User:HG1/workshop/Synthesis of AoIA arguments

Anyone may edit this page. Please read the purpose and groundrules first. Ideally each subunit can be arranged as a (1) Proposal or argument, (2) Counter-argument(s), and (3) Rebuttals or potential resolutions. Edit boldly to keep it concise; link to longer explanations or evidence elsewhere. Thanks!

• New section: A Tentative Summary of the Synthesis now appears up front. It's only a draft and may draw some premature judgments about where the arguments are strongest. Please assume good faith here, suggest revisions and comments on the Talk page.

Purpose and Groundrules

The primary purpose of this page is to document and synthesize, in a neutral manner, the arguments over the Article Name (Title) "Allegations of Israeli apartheid".

There have been a number of polls and proposals to rename (or merge) the AoIA article. However, it will be hard to find consensus unless folks can agree on the underlying grounds or principles for moving forward. Moreover, we may be able to resolve differences if we clearly understand each other's arguments. For this reason, the current outline of arguments is based somewhat on the core policies of Wikipedia.

Suggested groundrules.

• Please avoid attaching User names to the pro/con arguments here. Why? To let arguments stand on their own regardless of author. To reduce personalizing the debate or turning it into a battleground. Nonetheless, to make it easy to compile the arguments, feel free to copy comments from Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid and elsewhere. (Use footnotes, diffs, or author names as needed for citation.)

• Use the Talk page to discuss how to edit this synthesis page. This is not a poll. Comment in Talk on the strength or weakness of various proposals/arguments.

• It is requested that comments outside the scope should not be placed on this page. This includes uncivil statements, history of editing and AfD disputes, etc. I think this will benefit all parties! Thanks.

Tentative Summary of this Synthesis

Please assume good faith here, suggest revisions and comments on the Talk page first.

There are two compelling quesions that have led some editors to consider a Requested Move of AoIA to a better title, notability and neutrality.

• Notability questions. Relying on Wikipedia's principle of Notability, the renamed article would cover 1-2 notable,related subtopics. Based on reliable sources, we seem to be arriving at two rebuttable presumptions: (Subtopic I) There are notable academic/policy claims about the similarities and differences between Israeli policies and apartheid-era South Africa. (Subtopic II) There is notable apartheid-based political rhetoric and campaigning against Israeli policies. Such rhetoric includes the usage of "Israeli apartheid" as a phrase or epithet. Subtopic II requires WP:SYNTH scrutiny and would benefit from reliable sources that focus on usage of the phrase in discourse. Sources for the 2 subtopics may overlap. (N.B. This notability of these claims and arguments does not indicate in any way that the claims are valid or true. Counter-claims also have been notable.)
• Neutrality questions. To some editors, the current title seems to be flawed as a neutral description of the subtopic(s). These editors cite Wikipedia's policy on Neutrality and hold that it would be highly desirable, perhaps necessary, to find a more neutral wording than "allegations" and "Israeli apartheid" for an Article Name. These editors argue that there are strong reasons to improve upon "allegations" in the title, and hold that the arguments are less clear about keeping "Israeli apartheid" in the title itself. It has been argued that neutrality and the self-identifying naming policy are necessary conditions for renaming from "Israeli apartheid." However, counter-arguments hold that the self-identification policy is irrelevant to articles about epithets and slogans. Proponents of this position, in favor of retaining the term "Israeli apartheid" in the title, argue that the phrase "Israeli apartheid" has emerged as a notable slogan (compare Axis of Evil), catch-phrase (compare Swiftboating and Mission Accomplished), and epithet (compare Jewish lobby) in current discourse. These editors argue that, given the notabliity of the phrase's use in this way, it deserves to be included in the title, either alone or in combination with other terms.
• Toward a New Title. There are strong consensus-building grounds for shifting to a new title that refers to both 'Israel' and 'apartheid' (Type-B titles). Again, there are policy concerns at WP:WTA that seem to require a move away from the word "allegations." Efforts to analyze various Type-B titles are ongoing. Meanwhile, some arguments also call upon stylistic considerations and conventions. For instance, the current title's use of "Israeli apartheid" also has been defended for its pithy and specific style. Conversely, some Type-B titles have been opposed on stylistic grounds. While some editors feel that their concerns about perceived neutrality problems take a higher priority than questions of style, there are differing opinions about how much style considerations can or should be sacrificed in the title of this article.

