body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Splitting proposal

There is no consensus for splitting the article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


That the parts of this page which deal with accusations of Apartheid (crime) be split into a separate page called Israel and accusations of the crime of apartheid and the remaining content of the current page be retitled to Israel and the apartheid analogy with South Africa Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration notified.Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive 42#Requested move 4 December 2021 Most recent RM.
No objection personally as to the title for this page, it could stay as is, if there was consensus for that. I thought it better to clarify that the analogy is with South African apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The paradox is that on the one hand, all of the West Bank's locations are listed here as being in the "State of Palestine", while on the other, the apartheid allegations are pushed so hard (and even made their way into the lede of the One-State Solution article). I bet our readers are pretty confused by now. Is there a Palestinian state? Was the two-state solution finally implemented? Or it is really a one-state? or is it maybe apartheid? What's going on in here? Are we sure this is a neutral and balanced encyclopedia? Sometime it feels like we have already endorsed the narrative of one side, and ignored the other.
To sum up, Wikipedia should stay out of this narrative war, and do not adopt the terminology used only by one of the sides. For that purpose, a single article called summarizing the main points from a neutral point-of-view is more than enough. Tombah (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that, see the above comments. There are two articles today, one about Apartheid in South Africa, and the other about Apartheid (the crime). Personally I agree, Apartheid is Apartheid. Even so, the assertion that the West Bank situation represents an example of Apartheid is disputed, to say the least. While acknowledging the complexity of the situation in the West Bank - the Apartheid claims are entirely rejected by other liberal democracies. Sorry, but these are the facts. And that's what we should do here, on Wikipedia. Tombah (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your "above comments" are a nice speech, nothing more. This is a discussion about a split, do try and stay on point. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's was an answer for Nableezy. As my opinion appears in my nice speech, it must be clear by now. I oppose this split. I don't think we need more articles about apartheid in the West Bank. Tombah (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia distinguishes between the South African Apartheid and the Apartheid as a crime. This bit, you mean? So why then are you opposing the same split here? Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is disputed, and we would of course cover that dispute. But the topics are manifestly different. One is covering comparisons between Israel and South Africa under Apartheid. One is accusations that Israel is committing the formal crime of apartheid. And of course we would cover who rejects that accusation. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the topics are disparate, only on whether or not the accusations are accurate. And whether or not they are accurate is simply not something that we should be discussing on a talk page. Again, this is not a forum to discuss the actual topic. It is a talk page to discuss content, not argue over whether or not such and such is justified. Finally, please understand the difference between Apartheid and apartheid. Big A, Africa. Little a, international law. I am talking about little a. Yes, several governments dispute that Israel is guilty of apartheid. Several western sources, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, say that they are in fact guilty of that crime. Our article will cover all aspects of that. nableezy - 15:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Jason, if you have something to say just go ahead and say it. -Daveout(talk) 12:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "formal" discussion, this is not a noticeboard, an RM, or an RFC. nableezy - 13:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already had an ARCA amendment to clarify that page moves are included, the split proposal includes a possible page move. If you think we need another ARCA to formally clarify that WP:SPLIT discussions are also included in "etc" we can do that but previous discussions on the point are to my mind clear enough about the intention. Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, page moves are formal discussions. This is not. We dont need a formal discussion to split anything, and I honestly am not really sure what the point of this is. It legit does not matter if editors are opposed to splitting this topic, they can argue that AFD if they want to. I am 100% going to create the article on the crime of apartheid and Israel, and this section has no bearing on that. The thing worth discussing is how to remove much of the crime material from here as off-topic. nableezy - 13:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about closing it, it has been a useful clarification and preparatory step imo. Removal of material as out of scope is justified at this stage by way of simple transfer to the existing article Apartheid (crime)#Israel. Subsequent discussion on a spin out can then take place there. Of course, I support directly creating an article as well, that was a main point in this discussion but it might be easier to go in steps.Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't be using the expression "formal discussion", that's been replaced with "Internal project discussions" that "include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First this is talk page, not an "editing" Second If you see IHRA definition of Antisemitism as garbage, it is your point of view and I have taken notice of it. Relevant secondary sources and relevant international bodies do not see it in such way and that is what meters to me. Tritomex (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and internalize WP:OR, your personal opinions on if the IHRA definition makes it so states consider calling Israel's human rights violations apartheid to be antisemitic is completely irrelevant, and WP:FORUM forbids such misuse of a talk page. If you have a source that supports that incredibly silly idea then bring it, if not keep it to yourself. Thank you. nableezy - 13:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non ecp editors may not participate in formal discussions, this is such a discussion. Tritomex, this discussion is about splitting the article, not your views on IHRA and other irrelevancies.Selfstudier (talk) Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All his comments have been constructive and the 500 edits requirement is obviously meant to bar accounts created recently by bad faith actors, not editors who have been around for over a decade. It's an special case. Putting his comments in another section would only make things needlessly complicated. -Daveout(talk) 13:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, get it ratified in an ARCA and I'll pay attention. Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:IAR has been ratified enough. -Daveout(talk) 13:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. Your obviously meant to bar accounts created recently by bad faith actors exception doesn't appear in it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained that due to WP:WEIGHT issues with such accusations, splitting is not justified. Again I ask which international bodies, institution's (like UN; EU, international criminal court in Hague etc), or states have designed Israel as apartheid state and I ask for relevant secondary sources to back such parallels. Tritomex (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What has designating Israel as an apartheid state got to do with the splitting proposal? It doesn't mention the phrase "apartheid state" anywhere? Nor does the article, if memory serves. I don't understand your argument about weight, how is splitting the article a weight issue? The proposed new article speaks of accusations, there are in fact accusations so again, I don't really understand your objection.Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In order to create a page titled "Israel and the apartheid analogy with South Africa" by splitting this page, you need WEIGHT for such claim. If Israel is designed as apartheid country, as South Africa was, by itself or by relevant international bodies, states and institution's, such weight do exist, otherwise not. Tritomex (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEIGHT is about the balance of material within articles. It is unrelated to WP:SPLIT. Content stands on the basis of reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep the existing page title, I already said that for myself, I have no objection to that. It's obvious from the content that a comparison with South Africa is being made. If you are claiming that the title of the new article has no basis, it is the same material already present in the existing article and since it is present, it must have weight, no? Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I also think is right to do. Those accusation per WP:NPOV have right place here, but their weight do not justify a separate article under such name. Tritomex (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the present, the accusations of the crime are far more relevant and important (carrying far more "weight" to use your terminology) than the older analogy with South African apartheid. The majority of current sources and conversations are given over to the crime rather than the analogy.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what about all the substantive sections, eg land, education, water? How will these be covered without a POVfork outcome? Will the new article include a background section that summarizes earlier discourse about the apartheid analogy (and links back here)? (Cf. above Iskandar323 re pre-Rome)
Years back, I spent a long time working on the conflict over this article and related editing disputes. I founded Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and from that experience, I can say I appreciate the effort with the proposal and encourage you to keep at it. Maybe create a draft to show proposed changes? HG | Talk 05:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move to Israel and apartheid. A majority of editors support the move, but the deciding argument is that so much of the reliable source coverage of Israel and apartheid has nothing to do with any analogy (—Firefangledfeathers). Supporting factors for this close are as follows: (1) there is a clear consensus that the title "[:Israel and the apartheid analogy]]" is inadequate; (2) the opposing arguments on neutrality seem reversible (one can argue that the new title is biased with the same force that the old title is biased; or so it seems to an outsider like myself); (3) there is a precedent for articles entitled "X and Y"; (4) some of the opposition was based on a confusion between the the crime of apartheid and the Apartheid. Thank you for your patience with both closers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous close, revoked following challenge

