheer volume of prose you're proposing. --Dailycare (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put that opening sentence into the article here, replacing the existing introductory sentence on the subject. We may wish to discuss the sources for that sentence here on talk and tidy them up. Note that I had previously added my version of the Harrison text - it follows the introductory sentence. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there any objections to my proposed second sentence, namely, "The double standards, critics say, are shown when much more obviously "apartheid"-like treatment of Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian Authority territory, Jordan, and Lebanon, are ignored and are not the subject of delegitimization campaigns.[16][18][19][20]"?

In response to Dailycare's comment of 3 March on my revision of the Harrison reference, I cannot help but remark on the fact that his response does not relate at all to the passage which he had earlier said was "completely non-encyclopedic": in effect, he concedes that he was wrong there and passes over it in silence. As for the rest, I will take up each of his objections in order. First of all, I have looked at MOS:OPED and it simply does not apply, which does not surprise me given our past history. The terms that are said at MOS:OPED to be avoided, are not used in my proposed revisions. There is no editorializing in my phrasing, in any case: I merely report what Harrison says in a neutral and accurate way. If you wish to differ, Dailycare, first you will have actually to read Harrison. Then you might have something to point to, if you can make any objections at all. I note that there are no specifics to your claim of editorializing, so the claim is just an ambit assertion, made blindly. I am open to any particular recommendation for neutral wording. Be specific, please.

As for WP:UNDUE, the same irrelevance of the citation, and of your objection, applies. Giving undue weight to a source is said at WP:UNDUE to apply if the source is given extended coverage but merely represents in actuality a marginal or minority viewpoint on the subject. That is what "Undue" means. Harrison does not represent an unrepresentative nor minority viewpoint. Quite the contrary, his view notably strengthens the arguments of the mainstream objectors to the use of the apartheid analogy against Israel. Few if any of them would differ from him on most of his arguments. It is an important substantiation, contributing a new angle on the subject, namely from the philosophical and logical perspective of an academic philosopher, and brings new considerations to bear on the topic. In fact, as my revised paragraph says, Harrison argues that anti-Israel leftist polemic reflects a deeper conceptual fissure in Western culture and society, and thus his contribution deepens the discussion and extends it. That is an important issue of general relevance, and should be allowed expression in this sub-section of the critical responses called "Differences in motivation." To allow reporting on this is not to give "undue weight" to the topic. It is a weighty topic, we can truthfully say.

As for the length of my paragraph on Harrison, I must remind you that the entire article gives undue weight at least in terms of length of treatment to proponents of the apartheid analogy, and insufficient space to critics of the analogy. Critical comments are cut down, proponents comments are allowed extensive coverage. (Note further that the sort of overall structure and layout found in this article is said at WP:NPOV#Article structure to be inappropriate for Wikipedia articles, and is not recommended. The whole article, in these terms, is "completely non-encyclopedic." More extensive treatment of "critics" is needed to make the article a better and more balanced Wikipedia article.) The ratio of the text attempting to justify the apartheid accusation to that rejecting it is 3 to 1 (including the sections 1 through 9 in the actual proponents category, since sections 1 through 8, given over to alleged objective discussion, are in effect attempts to substantiate the accusation in specific cases or instances, with little or no attention to critical analysis of or dissent from the allegations and interpretations given there). Furthermore, the number of words granted expositions of specific proponents of the apartheid analogy often well exceeds that generally allowed to critics of the apartheid analogy. Most of the editorial revisions and objections discussed on this Talk page (see archived pages as well, extending over years) relate to paring down contributions to the "Critics of the Apartheid Analogy" section. So simply for the sake of "Balance" (see WP:NPOV#Balance), there needs to be more space given over to critics of the apartheid analogy, to do justice to their viewpoint. However, I would like to formulate a briefer account myself, one that does not leave out the essentials of what I covered already, and will try to do so in coming days. It will certainly be longer than Ryan Paddy's, since that does not refer to most of those essentials.Tempered (talk)

Here is a more condensed version of the Harrison reference, with the previous 394 words cut down to 255. If there are better ways of keeping the essential points but in even shorter form, I welcome suggestions.

Analytical philosopher Bernard Harrison says that a close examination of left-liberal anti-Israel accusations shows that they are logically unsustainable and morally confused. Often, he argues, they use contextual justifications or explanations to support Palestinian "resistance," but refuse to accept contextual explanations or justifications on Israel's side. For example, "apartheid" critics of discrimination in Israel, he says, do not take seriously the legally institutionalized and practiced non-racial equalities also in Israel's liberal democracy. Such critics ignore the context Israel faces of being surrounded by militant enemies with whom the Arab minority in Israel are closely tied by kinship and sympathies.[21a: Harrison, p. 133.] In this context, and compared with similar situations in recent Western and non-Western history, or with the treatment of Jews in Palestinian and other Arab lands, he says Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens is "not only a shining but a virtually unique instance of racial and religious tolerance and forgiveness."[21b: Harrison, p. 134] In his view, the inconsistent and unnuanced opinions held by many on the left reflect the reduction of left liberal ideology in the last generation merely to simplistic moral postures, in which "capitalist" liberal democracies as such remain dubious and "bad" and non-Western "resistance" to them is legitimate and good. He says that this generates a necessarily unself-critical "climate of belief" that rejects the only Western liberal democracy in the Middle East, the Jewish state of Israel, and which accepts or is oblivious to even stridently antisemitic views. This, he argues, gives such attitudes renewed currency in mainstream discourse.Tempered (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ironic that you quote Harrison as saying critics of Israeli practice are not nuanced in their positions, while at the same time removing all mention of the genuine nuance in Harrison's own position where he states that Israel does have problems with discrimination but that those problems do not amount to apartheid. In fact, you've reduced Harrison's position to a caricature of single-minded defensiveness, when in fact the persuasiveness of his analysis comes from his admitting that problems do exist but that they are being exaggerated for political reasons (which is very plausible). However, my very favourite part is how you've edited out any mention of deligitimisation, thus writing ten times as much as my version while failing to discuss the supposed reason for citing Harrison in the first place. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult indeed to reduce text drastically while retaining nuance - your own version, as I mentioned earlier, eliminated so much it travestied Harrison. But most of your basic points are good and I accept them. So, we can modify the sentences as follows: "Often, he argues, they use contextual justifications or explanations to support Palestinian "resistance," but, reflecting a delegitimizing and demonizing agenda, they omit contextual explanations on Israel's side. For example, critics of discrimination in Israel exaggerate valid specific criticisms into a sweeping "apartheid" conclusion contradicted by the legally institutionalized and practiced non-racial equalities also in Israel's liberal democracy." This meets your objections, focusses the paragraph better, and only adds seven more words.Tempered (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

While those changes might minimally address the issues I raised, the whole text is still very regrettable. I've read what Harrison has to say about the apartheid label, and I found him quite reasonable. When I read your summary of him, that reasonableness is not conveyed at all. Instead, it sounds like a rambling diatribe against supposed "leftist liberal" critics of Israel. The focus has been warped so far from the original topic of delegitimisation that you actually managed to leave it out. If you were expanding on how Harrison addresses the apartheid label as a vehicle for delegitimisation and demonisation of Israel, that would be understandable and on topic. But this? The resemblence to Harrison and the relevance to the topic both escape me. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The changes do address the issues you raised, and not just "minimally." (As for that, the whole text must be minimal, I remind you. So you can have no complaint there.)