In short, it is hard to find a single title that satisfies all perceived policy and stylistic concerns. Plus, the notable subtopics may shift over time. As a result, it may be worth exploring a Requested Move proposal that includes both a new title as well as creative stipulations regarding article subtopic headings, redirects, etc.

Notability of Topic(s) under the Title

Proposed: Notability to support a title covering scholarly and general use

There are reliable sources showing that there is a notable discourse about the similarities and differences between Israeli policies toward Palestinians and South African apartheid. There are reliable sources demonstrating the use of the term "Israeli apartheid" as an epithet or slogan. As a result, it would be reasonable for all parties to agree that the discourse (whether as policy debate, political controversy or epithet) is Content that deserves at least an article subsection and, arguably, a main article. There are three arguably notable subtopics:

• Subtopic I. Policy discourse about similarities and differences between Israel and apartheid. Evidence: there are some reliable academic and policy sources that argue over points of alleged similarity (e.g., housing).

• Subtopic II. Public discourse in political rhetoric, propaganda, opinion media, etc., that allege comparisons between Israel and apartheid. Such discourse includes the usage of "Israeli Apartheid" as a slogan or epithet. Evidence: notable individual sources, e.g. Tutu and U.N. settings, numerous less-notable sources of varying quality; google hits and selected quotes. Scholarly and media accounts of the discourse.

• Counter-arguments

• Against subtopic I -- There is no real debate among notable scholars.

• Rebuttal. What other scholarly sources exist on the subject, besides Adam and Moodley? These include: Genealogies of Conflict: Class, Identity, and State in Palestine/Israel and South Africa, Talking with the Enemy : Negotiation and Threat Perception in South Africa and Israel/Palestine, Peace Building in Northern Ireland, Israel and South Africa: Transition, Transformation and Reconciliation, God's Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster, Mobilizing for Peace: Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, and South Africa, Undercutting Sanctions: Israel, the U.S. and South Africa, and so on, as well as other books exploring the ethically controversial dimensions of the analogy we're more familiar with: Israel and South Africa: Legal Systems of Settler Domination, Security, terrorism, and torture: Detainees' rights in South Africa and Israel : a comparative study, Israel, South Africa, and the West, Israel And South Africa (G-Dett) To reinforce the notability finding, it may be useful to identify the publishers and the peer-reviewed articles.

• Against subtopic II -- Admittedly, the current article documents many allegations against Israel in political contexts. To what extent is the use of the expression "Israeli apartheid" itself notable? The compilation of google hits and the "quote farm" does not alone demonstrate that the phrase, in and of itself, satisfies notability. The compilation looks like original research (WP:SYNTH). For notability, the article would need to cite reliable sources that demonstrate the usage of 'Israeli apartheid' ' as a slogan and/or an epithet.

Neutrality Grounds to Change the Title

Proposed grounds (G2) of Neutrality to change title

It would be highly desirable, perhaps necessary, to find a more neutral wording than "allegations" and (possibly) "Israeli apartheid" for an Article Name (or an article subheading, if merged). People on all sides have made good faith efforts to find alternative language. A better name will guide future efforts to edit the content so as to comply with various WP policies. As a result, it would be reasonable for all parties to agree that the discourse, the notable content mentioned above, deserves a more neutral subheading or Article Name.

Supporting argument: "As it stands, the article lacks context and thus NPOV is sacrificed." {{citation}}: Empty citation (help)

• Counter-arguments

• "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is neutral.
• Article titles do not need to be neutral (e.g., epithets, below)
• The current title is a consensus compromise

Proposed: "Allegations" is not adequately neutral in this title, so avoid its use if possible

"Allegations" is a loaded, one-sided terms. Consider WP:WTA, which is derivative of neutrality. WP:WTA rejects words such as "alleged" because "These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, etc.