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is a lot of support indicating that the current title could be made clearer, but also a lot of opposition on the grounds that the proposed title would risk making the article's scope less obvious. Some neutrality concerns as well, adding to the opposition. Overall there isn't a consensus for the particular title proposed, although some other title might find consensus down the line.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid – Per #Splitting proposal above, this article covers both (1) the analogy with South Africa and (2) Apartheid (crime), which is not an analogy but a legal assessment. Simpler title better achieves WP:CONSIST (e.g. United States and state terrorism) and WP:CONCISE. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 06:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive 42#Requested move 4 December 2021 Most recent RM -> Israeli apartheid allegation (no consensus). Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV isn't determined by a survey of liberal-democratic state entities (however it is that you define "liberal-democratic"). Graham (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the material in this article is about Israel and the crime of apartheid, which has nothing to do with South Africa. And the proposed title has a lowercase a for apartheid. nableezy - 14:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nableezy So as a proposal, changing to what you just wrote for clarity: Israel and the crime of apartheid? I'm not sure I'd support it, but it would be clearer. Naraht (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this gets shot down I intend to make exactly that article by separating the things not related to any analogy from this one. But yes, that would be my prefered title. I think an article on an analogy is close to completely pointless. nableezy - 18:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(alternatively, we could go with even clumsier titles, like "Israel and apartheid comparisons\accusations" or "Israel and apartheid analogies, as well as accusations of apartheid") –Daveout(talk) 03:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You dont need consensus to split, you dont even need a discussion. If this article retains a title on an analogy I will be removing the off-topic parts to a title about the crime. nableezy - 13:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if consensus is not formally required, here there already was a discussion and ithe split was not agreed upon. How can it be perceived as collaborative, consensus-based editing to move forward regardless? You’ll likely get concerns about POVFORK and AfD etc. Why drag us thru that drama? ProfGray (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody wants to AfD an article they can. I dont really plan on engaging in this here, that isnt relevant to the move proposal, but material that is off-topic here will be removed if the title is retained. Accusations that Israel is guilty of a crime against humanity are not an "analogy", and they are off-topic here. This move proposal would make it so it is not off-topic (though I agree that including the word crime would be better so as to remove the analogy stuff entirely). But they are two topics, and if one is off-topic here it will be moved in to an article where it is on-topic. nableezy - 14:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Srnec, I think you're missing the distinction between Apartheid and apartheid. Apartheid under South Africa is always capitalized, it is a proper noun for a formal system of race-based segregation and discrimination. apartheid with a lowercase a refers to the crime. nableezy - 14:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To which end, I would invite everyone here to participate in this move discussion aimed at making the distinction that little bit more explicit. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, there may be tendencies with respect to capitalization, but I doubt such a distinction will land for most readers. After all, the current title uses lower case and yet the analogy is clearly with capital-A Apartheid. Srnec (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I support Israel and the crime of apartheid as the best title for material that is related to the crime. This gets us close enough Id feel comfortable tossing out most of the "analogy to South Africa" material anyway, but I agree with the point that Israel and the crime of apartheid is an "acceptable alternative" and in fact is my preferred title. But it is not just a tendency, the crime is never capitalized except at the start of a sentence. nableezy - 18:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yeah! Hence the name is incorrect, hence the confusion, and hence the fairly strong reasons for a clean split of the material. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the end, the present title does not reflect the content so something should be done. The only real question is how long it takes for that to happen. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) While I don't agree with opposers above who say that "Israel and apartheid" implies Israel is an apartheid state, neither do I agree with supporters' view that it avoids "any such implication". "Israel and apartheid" implies a relationship between apartheid and Israel, whereas in fact this is a (disputed) accusation. I'm not convinced the proposed title is so problematic it breaches WP:NPOV (likely not), but I think a wikivoice inference of a relationship in between Israel and apartheid doesn't follow detached encyclopedic tone in an ideal manner and could be interpreted by a casual observer as verging on advocacy. I think this is illustrated by the list of articles with "and" in their titles that ProfGray collates above; all of those articles are about undisputed relationships between two things, this article is about an accusation there is such a relationship (that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, or that its crimes/policies are comparable to Apartheid).
2) Less importantly, I agree with those above who say that "Israel and apartheid" has a potentially confusing scope, as readers may presume the article is about Israel's views/stance on SA Apartheid. Although this criticism is somewhat nitpicky.
Tombah's suggestion, Israel and accusations of apartheid would be my strong preference. Israel and the crime of apartheid is less ideal as it doesn't fully encompass those drawing an analogy with SA but not making an accusation of the intl. law crime, but I think that over the last few years discussion among rights groups and critics of Israeli policy has moved this way (towards an accusation that Israel is committing apartheid) anyway, and at least this title makes it clearer the subject is discussion/allegations of a crime. Both of these titles are, in my view, better than the current and proposed titles. Jr8825 • Talk 11:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The option, Israel and accusations of apartheid was already discussed in the splitting proposal above (phrased as Israel and accusations of the crime of apartheid) and rejected.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it isn't necessarily non-neutral to use the term apartheid in a title. It's no different than analogous cases such as United States and state terrorism. Graham (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Amakuru, nableezy - 21:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of posterity, that request can be found here. Graham (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding the recent response of South African foreign minister