Neither do I think your rather wild and intemperate blanket characterizations have any justification. As for "reasonableness," for example, where is this absent from my summary? It is entirely reasonable and reflects Harrison's own argument, necessarily very briefly but accurately. Show me where it does not. Neither is it "a rambling diatribe." It is coherent and completely on topic, and summarizes in a carefully neutral way just what Harrison says. Again, show me where it does not and where I go beyond what Harrison says. In fact, Harrison is emphatic and specific in linking the "apartheid" accusation to wider left-liberal obsessions about Israel disturbingly similar to anti-Semitism (see his explicit statement to this effect, including "apartheid" claims, on his p. 7, which adds that such extreme accusations are not "particularly rationally defensible").

You may wish to highlight in his text criticisms of Israel, Ryan Paddy, but for him, as he makes very clear (pp. 129-141, sub-chapter entitled "Is Israel a 'Racist Apartheid' State?') however justified some specific claims might be they are in the end quite beside the point (he stresses this) when dealing with the anti-Israel apartheid obsession of leftists. So you want to press an issue that is not Harrison's -- your original version even highlighted it. Contrary to your implication, by the way, he certainly does focus on "leftist liberal" critics of Israel from the start of his book and repeatedly, including in the chapter section dealing with "apartheid" accusations. His whole book is precisely about the anti-Israel left liberal culture-circle in Britain, and only that. Your comment above regarding "supposed 'leftist liberal' critics of Israel" would lead one to suppose that I made up that allegation about the focus of his analysis; the comment is therefore quite misleading and gratuitous. (But even the sub-title of the book says "Jews, Israel and Liberal Opinion", while the title is "The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism," so you could not have missed it. The very first paragraph of his "Preface" alludes to his focus on "the left and left-influenced section of the media and 'cogitive elites' in the universities and elsewhere, for the most part presenting itself as political opposition to Israel." The last paragraph in his book, on p. 204, summarizing his thesis, deals with "people on the liberal left of politics.") Is your real problem the "very regrettable" summary I give the book, or the book itself?

Moreover, I must add that my original version did not leave out the topic of delegitimization or demonization as you allege, but rather. since this had already been highlighted in previous sentences, here for the sake of brevity its ramifications for left liberal anti-Israel partisans were discussed instead, all however precisely as Harrison says and in his terms. Of course, Harrison himself certainly discusses delegitimization and demonization and even outright antisemitism explicitly, and my text implies all that clearly enough, so that it follows logically enough from the preceding sentences on double standards, delegitimization and demonization. This is the background for his frequent remarks on the unself-critical obliviousness of leftist liberal anti-Jewish-state partisans to overtly antisemitic tropes or comments. He states that this obliviousness flows from the collapse of left liberal ideological underpinnings in this post-Communist, post-Thatcher generation, the reduction of what remains to a simplistic black-white "climate of belief" in which Western liberal democracies are per se bad, and resistance movements however violent or immoral are moral and good, and so it follows for them that Israel is per se bad, its Western liberal democracy a sham, and the Palestinians per se good. Thus the anti-Semitism according to Harrison need not be consciously intended; it is merely a by-product of the mind-set (this conclusion is stated again by Harrison in the above-mentioned final paragraph of his book). That is a very relevant and logical argument, not a diatribe, and is all indicated in my necessarily very brief summary. Nevertheless, I accept that it is well to state clearly in the summary that according to Harrison these traits add up to demonization and delegitimization of Israel and generate support for the apartheid accusation.Tempered (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about the apartheid label, so we should be describing significant opinions on the apartheid label. It is not for us to to summarise Harrison's whole book here - just specifically what he says about Israel and apartheid. We can give a minimum of background and context that the reader needs to understand arguments and positions. We shouldn't be writing long backgrounds that are mostly context with minimum addressing of the apartheid label. Moreover it was you who specifically wanted the article the address the subject of delegitimisation, and who introduced Harrison as a source who represents this significant POV. It's therefore absurd that you should propose a text that only minimally addresses the apartheid label, mostly being about critics criticism of Israel in general, and fails completely to mention deligitimisation. Try again, change the focus to the apartheid label and deligitimisation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The text, as amended, makes the delegitimization and demonization themes explicit. So your objection on that score cannot be sustained. The focus of the text is entirely on the topic of the treatment of Israeli Arabs and whether this qualifies as "apartheid." After giving the basic minimum of context as seen by Harrison for saying it does not, and that the reality is if anything diametrically opposite to apartheid, the text goes on to explain why according to Harrison this sort of criticism is made in the first place, at least by left liberal circles in Britain and the West generally. This fits completely with the subject of this sub-section of the main article entitled "Differences of motivation," under "Critics of the Apartheid Analogy." It is an important contribution to an understanding of motivation. Thus it is entirely relevant. It deepens the discussion considerably and extends it. It should remain in the Harrison summary.Tempered (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to reduce the text again, at least returning it in size to the first shortened version of ca. 255 words while including all the additions mentioned above. Now I have gotten it down to just 238 words. Here it is:

Analytical philosopher Bernard Harrison says that a "deconstruction" of left-liberal anti-Israel accusations shows that they are logically and morally inconsistent. He states that, reflecting a delegitimizing and demonizing agenda, accusers often refuse to accept contextual explanations when they favor Israel. Thus critics exaggerate valid specific criticisms of discrimination in Israel into a sweeping "apartheid" conclusion contradicting the legally institutionalized and practiced non-racial equalities also found in Israel's liberal democracy. Such critics also ignore the context Israel faces of being surrounded by militant enemies with whom the Arab minority in Israel are closely tied by kinship and sympathies.[21a: Harrison, p. 133.] In this context, and compared with similar conflicts in recent history, he says Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens is all things considered "not only a shining but a virtually unique instance of racial and religious tolerance and forgiveness."[21b: Harrison, p. 134] In his view, the unnuanced opinions held by many on the left reflect the reduction of left liberal ideology in the last generation to simplistic moral postures, in which "capitalist" liberal democracies by definition must be dubious and "bad" and non-Western "resistance" to them legitimate and good. He says that this generates a necessarily unself-critical "climate of belief" that demonizes the only Western liberal democracy in the Middle East, the Jewish state of Israel, and which accepts or is oblivious to even stridently antisemitic views. This, he argues, gives such attitudes renewed currency in mainstream discourse.Tempered (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Although there was consensus on the first sentence of Ryan Paddy's version, and it was added to the main article text, I now see that the citations to that sentence have been arbitrarily and sharply reduced in the article text from the seven that were agreed on to four. This has not been discussed nor justified in any way on this Talk page. There is nothing to prevent these citations in turn to be reduced in the same way to two or one, then none. Following that the actual sentence itself can be eliminated. The original seven should be restored until a proper discussion and agreement that they can be reduced at all is reached, and if so, agreement on which if any of those citations can be edited out. Just to clarify things, if citations to important sources and their specific contributions to the topic of delegitimization are obliterated in this manner, even though they should be available to readers of the main article interested in following up the delegitimization theme, then those sources will just have to be provided with their own textual summary and separate end-note citation, thus swelling the main article. That is, either the sources are just indicated with a citation, or their contents will have to be separately described. Readers of the main article have a right to be able to access the "delegitimization" arguments that have been put forward. It is therefore better to include them just as cited sources at the end of this sentence on "delegitimization."

Have we a consensus, also, on the second sentence that I proposed? There have been no objections thus far, so perhaps there is a consensus that it should go into the main article. That sentence was: "The double standards, critics say, are shown when much more obviously "apartheid"-like treatment of Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian Authority territory, Jordan, and Lebanon, are ignored and are not the subject of delegitimization campaigns.[16][18][19][20]"Tempered (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you should find better sources and then phrase the material based on them. 16 is a blog, 18-19 are from something called "Hudson New York" and "Pajamas media" and 20 is this. --Dailycare (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are not ruled out in this article; there are plenty given throughout it. Since the topic of this article is precisely contentious contemporary opinions, opinion-pieces are not only legitimate sources but sometimes the only or the best, most relevant ones. The real issues must be if the websites are in themselves responsible ones, well-edited and not marginal or extremist or mere propaganda (and even this may be citable if the subject being dealt with is propagandistic, as indeed the apartheid analogy is) but even more important and relevant is the question if the actual contributors being cited are notable well-respected persons or authorities in the subject, and if their content is significant and notable in itself. We have already gone through these questions last year, Dailycare, in regard to bitterlemons.org, and you will recall that you lost that argument at the WP:RSN Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. The Hudson Institute is a non-partisan and non-profit organization, its website tells us, well-known, widely respected and cited, dedicated to foreign policy issues; the website is run by recognized authorities in their field, who are responsible editors of contributions appearing there, and the pieces published are of high quality. Khalid Abu Toameh, for example, cited in note 18, is probably the best known and most widely respected and trusted Palestinian journalist in the world; he regularly publishes articles in the Jerusalem Post and speaks with unusual authority about Palestinian matters; no one can challenge his notability or reliability as a source in regard to this topic. In fact, he is frequently cited elsewhere in the main article itself, so this citation too must be allowed. The same general observations apply to Gil Troy, a professor of history at McGill University, and his comments in a Jerusalem Post blog, cited in note 16, and Abraham H. Miller who is professor emeritus in political science at the University of California and a former head of the Intelligence Studies Section of the International Studies Association, whose analysis cited here in note 19 is from the famous, highly respected and often cited Pyjamasmedia.com website. That well-edited and responsible website brings together authorities in many different fields to run their various blogs. Maurice Ostroff is not a notable person in this connection, perhaps, although his website is a good resource offering many articles related to the topic of this main article. Still, I will allow that he can be replaced by the excellent article cited in note 17 by Martin Regg Cohn, who has been foreign correspondent for the Toronto Star for 11 years reporting from around the world, the chief of the Star's Middle East and Asia bureaus, then Foreign Editor and now a world affairs columnist.Tempered (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see the comment I made above when I added the first sentence to the article. I wrote "I've put that opening sentence into the article here, replacing the existing introductory sentence on the subject. We may wish to discuss the sources for that sentence here on talk and tidy them up. Note that I had previously added my version of the Harrison text - it follows the introductory sentence." So this was discussed here, and the "justification" is that the sources already in the article are sufficent until we decide what to do with the sources for this sentence, which I think will require some focus. Your second sentence seems redundant to me as the introductory sentence already says "applying a higher standard of behaviour to the Jewish state than to other nations or to the Palestinian Authority". My opinion on your revised writeup of Harrison hasn't changed: the focus on apartheid and deligitimisation has been replaced with a somewhat off-topic and rambling broadside against "leftist liberal" critics that reflects Harrison very poorly. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Redundant"? Far from it: the other cited sources do not go into this specific topic and do not substantiate the double standards in depth in regard to the treatment of Palestinians elsewhere in the Middle East, so the new sentence does not repeat the first sentence but gives evidence not in the other sources and detailed specificity to it, extending it very considerably and substantially. Their contents are not duplicated by the articles cited in the first sentence. If we supposed that mere reference to double standards exhausts that subject completely, and applied this to all other topics in the main article, the whole thing would be only a few sentences long. Perhaps that would be for the best, but as it is, the very different rules applied to the proponents section must also apply here. Furthermore, since the four references now existing in the main article for the first sentence do not even cite these studies at all, they would disappear from the reader's knowledge altogether if they are not separately treated with their own sentence and citations. You have eliminated these sources altogether from your heavily truncated version, Ryan Paddy. I add here that you have not justified in any way your deletion of the other previously cited sources, and I do not agree with the deletions so we cannot say there is a consensus on that.

As for the bizarre statement that the proposed Harrison text is off-topic, and rambling, this has already been fully refuted by me and does not need further comment. I am sorry to say that you are wrong about this, Ryan Paddy, and I have shown the reasons why. Curiously, you have given no answer to those reasons - you merely pass them by and repeat yourself as if you have not been thoroughly rebutted. Even more egregiously wrong is your attempt to remove from the text any reference to "left-liberal" motivations for left-liberal "apartheid" proponents in Harrison's book. The whole book is about just that: left-liberal anti-Israelism and its motivations and illogic, including in regard to the apartheid issue, discussed at length. There are no less than seven specific characterizations of the critics Harrison is analyzing as being "left liberal" critics, in the chapter sub-section devoted to the racist apartheid accusation (see for an particularly pointed example p. 134). When you can traduce the openly and often stated main theme of a whole book, which you claim to have read, and even bluntly deny its relevance to the subject of anti-Israel apartheid accusations, when this is something strongly and explicitly affirmed in the book itself, this must raise real questions about your reliability and impartiality as a Wikipedia editor. I hope you can return to a more positive role on this page.Tempered (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you're trying to discredit me because I disagree with your interpretation of sources. That's wishful, as a number of editors have noted that your earlier interpretations of sources have been somewhat eccentric. If you really want to progress here, how about we start by just focusing on agreeing on which sources to put against the sentence that's in the article for now. In theory, that should be the simplest task on your list of concerns. It's just a matter of determining which are the best reliable sources that express the perspective in the most representative fashion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tempered, I agree with you in that people who have published in the relevant field can be used as sources, but I don't agree with you in that this article should obey different rules with regard to sourcing than any other article. I also don't agree with you in that we should present people's opinions as facts in the text, as you seem to be suggesting by the wording in your proposed sentence. --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Dailycare, I am instead insisting that this article must obey the same rules with regard to sourcing as any other article, and you are fighting that, at least in regard to criticisms of the apartheid analogy. You have not shown that the sources I have named just now should not be in the text according to Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, my text does not present people's opinions as facts, but if you can point to any wording that does this I am amenable to changing it. Be specific.

Ryan Paddy, I am afraid that this is not a minor disagreement on sources, but radical distortion of the entire nature of the source and its significance on your part, one moreover whose blatant nature is easily discovered by anyone who checks the source (my quotes above from Harrison show this in themselves). Again you ignore and do not respond to any of the reasons I have given for supporting Harrison, you merely repeat yourself in rejecting his most central points, denying that they either exist or are important. As for the supposed "eccentric" earlier interpretation, I rather think your twisting of this source's content and significance casts some discredit on your earlier claims, which were not correct in any case and as here simply steadfastly ignored the text itself and my defense of it without refuting me. The "number of editors" you refer to for support were all without exception strongly and consistently anti-Israel partisans whose earlier comments show their own "eccentricity" in regard to sources. The reasons they gave for rejecting Hadar even as a cited source would not be sustainable if the matter went to arbitration, and the same is true for your own attempt to water down Harrison and eliminate most of his contribution. We are clearly not in agreement about Harrison and what in his discussion is relevant to this topic, so I think an assessment by a neutral third party is the only possible next step. In the hope that this will be enough, I have posted a request for independent review and assessment of this matter at WP:EAR, Wikipedia: Editor assistance/Requests.Tempered (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm keen for more editor opinions, so that's all good with me. You've mischaracterised my objections to your suggested text, but that's not an issue as editors can read them here for themselves or ask. What about my suggestion of discussing the list of sources for the sentence that's already in the article - that seemed to be a major issue for you, are you interested in discussing a solution here or not? Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing at a time, I think. We have time to get to that after we decide the more important issue. Until then, Ryan Paddy, I suggest you replace the missing citations that did have both your approval and mine. We can then discuss what to eliminate, if anything, later.Tempered (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tempered, you wrote above that "Since the topic of this article is precisely contentious contemporary opinions, opinion-pieces are not only legitimate sources but sometimes the only or the best" which to me does sound like you're suggesting this article should follow different sourcing procedures than other articles, but if I've misunderstood you, then fine. Concerning presenting people's opinions as facts, your proposed text states apparently as fact that 1) arab countries' treatment of Palestinians is more apartheid-like than Israel's treatment of Palestinians, and 2) that there is a "delegitimization campaign" going on. Your proposed sources, however, only present these as opinions of individual people. --Dailycare (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your construction of my references to delegitimization is manifestly erroneous, Dailycare, so this need not detain us. Similarly in regard to the "apartheid" conditions in other states. However, in this case more might be said. The statement I have suggested reads: "The double standards, critics say, are shown when much more obviously "apartheid"-like treatment of Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian Authority territory, Jordan, and Lebanon, are ignored and are not the subject of delegitimization campaigns." So it is clear that this is the critics' contention; it is not presented as mere fact, Dailycare, contrary to your claim. But how about our agreeing on rephrasing the sentence, as follows: "Critics say that much more obviously "apartheid"-like treatment of Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian Authority territory, Jordan and Lebanon, are ignored and are not the subject of delegitimization campaigns, exemplifying double standards." That (although two words less than before) should remove any unclarity. As for your contention, Dailycare, that my comments call for a different policy on sources than those endorsed in Wikipedia policy, you were shown to be wrong on exactly such matters in relation to the bitterlemons.org issue, and the same applies now. Wikipedia policy has not changed since then. It accepts opinion pieces in such contexts, when the sources themselves are by recognized and responsible authorities and the website is reliable and not extremist or marginal.

Ryan Paddy thinks that the Harrison text proposed "rambles" and is off-topic. To clarify the logic and on-topic nature of my text, and to show that it directly speaks to the issue of "motivations" in this sub-section of the main article entitled precisely "Differences in motivations," how about rephrasing the sentence mid-way through my Harrison text that starts "In his view, the unnuanced ..." as follows: "Such unfair criticisms, he says, are not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism itself, but result from the collapse of left liberal ideology in the last generation into simplistic moral postures, in which "capitalist" liberal democracies by definition are dubious and bad, and non-Western "resistance" to them legitimate and good." This is only one word more than the words in the previous version of this sentence. By the way, you have not yet added the disputed citations back to our agreed-upon sentence on delegitimization already in the main article, Ryan Paddy. I do accept the present citation numbered 258, which is a new one from you, I presume, so it can be retained.Tempered (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to post your revised suggested Harrison text as a whole if you want feedback on it. In terms references for the first sentence, I've been (unsuccessfully, it seems) trying to tell you that I neither added any sources to the article nor took any away, I just changed the text of an introductory sentence in the article and left the existing sources in place. See my edit here (please note that I had already linked you to this edit when I originally alerted you I had just made it). If you want me to use my judgement as to which sources would be appropriate to have against this sentence I will do so, but my prediction is that you'll kick up a fuss about what I decide on, which is why I'm suggesting you may want to discuss it here. As for "one thing at a time", that's exactly what I'm suggesting - that we get this relatively simple task (that we have a relatively high level of agreement on, except that you'll want more references than me) done before wading into Harrison, who you're turning into rather a quagmire that could take much longer to resolve, if we ever do. Easy win first, horrible mess next. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I find no earlier reference by you explaining that you neither added nor subtracted sources to the sentence in the article, Ryan Paddy. I must have missed it. However, let's restore the source citations in question until we talk them through properly. You had proposed 16 citations, I suggested reduction of them to citations [1], [5], [6], [7], [8], [13a] and [14], and can accept the new one in the article citations, numbered 258 there. Other than this last-mentioned citation, hese numbers refer to the sources in my extended proposed contribution above. We have at least a preliminary agreement between us perhaps that these are generally acceptable, so these should be put back in the article version for now. I would suggest that maybe further debate can be dealt with separately in its own independent section below, since it relates to something already in the main article about which there has been a degree of consensus already. That makes it different from the present sub-section discussions, which have not even reached preliminary agreement on text.Tempered (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem very forgetful about previous discussions. I posted a diff of my edit when I made it, so it was clear I had neither added nor removed sources. There is therefore no "restoring" of citations to be done, as they were never in the article. I absolutely never "proposed"' 16 citations, I made it very clear in my suggested text that there were too many citations and they needed to be culled - remember the disagreement we had about culling sources? We need to go through the sources and see which are reliable and which are most appropriate to the sentence they are used for, like I've said repeatedly from the start. A new section would be fine for this. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So the sources you included in your first proposed version of this sentence on the Talk page were not proposed by you? That's odd. I might even use the word "eccentric." Yes, you did say they would need culling, and in fact I reduced them by more than half, but you did not say that they were not satisfactory as such, only that space required only the strongest sources to be selected. As for posting "a diff of my edit when I made it," please translate into English so the rest of us can understand you. And while your phrasing elsewhere is also unclear at best, you can be understood to say that you put no citations at all into the article version when you inserted the sentence itself there. But is that true? If you inserted any, selecting from amongst those you proposed, it was without having reached consensus on them. That, precisely, is my objection.Tempered (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How about this: "Critics of the analogy say double standards are applied to Israel in that treatment of Palestinians by Jordan and Lebanon, which the critics see as more apartheid-like than Israel's treatment of them, is not subject to similar criticism as Israel's policy." Having this in the body of the article would be useful also from the POV (no pun) that the lead mentions this point. --Dailycare (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The suggested version is not only not any better than my alternative, but I at least think it a good deal worse: it is clumsily and redundantly phrased and is actually longer. What is wrong with my alternative, anyway? It met your objections, Dailycare, so it should be OK with you too. But I quite agree with you that this additional sentence is appropriate in itself in the article since it provides more evidence for a claim made in the lede.Tempered (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The point in my suggestion is to make plain that the claim that Jordan and Lebanon practice apartheid against the Palestinians is indeed a claim, not a fact. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That point is already clear enough in the suggested text, being directly stated in fact, and more smoothly phrased to boot -- as already pointed out. The objection has no substance.Tempered (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that there is a consensus that the sentence can go into the main article: "Critics say that much more obviously "apartheid"-like treatment of Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian Authority territory, Jordan and Lebanon, are ignored and are not the subject of delegitimization campaigns, exemplifying double standards." Any further comments?Tempered (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Version 2: Harrison paragraph

Hello, my name is Asinthior and in response to your request at the Mediation Cabal I will be your mediator. I have posted messages on the talk pages of the users named in the request, but if other editors that have participated in the debate in this subsection of the discussion page want to participate, they are welcome. I hope to provide a pair of fresh eyes and that we can all actively participate in the solution of this dispute. Feel free to leave a note at my talk page at any time. I will be available through the weekend. Asinthior (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the revised Harrison text, as requested by Ryan Paddy. I think it is better to create a distinct sub-section for this within the "New version of the proposed contribution" section, enabling us to disentangle the various issues and avoid confusion while allowing all debate lines to continue. So this sub-section will be just on the Harrison issue.

Analytical philosopher Bernard Harrison says that a "deconstruction" of left-liberal anti-Israel accusations shows that they are logically and morally inconsistent. He states that, reflecting a delegitimizing and demonizing agenda, accusers often refuse to accept contextual explanations when they favor Israel. Thus critics exaggerate valid specific criticisms of discrimination in Israel into a sweeping "apartheid" conclusion contradicting the legally institutionalized and practiced non-racial equalities also found in Israel's liberal democracy. Such critics also ignore the context Israel faces of being surrounded by militant enemies with whom the Arab minority in Israel are closely tied by kinship and sympathies.[21a: Harrison, p. 133.] In this context, and compared with similar conflicts in recent history, he says Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens is all things considered "not only a shining but a virtually unique instance of racial and religious tolerance and forgiveness."[21b: Harrison, p. 134] Such unfair criticisms, he says, are not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism itself, but result from the collapse of left liberal ideology in the last generation into simplistic moral postures, in which "capitalist" liberal democracies per se are dubious and bad, and non-Western "resistance" to them legitimate and good. He says that this generates a necessarily unself-critical "climate of belief" that demonizes the only Western liberal democracy in the Middle East, the Jewish state of Israel, and which accepts or is oblivious to even stridently antisemitic views. This, he argues, gives such attitudes renewed currency in mainstream discourse.Tempered (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an undue amount of text for Harrison. See the article for comparisons to people whose views on the matter are more pertinent: most have less coverage than this proposal. Another matter entirely is that Harrison's view is more nuanced than this, as discussed at length above. --Dailycare (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Saying "valid specific criticisms of discrimination" sounds like Harrison is talking about a bit of racism, like you may find in any country. In fact, he writes (specifically in regard to the apartheid analogy) that Arabs in Israel receive lesser services from the government, such that "Arab Israelis, in short, find themselves treated, to a degree, as second-class citizens." (Page 131). He also writes that "Since 1967 numbers of Jewish settlements have been set up on both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in defiance to opposition from the United Nations and the European Union, and intermittently from the United States; and the existence of these settlements is often cited by opponents of Israel as a major barrier to peace. Once again, as with the unequal treatment in certain respects of Israel's Christian and Muslim Arab citizens, we have in setting up these settlements a reasonable ground for criticism of Israel." (Page 136) Thus he states that two of the most major issues that the apartheid analogy is used about really are moral problems, but that they do not amount to apartheid. Your interpretation of Harrison, by contrast, leaves out this careful weighing-up of the arguments, and fails to even focus on the subject of the apartheid label (so much so that you entirely left it out of your first draft, and even now you only touch on it as briefly and minimally as you can). Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not agreed. What you say is simply untrue, Ryan Paddy. Much is already disproven above, so you are beating a dead horse that will not carry you anywhere. My version is all about the "apartheid" label, giving in summary form Harrison's evaluation of it fairly, and also, even more relevantly, his view of the motivations animating those on the left who assert it. Neither do I ignore his caveats as you entirely falsely allege; from the first I mentioned them, at length in my first proposed revision of the Harrison paragraph (see above), which really was too long (in fact, I repeated there your very own phrases, so it is very strange indeed that you ignore them now), but even in my shortest version referring to them with the statement "valid specific criticisms of discrimination" and the later "all things considered" phrase. So his nuances are not ignored in my version, only in your own. We cannot simply impose your own viewpoint on Harrison in these matters, Ryan Paddy. You did not mention at all in your version the very strongly worded and reasoned rejection he gave to all "apartheid" accusations (instead, you reduced his extensive argument to a vague generalization every critic of the apartheid analogy affirms so his own specific contribution is lost). Nor did you even hint at the essential need both morally and logically, according to him, to consider the contextual issues. Precisely the issues that you left out, in fact, led him to conclude that Israel is, all things considered, "not only a shining but a virtually unique instance of racial and religious tolerance and forgiveness." Missed those little details, did we, Ryan Paddy? Didn't grasp that logic? Blinded by other agendas? Even more to the point, you emphatically wish to delete altogether Harrison's constant emphasis on flawed "left liberal" viewpoints being at issue in this apartheid accusation. Harrison's focus exclusively on left liberal circles and their motivations for anti-Israel charges, the subject of his entire book, so relevant to this article sub-section devoted to "Differences in motivations," is, you say, "very regrettable," and so this too must be omitted in your preferred version. His nuanced view of the quite noticeable presence of antisemitism in "apartheid" proponent circles is also omitted from your purview, but it is very relevant to the sub-section "Differences in motivations." So I mention it, you do not. His observations on the apartheid topic extend to deeper reflections on their significance within a Western cultural breakdown, making these extremely weighty issues also notable and worthy of summary reference. You again omit it. Very little is left of his actual argument in your version, except what confirms your own views.

As for the length of the paragraph, I have already answered this objection. Furthermore, I think Harrison is notable enough, and his diverse points solid, far-ranging, weighty and distinctive enough, not repeating things said elsewhere, to deserve it. At present, at 238 words, it is not by any means the longest treatment of a source in the main article. For example, Adam and Moodley get an entire sub-section just for their own book, placed in the proponents section, although it is not really more significant than Harrison's is for the critics section. Their book gets 661 words, however. There are a number of others in the 400 word range or anyhow well over 300 words. Other contributors in both pro- and anti- sections get around the number of words I am proposing for Harrison, though most sources, of less significant weightiness or diversity of content, get briefer treatment citing only one or two points from their works. Harrison has many different and significant points in his that are worthy of mention in this article.Tempered (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired of being misinterpreted here - you're doing the same thing to my previous posts that you do to sources, warping them away from their original meaning. But what's the point in correcting you about what I've said, when you also misinterpret the corrections? I think your latest text is not an objective rendering of what Harrison says about the "Israeli apartheid" label, for the reasons I've stated, and needs significant rework before it could be introduced to the article. I never claimed my version was perfect, it's likely that there's a version in the middle somewhere that may be appropriate. But I despair of helping you write an acceptable version, as the walls of defensive and suspicious verbage in this talk page suggest that task is either impossible, or infinitely more work than it's worth. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your post is so defensive, Ryan Paddy. It is even rather desperate in its ad hominem generalizations, showing an inability to respond to my specific comments and criticisms. It (very noticeably) avoids any response at all to those specific criticisms (effectively admitting you cannot defend against them). The omissions you advocate in summarizing Harrison's book really do take the cake, though. They are so blatant. You have read the book, since you cite pages from it, but you obviously intentionally refuse to accept the greater part of what you have read -- as I showed above, listing the topics you deny exist or are relevant, and insist must not be referred to in the Harrison summary. You cannot and so did not deny that the points I cite are in fact highlighted in the book itself, specifically in his sub-chapter dealing with apartheid, where he actually refers the reader to his further analysis in later chapters as explaining a lot of this sort of unbalanced criticism. So you just ignore all of these passages. At times I think trying to work with you is more work than it's worth. But I am patient, and will persist. By the way, I think if you run your eye over the past few posts, you will see that your own personal accusations precipitated this particular exchange; unfortunately, you tend to throw stones from glass houses. Let's put our personal opinions about each other to the side, OK? Maybe we can get back on topic, or are you determined to avoid that altogether? I will try to reduce the text even further of the Harrison paragraph in coming days.Tempered (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm frustrated because we've expended a lot of energy here for minimal progress. I'm not going to be online much in the next week, so you have plenty of time to revise before I have another look. As now I read Harrison's most important points in relation to the topic of this article, he says:

1. there are systematic discrimination issues (which we should name, because he does)
2. they do not amount to apartheid (we should say the reasons he gives for this)
3. critics of Israel have political reasons for exaggerating the discrimination by calling it apartheid (we can briefly detail these reasons / this process).

What you dislike is that I was explicit about item 1. What I dislike is that you spent so long focussing on item 3 that the more specially apartheid-related items 1 & 2 were drowned and minimised. We both failed to really detail item 2 clearly. I recommend that you try to give these three points equal weighting in your revision, while keeping it as brief as possible. If writing item 1 is difficult for you, then just use my text about that aspect. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your account is unfortunately still self-serving and no more reliable than your editorial remake of Harrison. It is not a matter of my "dislike" of references to discrimination: they were in all my versions. The only "drowning" or "minimizing" was your own complete and total deletion of most of the chief topics treated by Harrison in relation to apartheid and racism issues. As for "minimizing," there is only a very limited word space available, so everything must be reduced to the minimum. Your suggested additional topics would only swell the text further. My text does justice to Harrison's overall treatment of apartheid issues including motivations behind the apartheid accusation, which is after all the most important topic relevant to the sub-section "Differences in motivations," and which, it now appears, you finally admit is central to understanding Harrison's book and his angle on apartheid accusations. So we are progressing, slowly. Anyway, here is a much reduced (182 word) rewrite that includes what I consider the essentials that have to be included.

Analytical philosopher Bernard Harrison, in a book analyzing British left liberal anti-Israel discourse, argues that it is ideologically motivated, and logically and morally self-refuting. He says "apartheid" accusations, for example, exaggerate valid specific criticisms of discrimination in Israel into a "racist" demonization which must ignore on principle the legally institutionalized, and practiced, non-racial equalities in Israel's liberal democracy.[21a] Leftist critics also "resolutely ignore" the context Israel faces, of militant enemies surrounding it with whom the Arab minority in Israel are closely tied by kinship and sympathies.[21b] Compared with other such war-time situations, he says Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens is despite flaws "not only a shining but a virtually unique instance of racial and religious tolerance and forgiveness."[21c] Leftist "apartheid" delegitimization of Israel, he argues, is motivated by this generation's collapse of ideology into cynical "moralizing": "capitalist" liberal democracies are inauthentic and bad, and non-Western "resistance" to them good. He says this unself-critical "climate of belief" requires that the only Jewish and Western liberal democracy in the Middle East must be a sham, inadvertently relegitimizing racist antisemitic views in mainstream discourse.[21d]

The citations are to [21a: Harrison, pp. 7, 129-149, esp. p. 133.], [21b: Harrison, p. 133.] [21c: Harrison, p. 134], and [21d: Harrison, pp. 7, 129ff., 190f., etc.]Tempered (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Same old text, same old problems. Harrison's explicit statements of what the real problems of discrimination are in Israel are the sign of a reliable source. He's not just some ranting blogger who glosses over the issue and tries to show Israel in a uniformly glowing light, he confronts the issue explicitly before refuting it explicitly as apartheid. Your version reads like a one-eyed op-ed, not like Harrison. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your "overkill" emotive exaggerations refute yourself. The text is not the same, but reduced by over 50 words, a very substantial reduction of nearly one-fourth of the text. The sense however is retained, if only more briefly as is inevitable, and it is of course as has become clear precisely the fair and comprehensive account itself that you do not want to face or admit. The "problems" you refer to are only your own, with the Harrison book itself not my summary. There is no "one-eyed op-ed" at all, nor "uniformly glowing light," much less "some ranting blogger" unless it be yourself. Your whole response is an "one-eyed" rant, actually: read it again, imagining, let us say, that I wrote it about you, and then I think you will see what I mean. Meanwhile, I patiently point out, as I have done so many times above, that legitimate criticism of flaws is referred to explicitly in my necessarily brief summary (anyone but yourself can see this), but are put by Harrison into their proper perspective as insufficient to deny very substantial Israeli Arab equalities and freedoms or Israeli democracy as such, nor can these criticisms justify what Harrison calls the delegitimizing and demonizing radical accusation of apartheid. That is what he argues very strongly and clearly, Ryan Paddy (I have provided plenty of page citations to back this up), and you cannot honestly show otherwise, so you have not, merely replaced reason with emotive insults and shown that, golly-gee, you don't like it. Too bad.

For example, for readers of this who have no access to Harrison himself, after quoting at page length a discussion of discrimination in the treatment of Israeli Arab citizens he discusses on p. 133 the specific issue of land ownership, and points out that in 2002 the Israel Supreme Court struck down laws preventing Arabs from buying homes in certain areas formerly specified as Jewish. He quotes the court decision written by Chief Justice Aharon Barak that stresses that "The principle of equality prohibits the state from distinguishing between its citizens ... The principle also applies to the allocation of state land ... The Jewish character of the state does not allow Israel to discriminate between its citizens." Harrison then comments, "No doubt much more needs to be done. But we are discussing, remember, the question of whether Israel is, or is not, an "apartheid State." It is not merely hard, but impossible, to imagine the South African Supreme Court, under the premiership of Hendrik Verwoerd, say, delivering an analogous decision, because to have done so would have struck at the root of the entire system of apartheid, which was nothing if not a system for separating the races by separating the areas they were permitted to occupy." He adds further evidences of far-reaching and genuine equalities in Israel's treatment of Arab citizens, etc. If you want to stress the specific discriminations he grants, then you must also stress the remedies and contrary evidences he also grants, in all fairness to his argument. I think my brief summary is sufficient.

One further point: your proposed rewrite whatever it would be would either remove all of Harrison's real significance and contributions to this subject as your first proposed summary blatantly did, or enlarge the paragraph unmanageably. The text as it now stands is succinct, comprehensive, fair, shows Harrison's distinctive contribution to the subject being discussed, and fits easily into the article. However, maybe I can ask, just what is your proposed revision of my shortened paragraph? Or do you just wish to rant?Tempered (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion on the proposed Harrison paragraph, so it apparently has consensus support. Ryan Paddy has objected to some features but has not presented a viable alternative, and no other objections have been registered.Tempered (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been a long discussion and many edits here are TLDR. Could you provide timestamps or diffs to edits where a group of editors say they agree with your proposed paragraph? --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Silence. I don't have to prove a negative.Tempered (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks have gone by with no further substantive comments, including no response from Ryan Paddy to the invitation to make comment, so we can probably assume consensus and I here ask an administrator to insert the paragraph into the main article, at the end of the "Differences in Motivations" sub-section of "Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy." As phrased, it focusses especially on the question of motivation for apartheid accusations, which is appropriate to the specific subject of the sub-section entitled "Differences in Motivations." The version of the Harrison paragraph in question is the last, sharply condensed 182-word version given a few paragraphs above, with the citations noted to it. I would also like to request the administrator to put in the citation to the Reut Institute which was accepted at WP:RSN as a "reliable source" to support the present second-to-the-last sentence in the "Differences in Motivations" sub-section (see the Talk page section "Reut Institute," below). The sentence itself that this citation supports is "Some critics of the apartheid analogy state that it is intended to delegitimize and demonize Israel and Zionism, applying a higher standard of behaviour to the Jewish state than to other nations or to the Palestinian Authority in order to justify the boycotting, ostracism, or elimination of the State of Israel." The endnote reference is: "The interaction of delegitimization, demonization, and double standards is analyzed at length, with bibliographical references, in "Building a Political Firewall Against Israel's Delegitimization: Conceptual Framework, Version A" The Reut Institute, March 2010, p. 11, et passim, http://www.reut-institute.org/data/uploads/PDFVer/20100310%20Delegitimacy%20Eng.pdf." Thank you very much. Tempered (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Silence doesn't apply since objections have been repeatedly raised. The Reut citation has been in the article since April 9th so I don't see a reason to re-add it. --Dailycare (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. My concerns regarding the proposed text being unrepresentative of the Harrison source and poorly focused on the "Israeli apartheid" label remain. The reason I've stopped commenting is that I found the discussion circular and unproductive. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, next step is mediation. I will proceed to that stage in the next few days; haven't the time now. I've removed the template request for insertion of the Harrison paragraph by an administrator.Tempered (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have filed a request for a "Mediation Cabal," at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-17/Israel_and_the_Apartheid_Analogy Ryan Paddy and Dailycare are invited to share their views with the Mediation Cabal at that webpage.Tempered (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not here to offer my services as a mediator (although I did find this discussion through the cabal page) since my knowledge of the Israel-Palestine conflict is insufficient, I don't consider myself impartial on the subject of Zionism or of Islam (I oppose both), and I can't quite work out precisely what either side wants due to some serious tl;dr. However, it appears to me as though the section in question is about how the differences between Israel's and South Africa's motivations are used as the basis for criticism of the analogy. It further appears to me as though the content proposed to be added deals with criticisms of the motivation of those who present the analogy. Therefore, the proposed content - in whichever proposed form is finally settled on - does not belong in section 10.2. Since none of the other sections under section 10 appear suitable, it should probably be spun out into its own subsection within section 10, if it is to be added at all. I realise that this probably doesn't solve your impasse, but it's worth noting in case a consensus on the content's form is reached later. PT (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the "Differences in motivations" section is intended to discuss the argument that South Africa and Israel have different motivations for separating populations, specifically Israel is engaged in separating Israelis and Palestinians for reasons of national borders and security, not for reasons of racism. Logically, the "delegitimisation" argument (that those using the analogy are doing so to delegitimise Israel) is a separate subject, it doesn't fit alongside sources about Israel's motivations. I've moved it to a new section. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Before making such a significant move, regarding text already under considerable debate, it might have been more advisable and more courteous to submit the suggestion to the talk page for editorial discussion before making the unilateral decision to move it. Neither are the proposed justifications incontrovertible. The subject is still very definitely "Differences in motivations" for using the apartheid accusation, and it certainly supports claims made in the "Differences in motivations" sub-section. However, I can accept it, since it does not in the end make much difference, and perhaps aids in focussing the discussion.Tempered (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a wiki, and we are encouraged to be bold. If you really don't like something, revert it. You're confused about the nature of that section. It's about Israel's motivations in separating Israelis from Palestinians. The argument is that because they're not racist motivations, it's not apartheid. That has nothing to do with the argument about what the motivation of people making the analogy is. There's absolutely no connection apart from the word "motivation". Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If "Differences in motivations" was merely about Israel's motivations, how come many of the sources cited in this sub-section, which have been there without any objection from the very beginning of its existence, allude to the questionable motivations of those making the apartheid claim? The entries have not just discussed Israel's motivations, but those of Israel's accusers, and that, precisely, is the meaning of the title "Differences in motivations." There cannot be differences, Ryan, if there are not two distinct kinds of motivations, both of which are discussed, contrary to your claim. The name of the sub-section is not just "Israel's motivations," after all, and it does come under the section "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy," so criticism of apartheid accuser motivations must be expected, is legitimate and is entirely justified here.

The sources cited argue that the accusers are wrong and wilfully attribute false motivations to Israel, intentionally disregarding the evidence for their own ideological purposes. Most of the defenders of Israel strongly believe and even take it as obvious that the accusations are so wilful and extreme they have very little or nothing to do with the reality in Israel. So they naturally explain the accusations as arising from the a priori prejudicial agendas and biases of the accusers. The sub-section therefore discusses what appears to be behind those radical accusations. One source says that the accusation itself betrays racism in the accusers. A number of the cited sources say explicitly that antisemitism is a motivation. Other explanations are offered. Benny Morris says it is aimed among other things (he mentions other motivations) at torpedoing any two-state peace negotiations. Harrison says insofar as left liberals make the accusations they reflect a disintegration of left-liberal ideology in this generation into mere "moralistic" black-white simplicities, juxtaposing the bad liberal democracies as such to the good as such authoritarian violent "resistance" to them in the non-Western world. So Israel, as the only Western democracy and constantly under attack in the authoritarian Middle East, is axiomatically a sham and even Palestinian terrorism is justifiable "resistance" and must be "understood." This, in turn, allows fully antisemitic tropes back into mainstream discourse. All of these explanations, Ryan, are coherent analyses by critics of the anti-Israel apartheid proponents that deal with the motivations behind the anti-Israel accusations, so different from the motivations behind Israel's actual policies. But perhaps you intend with this proposed change to ground a bit better (in your view) the discussion of Harrison's analysis of left-liberal anti-Israel motivations, Ryan? It would of course go into this new "Delegitimatizaton" sub-section, as one explanation of its motivation. In any case, to restore the sense of the narrative in the article, we can add to "Delegitimization of Israel" a further "as a motivation for the apartheid analogy." Then it follows on pretty well.Tempered (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I, myself, thought that it was ironic that, while we were discussing whether the structure of the article was non-neutral, based partly on concerns over the segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, new material was being presented which, because it addressed a new question, the motivations of those making apartheid comparisons, rather than the existing question, were the comparisons valid, inherently should be placed in a new section.     ←   ZScarpia   17:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

When a new article emerges -- if it does -- these contributions will be sorted out. Meanwhile, we must deal with the article as it stands, and there is a lot of room for improvement.Tempered (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to go in a new section, but it can't stay in the section where it was (it was only there because of confusion over the word "motivation"). Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see that there are a couple of instances in the Criticism by others section where it is the people making the comparison, rather than the comparison itself, which is being criticised.     ←   ZScarpia   21:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole of Section 9, listing proponents of the apartheid analogy, makes the same sort of argument. No one has found it "confused" before, oddly enough. This comes up only in relation to the critics and criticism of the apartheid analogy. (By the way, it can be rather persuasively argued that critics tend to make criticisms, and criticisms are made by critics, so the alleged "confusion" ZScarpia sees between critics and criticisms does not exist. Naturally both will be mentioned in the same sub-section.) Moreover, these proponents (in Section 9) move easily from allegations about specific issues to allegations about basic motivations behind Israeli policies, i.e., that they are per se apartheid and racist. The proponents section is very very "confused," to adopt the above terminology. To be consistent then, if this matter of content is really the nub of the objection, Section 9 too should be broken up and rewritten. I would endorse that. As I have already mentioned, there really is confusion in the apartheid proponent sections about even what "apartheid" means, and when an analogy using the word really is an endorsement of the proponents views, or merely a polemical hypothetical. Similarly, there is a difference between those who find the creation of separate national groups, as in the "Apartheid Wall" and the two-state solution, "apartheid," and those who find the one-state solution "apartheid." There is enormous confusion in Section 9 as written.Tempered (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting moving the delegitimization content to the "Criticism by others" section? Weighing the two options up, I think the delegitimization argument is better in its own section than in the "Criticism by others" section, which is kind of a slop bucket for content that can't find a good home. The delegitimization argument is a fairly coherent perspective coming from multiple sources, and the sources would be poorly described as "others". Or are you suggesting a new section for criticism of the reasons behind the use of the apartheid label, which the delegitimization argument and some arguments from the "Criticism by others" section could be moved into? I can see how a section like that would be appropriate, it could also house arguments that the use of the apartheid label is anti-semitic. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, it sounds as though you want an explanation of the intention behind my comments? Before, my first comment, you'd hived off the delegitimisation material into a new section, which provoked a complaint. My first comment was intended to be supportive of the move. It points out that the material naturally stands out on its own because it is not part of the argument about whether the comparisons are valid or not, but something which I thought was new, a criticism of the motivations of those making the comparison. It doesn't argue that the comparisons are invalid; it makes statements about the motivations of those making the comparison. Since there has been a long discussion about closer integration of material (that is, not separating material into sections according to point of view and removing the alternating point of view style [which, in my opinion, is difficult to do in articles such as this one where it is necessary to present conflicting points of view]), I also wanted to point out the irony that the new material being presented did naturally separate itself. You replied, saying that the new material didn't necessarily have to go into a new section, just not into the section that it had originally been placed in (seemingly, I hadn't offered the kind of support wanted). Replying to that, after reading through the article, I conceded that I had found another section where criticisms of the people making the comparisons rather than the comparisons themselves were being made, where the new material would have fitted. So, what happened was: you moved new material into its own section, giving justifications; I offered my support; you brushed aside my support; I conceded that you had some justification. Although, I think that the all the material criticising the motivations of the people making the comparison, including the text that already existed, would be better gathered together in its own section, I wasn't making any specific suggestions about placement. What really lies behind my comments is that I think that criticisms being made of the structure of the article on the grounds of neutrality are unrealistic, unrealistic because some of the features being criticised naturally exist when totally opposed opinions and points of view have to be presented. In an article such as this one, if the opposing points of view can be represented fairly and the article made to sound as though it is written by a single author, I think that editors have done a good job. Hope I've made things clearer.     ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)