• Counter-arguments

• This is a misreading of WTA. "Alleged", like scarequotes, is not to be gratuitously inserted in maintext when it is a non-sourced expression of editorial POV towards sourced material. If a source says something the editor should not distance Wikipedia from the source's terms by placing them in scarequotes or referring to the term as "alleged". Unlike maintext, the choice of name to refer to the subject of the article is not sourced but is in the voice of Wikipedia, and therefor must accord with a NPOV. Thus it cannot be "Israeli Apartheid (epithet)" because the users of the term do not concede that they are using it as an epithet. Distinguish this from the "N-word", which is uncontroversially conceeded to be an epithet, and can therefor be used without modifiers as a title. "Israeli Apartheid" is alleged by some to be a phenomenon and by others to be an epithet and Wikipedia, speaking in its own voice, must make clear its neutrality on the issue.

Proposed: "Israeli apartheid" is not adequately neutral, so avoid its use as a title if possible

The phrase "Israeli apartheid" reflects an anti-Israeli point-of-view. The phrase itself also presupposes one side's answer to what is being debated.

• Counter-arguments

• "Israeli apartheid" may be perceived by some as reflect an anti-Israeli point-of-view, but we note that many Israelis now use the term, or variations upon it, to express positions in ongoing debates there about Israeli policy. At present, the title is modified by "Allegations of..." so it is clear that Wikipedia is not promoting any particular viewpoint in such debates. The subject of the article is a form of expression of a political point-of-view and it is appropriate for the title to reflect that unambiguously.

• The phrase "Israeli apartheid" should not be censored. WP:NPOV does not mean censoring the viewpoints of those that some editors may find offensive. Consider Nigger, Islamofascism, Pallywood - all terms deeply offensive to the groups they purport to describe. The words are nonetheless allowed to stand on their own without newspeak or doublespeak. Neutrality is provided in the article contents wherein the term, its use and surrounding debate are contextualized.

• Comment: The title must encompass both a) the scholarly/political debate concerning the presence or absence of apartheid conditions within Israel, and b) the term's use as a political slogan or epithet. (Compare Jewish lobby, which charts how that term is used, and does not represent that such a lobby exists as an objective fact.

Proposed grounds for neutral title: Self-identification & the phrase "Israeli apartheid"

WP Naming Policy encompasses a naming convention on identity. "When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use." Such self-descriptions should be verifiable. In the event of naming conflicts, WP Policy specifically asks us to use the objective criterion: "Current self-identifying name of entity". The self-description guideline is related to the fundamental justice of self-determination.

• Supporting evidence: Since most Israelis and the Israeli government do not identify their policies, politicians or actions as apartheid, the phrase "Israeli apartheid" is subject to the Self-Identification Principle. This is grounds for splitting up or other changing the phrase for the purposes of Article Names and headings.

• Counter-arguments

• The self-identification policy does not apply. Naming conventions on peoples are guidelines for articles that describe those people. So, for example, it would be inappropriate to title an article on Israelis as Zionist colonizers or The Chosen People. "Israeli apartheid", by way of contrast, does not discuss Israeli people per se, but a concept/and/or set of policies and/or/slogan associated with Israel by those who use the phrase or make such comparisons.

• Rebuttal. People are identified through their policies and institutions.

• Rejoinder. By this argument we should be required to refer to the Holocaust as the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem. The Nazi state did not refer to what it did as genocide.

2nd Rebuttal. (Let's find a less extreme example for discussion.) As stated in Holocaust, the Nazi-self-identifying title Final Solution is an alternative but Holocaust is broader because it covers other Nazi killing programs (e.g., the Roma and disabled). Further, as in "Jewish Genocide" or Rwandan Genocide, 'genocide' may be an allegation that has been confirmed by authoritative bodies far more convincingly that anybody has claimed for Israeli apartheid. Further, Wikipedia does use the title Action T4 and the redirect Euthanasia in Nazi Germany , both of which are Nazi self-identifying terms.

• 2nd Rejoinder: Epithets, slogans, and references to popular phrases clearly connected to current events were not meant to be included under the cited Naming Policy: witness Nigger and Hail to the Thief.

• Need for consistency. If Wikipedia allows any allegations of Fooian apartheid titles, WP should be consistent and allow all such titles.

• Rebuttal. However, an essay on precisely this topic finds: "The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, ...." Therefore, Wikipedians need not say delete them all, or keep them all.
• Rebuttal. The article AoIA is based on secondary sources which actually discuss the allegation. Hence it conforms to normal Wikipedia policies. Other "Allegations of XXXXX Apartheid" articles are quotefarms, clips from primary sources using the words "Country XXXX + apartheid". These other articles are not encyclopedic.

Other Grounds when Changing the Title

Proposed: change the title to avoid quotefarm and improve article quality

"Quotefarm, contrary to the narrow definition given by some, is not just an over-reliance on direct quotes, but also the use of a non-encyclopedic sourcing format, in which anything that contains a word is included, regardless of narrative coherence. While this is ok during the start of articles, in which sources By becoming essentially a collection of quotes of people using the analogy, we are significantly decreasing article quality. This also has the danger of WP:SYNTH. This is a very real concern, as deletionists in particular seem to focus on inserting random quotes in order to then use it as arguments in AfDs (a quick browse of the previous AfDs will show this).

1. Hence, we need a more specific title, like Debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa that clearly limits and defines the what the article is about, and diminishes the temptation for quotefarm, and protects the article from WP:POINT insertion of WP:SYNTH material." Cerejota

(Proposed: Arguments pertaining to WP:NOR original research ?)

Proposed: the new title should meet stylistic criteria. We "need to avoid awkward, convoluted and somewhat inaccurate titles

• Counter-argument: In order to satisfy neutrality, perhaps some stylistic factors can be compromised.

Proposed: Choose a title that all parties can live with, even if not their ideal choice(s). Choose a title that will minimize further edit warring, etc. "good NPOV title to calm the spirits around here".

Proposed: A minimalist way to achieve an NPOV alternative would be to find a SYNONYMOUS title, which retains the same basic meaning.

Is it good to revise the title during a POV dispute?

it is fine for us to revise the Title in this situation. Granted, "alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes." However, (1) we are not asking to resolve any dispute through a new name, but rather continue applying WP policies to improve editing under a more neutral title. The Requested Move does not rule out future editing, delete, keep and merge decisions. (2) Furthermore, in a naming dispute, the Naming Conflict guidelines "They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute." (bold added) Objective basis here includes "Current self-identifying name of entity".

Analysis of specific alternative terms and titles

"South Africa", "South African apartheid" or "apartheid-era South Africa"

Proposed: Use "South Africa" to clarify or contextualize 'apartheid'

• Counter-argument: the incorporation of "South Africa" in the title adds verbiage with no perceivable benefit. It is simple to make it extremely clear in the first sentence of the article that this dispute is over comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa; after all, that's the origin of the word's use here and other uses of "apartheid" in contemporary political discourse necessarily connote a comparison to South Africa. To expand that connotation in the title is unnecessary and would insult the reader, similarly to calling an article "Fender Stratocaster electric guitar" or "United States-Soviet Union Cold War"

• Rebuttal: "South Africa" will enable us to draw the widest support for a name change. I gather that much of the contestation over the past year concerns whether "Israeli apartheid" is a valid object of an article. This renaming would clarify that the Title itself neither asserts nor denies that such an object exists, and turns the connotation of SA comparison into an explicit title. Also, apartheid has 2 meanings (SA official policy; policies like SA). This would keep 'apartheid' in the title, but put it in the official SA meaning. If extra verbiage would settle down this editing controversy, some stylistic weaknesses are worth the gain in NPOV clarity.

"Debate" vs. "Controversy"

Proposed: Debate is better.

Convention on enwiki is to use the word debate in two ways most commonly: to refer to the competitive activity, and to frame articles on public political disputes. The risk of confusing this dispute with the competitive activity is minimal, and it avoids the problems with "allegations" in the present title. The other common way of framing an issue like this in enwiki titles is to use the word controversy, which doesn't really offer anything more here than "debate" except that it is denser in syllables.

Proposed: Controversy is better.

• Counter-arguments

"Debate" implies a reasoned, procedural approach that doesn't fit the events.

• Rebuttals/compromises:

"Israeli apartheid" is an epithet. It's also a scholarly poli-sci controversy. Both are happening at the same time. The epithet sums up the controversy, and is manifestly notable. The polemics/name-calling and the parallel scholarly debate are Siamese twins. The article should cover them both.

"Analogy" and "Comparison"

Proposed: Analogies because it is used in scholarly discourse and it describes the allegations.

• Counter-argument:

There are defects with the term "analogies" -- making for a less-than-ideal title. The NPOV problem is this: analogy means partial resemblance or similarity, but the article really needs to fairly present the points-of-view of both scholars (& others) who see similarity, as well as those who see differences. Hence, analogy only reflects the similarity side. So that's why I deprecated analogy in the list of potential neutral terms for this article (above).

Proposed: Comparison because it describes the allegations.

Comparison may be better (than 'analogy') insofar as it's primary meaning refers to "similarities and differences." Thus it's use in scholarship.

• Counter-argument: The popular usage often relies on a secondary meaning: resemblance. This second meaning is thereby tilted somewhat toward presuming similarity only.

Note: "Similarities and differences" may be strongly neutral but very awkward and wordy

"in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"

Puts the debate/controversy in context.

• Counter-arguments:

Temptation to use the new title as a means of highlighting a few scattered literary references to "Palestinian apartheid", and arguing that these deserve equal space with the far more copious literary references to "Israeli apartheid".

• Rebuttals Concern can be handled in article text. Not realistic concern.
• Rebuttal Unnecessary verbiage. The article text would explain its role in or as part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
• Rebuttal Including both Palestinians and Israelis in the title makes false equivalences.

Candidates for a new title listed by 3 types

It may be helpful to look at proposed new Article Names (Titles) in a systematic manner. This list is categorized according to their usage of the most contested word in the current title: apartheid. Apartheid has two meanings. (1st) The official self-described policy of South Africa. (2nd) Similar or analogous policies in other places.

• In Type-A titles, the specific phrase "Israeli apartheid" is used with the 2nd meaning of apartheid. These titles presuppose or emphasize the claim that Israel has policies analogous to apartheid. The phrase also may serve as an epithet.
• In Type-B titles, the word 'apartheid' is grammatically distanced from 'Israel'. Hence 'apartheid' has either an ambiguous meaning (1st or 2nd) or the 1st meaning -- explicitly as in "South African apartheid" or implicitly thru the metonym of "South Africa."
• In Type-C titles, 'apartheid' is omitted from the title and article content would be subsumed under a rubric like human rights.

Feel free to add candidates to this list. Given that we may want to add brief explanations of each candidate title, the person who suggested the candidate is listed. Users are welcome to add themselves as a suggester.

(Type A) Keep the concept or epithet of 'Israeli apartheid' in the title

Note: The subgroup includes two quite different usages: the phrase as an epithet (see above) and as a point-of-view on how to conceptualize Israeli policies.

(A1) Retain the phrase Israeli apartheid

• Israeli apartheid
• Israeli apartheid (epithet)
• Israeli apartheid analogy
• Israeli apartheid analogy debate/controversy
• Israeli apartheid controversy
• "Israeli apartheid" controversy (epithet)
• 'Israeli apartheid' controversy
• Israeli apartheid debate
• "Israeli apartheid" debate (epithet)
• Controversy over the Israeli apartheid analogy

(A2) Find a more neutral substitute for Israeli "apartheid"

• Israeli separation policies (Hafrada) -- Victor falk 13:08, 1 August 2007 in the Centralized discussion
• (candidate titles using the term segregation)
• Debate over the differential treatment of Palestinians in Israel (HG)

(Type B) Shift toward 'apartheid' as the self-described South Africa policy

(B1) Apartheid may be either 1st or 2nd meaning

• Israel and apartheid
• Debate on Israel and apartheid
• Political debate about Israel and apartheid-like practices
• The apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• The apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

(B2) Apartheid as official S.A. policy, explicit 2nd meaning

• Debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa
• Israel and apartheid-era South Africa
• Israel and apartheid-era South Africa analogies
• Similarities and differences between apartheid-era South Africa and Israeli policy

(B3) 'South Africa' as metonym for apartheid as its official S.A. policy

• Similarities and differences between South Africa and Israel
• Israel-South Africa analogy

(Type C) Omit 'apartheid' from title and use a broader rubric

• Human rights in Israel -- see Centralized discussion
• Human rights in Israel and the occupied territories
• See also Jossi's merge proposal

Hope people find it useful to look at the range of candidate titles in this manner. Generally, those who voted to Keep in AfDs tend to probably want candidates in subgroup (A), whereas those who voted to Delete probably want candidates in subgroup (C) (or in (A1) purely as an epithet). Where might common ground be found?

Proposed focus on Type-B titles

To gain broad and stable agreement by both sides, we might want to focus on titles drawn from subgroup (B), above -- where 'Israel' is distanced from 'apartheid'. Such a (B) title might not be anyone's first choice, but something everybody could live with. With agreement on a mutually-affirmed name, even if temporary, people could then work more cooperatively to apply WP policies to the content of the article (e.g., editing, keep, delete, merge, etc.).

Overall, the list is encouraging insofar as people are showing flexibility in acknowledging the need for a name change and their willingness to accept several alternatives, even if it's not their ideal choice.

Focus on differences amongst Type-B titles

• (B1) Apartheid may be either 1st or 2nd meaning
• (B2) Apartheid as official S.A. policy, explicit 2nd meaning
• (B3) 'South Africa' as metonym for apartheid as its official S.A. policy

The notability, to the extent it exists, giving rise to this article, is based on an analogy. It's not an analogy that any of us have necessarily drawn. Rather, it is part of contemporary discourse, largely because it has been raised by some scholars, prominent individuals, and/or political critics of Israel. The groups of titles without "South Africa" included, i.e. (B1), refer to the proposed/alleged analogy without an explicit reference to South Africa -- though 'apartheid' alone, including its 2nd meaning, alludes implicitly to South Africa. The B2 and B3 titles would make the reference to South Africa explicit.

Amongst the B1,2,3 suggestions, those that remain short, but include words such as "debate" or "controversy" may be the best. For some proposed titles, omitting 'debate' or 'controversy' could leave the wrong impression as if the analogy were uncontested (and true). On the other hand, using "smear" or "epithet" would make the analogy seem completely unsupported (and false).

Possible remedies in addition to a new Title

Reach agreement on the article's main headings

Let me follow up with you about your fine suggestion, nicely worded: "renamed and re-written so that it captures the debate in all its voices". To the extent that the comparison is in public discourse, I agree with Cerejota (based the A/M and other sources cited to me), that there are two branches: the academic debate and the more political use of the epithet. What if the article title and the body of the article focused on the scholarly debate, and then moved to review some of the political uses of the comparison (e.g., by pro-Palestinian folks, by famous people, etc), noting encyclopedia where they add to the scholarship yet without giving the rhetoric undue weight? Sample outline:

An NPOV title, probably from group (B) candidates, such as: "Comparisons of Israeli policy and apartheid-era South Africa"

• Section w/ a heading such as: Comparative research on Israel and South Africa (Subsections by topic, e.g. housing, demographics)
• Section w/ a heading such as: Comparisons drawn in popular discourse (Subsections by popular source, e.g. Carter)
• Section w/ a heading such as: Apartheid as an epithet: The case of Israel (Info on specific usage of the term and its variants as a slogan and epithet in contemporary political discourse.)

Please, please note this point -- I'm only saying that we can agree on some possible headings. After the article is renamed, maybe with agreed-upon headings, then it's up to various folks to prove that there are reliable and notable sources within each heading. Otherwise, any given section may be empty and eliminated. We simply give folks a framework, a level playing field, in which to demonstrate that they are right about notability, etc. Got it? So, the first step is to agree on the title and headings.

Redirects, notes and templates

(Misc. ways of resolving choices among terms, qualifying meanings, delimiting scope of article, etc.)