recently, a bunch of sources have noted that the south african foreign minister considers israel an "Apartheid state". is this worth noting?

https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/article-713140 ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in two minds about "political" statements (alleging or denying) unless they are backed up by concrete actions or steps in support of what is said.
For example in the Amnesty section, it says "The Times of Israel quoted an unnamed spokesperson for the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office as saying "We do not agree with the use of this terminology". And...?
If that is thought to be important, then why wouldn't an actual named foreign minister view be just as important? See what others think. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A statement by an actual minister is certainly more relevant than an unnamed spokesperson. Aside from one being a named person and national representative and the other being an anonymous nobody not necessarily reflecting official policy, this is certainly a rule of thumb that has been applied elsewhere, such as recently on 2022 Prophet remarks row. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
alright, where should I add it? ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I was humming and hawing, ordinarily my inclination would be to add such things as "Additional views" but then all such in the principal sections ought to go there as well. Perhaps go ahead and add it there for now and we will see what to do, maybe after the current RFC is closed, some comments are being made there as well. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting politicians can get controversial, so I would say no. ZetaFive (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a later development, the ToI quote (part of a larger quote) used by the spokesperson for the UK FCDO is repeated word for word in a parliamentary written answer in response to a question about the 21 march report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, by Amanda Milling, minister for Asia and the Middle East in the FCDO. Also see here. I added the full quote to the citation since the actual bit that is quoted gives a rather one sided view.Selfstudier (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spokesperson-level responses remain problematic in my opinion. These fall several levels short of a formal government position on a matter. If an issue was deemed worthy of comment, the foreign minister would make a statement. If deemed seriously important, the prime minister might. Department-level statements worded in vague formats such as "We do not agree ..." are a far cry from "The XXX government's position on the matter is ...". Even with the later, it is worth noting that a particular cabinet's position can also differ from a government's long-term position. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another politico objecting to the "word" apartheid. If they can come up with any other word to describe gross human rights abuse that meets the definition in the apartheid convention, I will be happy to use that instead. I suspect I will be waiting a while for that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic material

Given the move request result, I intend to move material not related to an analogy with South Africa out of this article. This article's scope is an analogy with Apartheid under South Africa, and accusations that Israel is committing a crime against humanity is not an analogy with South Africa. That is the entirety of the crime of apartheid section and the material related to it in the lead. nableezy - 17:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only quote CJCurrie above (the author of the current title back in 2008, without an RM) "The current title was the result of a compromise made under less-than-ideal circumstances well over a decade ago. It was never a particularly great solution, but it was the least bad of the options that were available at the time. Wikipedia's standards have developed since then (mostly for the better), and it's really past time this page was given a less convoluted and more encyclopedic title." That a poor solution has existed for this length of time is something that needs to be remedied. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, I think Amakuru should be allowed to reconsider first. Their comment “also a lot of opposition on the grounds that the proposed title would risk making the article's scope less obvious” suggests they did not review the earlier discussions on this talk page or the actual scope of the article, and perhaps are not aware of the difference between the crime of apartheid and an analogy with Apartheid. Overlooking a 60% majority requires a very strong rationale. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"A" has to go

"A 2009, the Human Sciences ... is not English." 95.91.242.144 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel proper vs. West Bank

"In 1979, the Palestinian sociologist Elia Zureik argued that while not de jure an apartheid state, Israeli society was characterized by a latent form of apartheid." It is not clear that Zureik talks about Israel in the pre-67 borders not the West Bank, nor East Jerusalem, nor Gaza. BTW, nowhere is mentioned that most Israeli Arabs lived under military rule 1948-66, nor that the since 7.8.1985 (9th amendment to the Basic Law The Knesseth) many laws make non-Jews to second class citizen, something they used to be "structurally" de facto, but not de jure between 1966 and 1985. (cf. Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People 19 July 2018) 95.91.242.117 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed Zureik to clarify it is in Israel. Not sure what you want in addition, if you want something added to the article, it needs a source and should relate to apartheid analogy or crime. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Two sources are given in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#1949%E2%80%931966 In
New outlook : Middle East monthly Givat Haviva, Jewish-Arab Institute, Tel Aviv, 1957-1993 one finds many more articles on the period prior to 1966, during which most Arabs were ruled according to the Emergency Defense Regulations of 1945. Most of the present day features that are true for the West Bank inhabitants NOW, were true for the Arabs in Israel THEN. Maybe a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_(Emergency)_Regulations#Israeli_law is enough. Palestinian or Communist (Rakakh) sources can be ignored. Hebrew sources and left within the Labour movement sources (like the above mentioned New Outlook) are clear enough.

Please specify which references are referred to, the content you wish added to the article and the connection made with apartheid. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

scope

With the new title I think we need to refocus the lead on the crime, and then very briefly discuss historical analogies. But the primary topic for "Israel and apartheid" would be the accusations of violations of the crime and the responses to that IMO. nableezy - 22:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear that the comparison with SA has in recent years receded although the development from there to the current focus on the crime is worth tracing out for context/background.
Apart from consequential changes to the lead due to the renaming, it might be better to first have a skeleton for the article content? Atm, we have as main headings:
1 History
2 Hafrada–Apartheid comparison
3 Crime of apartheid and Israel
4 Issues in Israel proper
5 Issues in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
This seems not right, any thoughts on some better headings? Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hafrada section should be part of the West Bank section.
EJ and Golan are not covered at the moment, and the issues with Gaza are different to those in the West Bank.
I also think the “Issues in” language isn’t necessary.
The sections could be geographical:
  • Israel proper and the Golan
  • East Jerusalem
  • Rest of the West Bank
  • Gaza Strip
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A humble admission

In the discussion on renaming this article, I wrote that the article was hopelessly stuck in limbo, and that no meaningful change was possible because of the limitations of the Wikipedia model of collaborative editing and consensus for change. I even made a few snide remarks, that irritated a few of the editors here.

I was wrong. The name change is, on the contrary, an affirmation of the editing model, and a proof that editors with diametrically opposing views can, in fact, be parties to improvements in disputed articles.

So next time, I will keep my mouth shut. Ravpapa (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, please, do not keep your mouth shut. Open it widely and loudly, but to participate in the improvements instead of disclaiming any hope for them. nableezy - 14:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to see Ravpapa back here – I hope you stick around. That we are able to make improvements to articles on sensitive subjects should hopefully provide some encouragement that your time here can be worthwhile. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Here an editor thinks that

"They also maintain that Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories are governed by the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas government in Gaza, respectively."

is not an improvement over

"They also maintain that non-Israeli Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are governed by the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas government in Gaza, respectively."

even though the latter is tautological, long winded and seeks to assert that the PA/Hamas control the oPt without reference to occupation contol. Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the tautology of "non-Israeli Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip" is pretty bloody daft. Also sourced to opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've provisionally removed the statement and the supporting opinion piece, which was only used here and not in the body, making it doubly undue. I also removed the subsequent quote, which IS repeated in the body, but which hardly seems so important that it needs a repeat reading in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that, the sentence /source was restored by someone else with comment "Well sourced statement..." ?! Bah. Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editor @Daveout:, in blatant contradiction of policy, WP:NPOV,WP:WIKIVOICE has restored an opinion piece to the lead. I expect a self revert in short order. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

With the new name of this article there should be some sort of disambiguation hatnote along the lines of: This article is about accusations around the Israeli government's policies towards Palestinians. For Israel's relations with apartheid-era South Africa see Israel–South Africa relations#Early relations: 1948–1994 199.119.233.198 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)  Done Selfstudier (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What was so special about the totally one-sided links that were there before? –Daveout(talk) 15:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, Mondoweiss is not green at RSN either. –Daveout(talk) 15:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not green, but also not a propaganda outfit like NGO Monitor. nableezy - 15:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a reason better than WP:IJDLI for why the Mondoweiss media is not perfectly valid as a useful external link. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, mondoweiss is considered biased (WP:Perennial_sources#Sources), but more importantly, after you removed a well-balanced external section several months ago, restoring links showing only one side is a clear NPOV violation. If someone is going to add links supporting the apartheid accusation, the section needs other links to counter it. It's not so difficult to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:600:BC7B:0:0:544:5481 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a remarkable degree of involved thinking for the first edit of a single edit IP address - implausible one might even say, but hey ho. I incidentally haven't restored anything - I'm just commenting here. But in the interest of dispelling misinformation, there is no consensus about Mondoweiss one way or another as to its reliability, so as it stands, it's just a news site like any other. All sources have bias, so that's a bit irrelevant. What WP:ELPOV notes is: "avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views" - that hardly applies here. This is one link from a news source providing an explainer on the subject in question, making it a useful resource. It's hard to see how a single link could be considered undue weight of anything, or here accused of espousing minority views. Let's see what the introductory brief says: "For decades Palestinians have accused Israel of the crime of Apartheid ..." and inside the video, it couches the information with phrases such as "human rights groups say" - so it doesn't claim that the crime of apartheid definitively exists, but, like most reliable sources, it simply factually outlines the reality that accusations pertaining to the crime of apartheid have been made. Hard to portray any of this as minority views. WP:CENS is possibly relevant to its removal though. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not comment on Mondoweiss reliability, but in my view it is a partisan source, despite the careful language. The problem with the External Links section as I found it was that it was completely one sided: (*"Inside Israeli Apartheid", 2022 documentary and *The apartheid reports). During the move discussion many users expressed pov concerns, things like these make their fears not only credible but real. Seems like a attempt to turn 'Israel and apartheid' into 'Israeli apartheid'. So let's try to be more balanced shall we? –Daveout(talk) 13:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard P.S. Message: I didn't mean to attack anyone with the comment above, even if I mentioned actual users or events, it's just my way of expressing myself. If by any chance I offended you, my sicere apologies 🕊️ –Daveout(talk) 13:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mondoweiss might be biased, but it has the editorial controls expected of a news outlet, and the documentary presents the information it presents with correct attribution. I don't see a reason to exclude this. This Amnesty International documentary probably goes further. The Christian website is certainly more vocal and presumably lacks any comparable editorial control, and I do think in this context it would probably be better to stick to more serious, editorially controlled sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, look... so what we do now?

I'm perfectly happy with no 'external links' section. Or it could have a balanced version, maybe even separated: links supporting the existence of apartheid, others denying it, and descriptive\more neutral ones. This could be the beginning of a RFC. Which links you'd like to see included (if any) and why? and how do you plan to make that section minimally WP:NEUTRAL? –Daveout(talk) 16:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for an RFC because the latest revert is free of any rationale, none was specified in the edit summary, just an unwarranted demand for discussion. Amnesty is green at RSP and on topic. Equally green on topic external links with a different POV are of course permissible as well. I don't really agree with the prior revert either but I let it go, not this time. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad. External links in articles are to inform the reader on the subject, provide outside sources where they can read (note that important word) more about the topic. A 90-minute eCourse where they get to receive a "Certificate of Participation" at the end is not a useful resource for a Wikipedia reader. Zaathras (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now a not entirely unexpected rerevert, without anything approaching a rationale, just a personal attack by way of edit summary. Typical. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation was provided. Hint, it was made at 16:59 UTC. Zaathras (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some website? Thats Amnesty International, which is by consensus a reliable source. And this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions, as Im sure youre aware, so kindly rein in the AMPOL level discourse please. nableezy - 17:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that everything AI publishes is automatically useful or warranted in a Wikipedia article. And hour-and-a-half online workshop is not useful or relevant to any article, much less this one. Also, someone with a block log that spans half a page is not someone who I will take cautions about discourse from seriously. So kindly, keep that part to yourself going forward. Zaathras (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read and internalize WP:NPA. Thanks. As far as your argument, it does mean that by default it is considered reliable, and certainly does not fail WP:ELNO as a "community college" level survey. nableezy - 17:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I will not take WP:NPA NPA dictation from you who has so frequently found himself afoul of Wikipedia policy. Whenever you feel like dropping this tangent is fine by me, but I will provide rebuttals until you drop it. Zaathras (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I havent been blocked or sanctioned in the entire time youve had this account. You dont have to take any dictation from me, but youve been notified, and now warned, and if you continue to violate the expected standards of conduct you will then be reported. Toodles, nableezy - 17:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith. "No reason was given in edit summary", you said. I actually pointed you out to this policy-based discussion. 3 links supporting the apartheid narrative is a valid reason for concern, discussion and consensus-seeking. –Daveout(talk) 17:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the edit summary "rv, i think this should be discussed first. along with the other links" pointing nowhere. Also, see your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories