This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Several people have expressed opinions in favour of "Israeli apartheid analogy", although it is difficult to know if they are representative of the general mood, and that could perhaps be the basis of a successful move request. --Stemonitis 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Alithien: while reformating is always a good idea, it is not customary for it be done in formal RfM discussions. And when they are done, they are usually done in a fashion that provides clarity and enhances the ability to contribute of all editors, not the contrary.

Your recent reformat was not of this style, and I suggest you refrain from trying to reformat discussions until you learn to do it in an effective manner. Reformatting should be done with care and when it is decidedly needed and requested by the community.

Since your reformatting was convoluted, it is hard for me to refactor to the original state, although I will try to do so. I do not think you had an evil intent in doing so, but I do think the results where less than great. Thanks! --Cerejota 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not my mind and that is not right. Please, stop considering yourself as the editor-in-chief of this article. Regards, Alithien 06:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, why the uncivility? Did you feel insulted? If so I apologize, however, my intentions are to better our conversation. Why the need to be so hostile?--Cerejota 07:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, I am not uncivil and not hostile.

And there is no need to that.

It would be a good think to improve our conversation and globally speaking, this article. First step is to find an issue for the title.

Alithien 07:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that is what we are already doing... However, saying "stop considering yourself as the editor-in-chief of this article" is generally considered to be a hostile statement. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, please, you wrote yesterday I was "bad faith" and I was "trolling". You complained about me and administrators told you mispresented facts...

Before you accused me of blocking process with Condorced and also to be "unproductive".

So, I suggest you stop it now. Alithien 08:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a rather more important matter which is that the move request will be refused because this vote doesn't lead to a consensus. Alithien 10:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Alithien: I did not such thing. Stop prosecuting me. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a question: why is there a separate section of "Other Views" that is simply just 3 more allegations of apartheid? I also am supposing that the Normal Finkelstein allegation was included under "Opposing views" because it is inextricably bound up in Beeny Morris' refutation, due to the fact that Finkelstein "quoted" Morris in his (Finkelstein's) allegation? FlaviaR 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle: first you stated that you wanted to work on the title before focusing on content.

However, your current slo-mo edit war on the article goes against this. Have you changed your mind? Thanks! --Cerejota 06:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Order shouldn't matter. POV issues in the current version will still be there within the content, even if the title is more neutral. --Sefringle^Talk 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No argument there, however, it goes against a position you previously argued for. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My recent edits were to remove POV material that is primary sources and unrelated to the topic of apartheid. It is just one-sided unrelated background info, that attempts to justify the usage of the term. My second edit was adding that the analogy is controversial, because the usage of the term apartheid to describe Israeli actions is disputed, seen as provokative by some, and very controversial.--Sefringle^Talk 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely: you are adding weasel-wording to the lead, removing completely relevant background information (used to establish notability and provide for due weight considerations) and in general making edits without discussion and community engagement. Regardless of POV, editors who have reverted you, excluding me, are to be congratulated for defending the principles of WP:CONSENSUS and in a few cases WP:NPOV. We have worked hard to get some of these things to compromise point: do not continue your battlefield stance. Furthermore, you violated WP:3RR. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources which do not even mention the term "apartheid" is original reaearch, and such sources cannot be used to establish the notability of the subject. And this talk page is for the discussion of the content, not the editors. And I have taken the time to count. I only reverted 3 times, thus no technical vio.--Sefringle^Talk 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, primary sources in support of secondary sources are entirely usable for notability and OR. Please read WP:OR. Context of figures is always a good thing, and your procedural opposition is invalid. Pleas ebe productive and stop disrupting editing in good faith.

As to WP:3RR, you performed seven reversions of content in a period of 24 hours (20:33, 19 August 2007; 20:38, 19 August 2007; 20:40, 19 August 2007; 20:41, 19 August 2007; 02:20, 20 August 2007; 03:01, 20 August 2007; 19:52, 20 August 2007), I could consider three of them as one (20:38, 19 August 2007; 20:40, 19 August 2007; 20:41) due to the consecutive clause, and we still have two edits beyond the limit. However, consecutive edits don't have to be considered one, only sometimes they are on a case per case basis. Only common human decency keeps me from reporting you. I suggest you do not engage in an edit war. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The primary sources are not independent of the subject, so they do not establish notability. Second, the primary sources are OR because they have WP:SYNTH problems. Those sources state that event x is occuring. They do not say Israel is being compared to an apartheid state because of event x. Those are the views of the users of the term. Descriptions on the events are thus irrelevant to the topic.

Technically revisions dated 20:33, 19 August 2007; 20:38, 19 August 2007; 20:40, 19 August 2007; 20:41, 19 August 2007 are not reverts, because they were the actual change. Changing the article for the first time is not a revert.--Sefringle^Talk 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Where the changes are merely deletions of previously added material that is a revert from first occurrence. ... It is interesting that the word "crime" appears in the article only in the context of the definitions of Crime of Apartheid, but your deletion of those definitions is wrongheaded. Israel is in fact accused of the (fraudulent) "crime" of apartheid, and defended against that accusation, and the definitions need to be in the article as context for the missing material. If we weren't wasting so much time spinning our wheels on the talk page maybe someone would fix that flaw in the article. Andyvphil 03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Removed material not directly related to the subject and that was in violation of WP:NOR. There are other articles that discuss these issues;
• Moved some material from the summary to other more approriate sections;
• Renamed some sections to more accurate descriptions;
• Fixed some wiki markup and some spelling;
• Still to be done: (a) Incorporating the "opposing views" throughout the article; (b) Summarizing the too abundant quotes and move the long quotes to the notes.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Restored a lot of the material you deleted, though I've left your reorg intact. You are clearly interpreting relevance too narrowly. E.g., when a source complains of "pass laws" it is clearly alleging apartheid even if we haven't quoted its use of the word. Andyvphil 11:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will re-add the pass system paragraph that I may have missed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored my edit, and that will be my last contribution to this article for a while. The article, to comply with WP content policies, needs:

1. An NPOV title that frames the debate/controversy rather than ;"allegations";
2. Removal of cherry picked material to editorialize the debate
3. A point/counterpoint structure in which both sides of the debate can be followed by our readers, instead of compartmentalize each side of the debate into separate sections;
4. Avoiding too may quotes, by summarizing the points made in these quotes.

I am taking this article off my watchlist, and wish you good luck...! 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gentlemen,
I think what has happened on the article these last 24h can be considered as an "edit war".
I don't have any solution for the neutralisation of this article (starting by its title) that would be consensual among us but this remains an "edit war".
There should nevertheless be an agreement that there is a disagreement on the title (accuracy and/or neutrality) and the content (relation with the title and/or neutrality). And if there is no consensus to change/move this, there is no consensus to keep it neither. For these reasons, I added the PoV flag. Alithien 10:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

POV is probably good idea. Now this article looks really like a piece a propaganda and justifies "allegations" title, but one which doesn't belong to Wikipedia. I'm totally confused about replacing statetements done by notable politicians by indoctrinization brought to us by the advocacy organizations as this one: StandWithUs, an anonymous propaganda outfit, operating out of the Post Office Box. All these recent edits seem to me like scavenging the article for just one reason - to discredit its content. Undo it all and keep the page protected until the dispute is resolved. See also StandWithUs with the only other reference which supposed to be an independent source (but IRS didn't publish it), and [1] as the only third hit on Google for the supposed legal name of the outfit - "Israel Emergency Alliance". greg park avenue 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the link of this [2] with the article. Does the source specifically underlines that in the context of Israel ? Alithien 10:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoting self: It is interesting that the word "crime" appears in the article only in the context of the definitions of Crime of Apartheid, but your deletion of those definitions is wrongheaded. Israel is in fact accused of the (fraudulent) "crime" of apartheid, and defended against that accusation, and the definitions need to be in the article as context for the missing material. Google "Crime of Apartheid" and check out the pro-Palestinian websites. Then add the material. No real excuse for you to pretend that what I've said is untrue. Andyvphil 11:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil, I don't understand your answer (quoting self ?, pretend that what I've said is untrue" ???).

The material gives the definition of "crime of apartheid".

For NPoV, what lacks I think it to specify who makes the analogy between the definition of crime of apartheid (provided here above) and some facts in Israel.

Alithien 11:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is not an issue here. The only question is whether Israel has been accused of the "crime" of apartheid. It has, as you must know. (E.g., see [3]). So, add the material, don't delete the context. Andyvphil 12:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But I didn't delete anything ???

I don't agree with what you write. Each time an accusation of terrorism is made against a group, we will not remind what is the definition of the word terrorism. More, everybody places behind pejorative expression ("terrorism" or "crime of apartheid") his own meaning. We cannot take the accusation somewhere and the definition somewhere else. That is why if we give any definition to any term, it must come from a source directly specifying it refers to the subject of the article.

Is this the case here ? Alithien 15:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't delete -- but Jossi did. The edit you point to in the first sentence is a revert. Did you even look at the cite I gave you? The Bennis quote there is quite explicit in accusing Israel of the UN-defined Crime of Apartheid, not some random conception of a "crime of apartheid". Andyvphil 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't delete.

I think you didn't understand what I wrote but I think I was quite clear, wasn't I ???

I explain this once again here below. Alithien 08:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

cerejota question

Alithien: I fully agree. Crime of apartheid in this article is not sourced. I also agree it must be removed. However, find me a page where there is an accusation of terrorism that doesn't have a wikilink to the word somewhere in the article. The analogy (har-har) is quite simply not true.--Cerejota 00:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I sourced it above, so why you would "agree it must be removed" is beyond comprehension. Anyway, it's sourced now in the article too, and has been since before you wrote that. Andyvphil 02:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cerejota.

No misunderstanding. I fully agree there should be a wikiling to the word crime of apartheid. And in fact, I would even support this. But I don't agree this article gives the definition of the crime of apartheid. My analogy is to say that no article talking about alleged terrorist organisation reminds the definition of terrorism...

In other words :

Ok to see : Mr X claims that what Israel does is a crime of apartheid.

But I don't agree with : Mr Y claims that what Israel does is a crime of apartheid. A crime of apartheid is XXX (source:Mr Z).

The best being : Mr X claims that what this, this and that, done by Israel, is against that, against that and against that, which he summarises by the word crime of apartheid.(source X). Mr Y answers to that analysis that (...).(source Mr Y).

Hope this is more clear.

Alithien 08:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

discussion with Andyvphil

As mud. The Crime of Apartheid isn't defined by some random Mr. Z. Quoting self (again): The Bennis quote...is quite explicit in accusing Israel of the UN-defined Crime of Apartheid, not some random conception of a "crime of apartheid". And not just the Bennis quote. It is common to be just as explicit as Bennis was, and those accusations are what the section is about. Andyvphil 09:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

??? But I "complained" about this material : [4] Alithien 10:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And your grounds for doing so were wrong. So I fixed what was actually wrong. Andyvphil 10:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil,

Since the beginning of this section, you keep not answering my question and my point but stating you do. So I suggest to point it once again :

I fully agree there should be a wikiling to the word crime of apartheid. And in fact, I would even support this. But I don't agree this article gives the definition of the crime of apartheid. My analogy is to say that no article talking about alleged terrorist organisation reminds the definition of terrorism...

In other words :

Ok to see : Mr X claims that what Israel does is a crime of apartheid.

But I don't agree with : Mr Y claims that what Israel does is a crime of apartheid. A crime of apartheid is XXX (source:Mr Z).

The best being : Mr X claims that what this, this and that, done by Israel, is against that, against that and against that, which he summarises by the word crime of apartheid.(source X). Mr Y answers to that analysis that (...).(source Mr Y).

Hope this is more clear.

Alithien 08:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any link with that and your answers.

So please, keep cool, read carefully and/or try to explain me another way your answer.

Thank you, Alithien 10:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But I don't agree with : Mr Y claims that what Israel does is a crime of apartheid. A crime of apartheid is XXX (source:Mr Z)-Alithien

Let me be absolutely clear. I am disagreeing with you. "Ms. Bennis notes the the UN defined the crime of apartheid thirty years ago. She claims that what Israel does is a crime of apartheid. A crime of apartheid is XXX (source:The UN General Assembly)" is perfectly ok and you haven't give me one reason to think otherwise. It parses. It makes sense. It is relevant. It is reliably sourced. Saying that you "don't agree with" it is not a reason. Andyvphil 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I stated why but maybe I was not clear.

From my point of view, writing "Mr Y claims blablabla is a crime of apartheid. Z defines the crime of apartheid as blablabla (onu source)" is not acceptable because everybody can have his own definition of the concept.

And therefore, whether it is a well-known concept (what you say if I understand well your reference to the 30 years) and it this case, no need to develop this;

or, this is a controversed concept (what I think) and in that case, defining this is poved because nothing proves this is what the author meant.

As a consequence, I think it is needed the same author claims "blablabla is crime of apartheid" and explains what he means exactly OR we write "blablabla is a crime of apartheid (with a wikilink only).

The best solution would be to write what each author underline factually. Eg, X states that "Israel build a wall, Israel prevents Arab Israeli to go to the army, ..." which he defines as a crime of apartheid". I think it is better because is fits more closely to what people says and do not open the door of the interpretation.

I hope this is more clear. Alithien 11:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not listening, and it's trying my patience. You keep asserting that "Mr Y"'s "crime of apartheid" may not be what "Z" defines as the crime of apartheid, ignoring the fact that Mr. Y (Bennis, etc.) tells us (s)he is using Z's (the UN's) definition. For the third time, The Bennis quote...is quite explicit in accusing Israel of the UN-defined Crime of Apartheid... What "proves this is what the author meant" is that Bennis says so. Andyvphil 14:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Who verifies Bennis? This goes right into the quotefarm issue: just because there are some excellent quotes that support your POV, doesn't mean you can just all of the sudden decide this is related to the topic at large. Sources are to be in context. One commentator, in a primary source (or primary source style) gave this opinion. But is this opinion seconded by other notable voices in the debate? Jimmy Carter's opinion is verifiable and seconded, and hence can be used as a basis of synthesis. Bennis isn't, or at least to my knowledge isn't. WP:SYNTH explicitly prohibits this type of poorly-source synthesis. Thanks! --Cerejota 12:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither Carter nor Bennis are, or need be, "verified". Quoting WP:V, "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The only thing that needs to be "Verifiable" is that Bennis said what she is quoted as saying. Andyvphil 14:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry, you can't decide that:

A. Apartheid is defined as a a crime.

B. Israel's practices are compared to aparthied.

C. therefore Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheied.

I agree with Alithien. you can say that some people claim or compare certain Israeli actions to the crime of apartheid. By the way, it is better to use the phrase "human rights violation" than crime. Lots of things are crimes acording to the US Bill of Rights. That doesn't stop some dictatorships from doing those things. --Steve, Sm8900 14:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with anything I've said. The UN calls it a crime. Bennis calls it a crime. I'm quoting it and her. I don't get to change the words. Andyvphil 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor does the US Constitution "make" a dictatorship's actions "crimes" in the strict sense. I suppose only a conviction from the World Court would sustain the idea of some person who represented a specific political or social policy "being" criminal in some objective sense, and even then it would be the person, not the nation. There are norms about crimes of genocide and so forth, but who prosecutes nation-states? Nobody. As a practical matter, we have only the publicly circulated opinions of respected NGOs when it comes to describing (alleged) human rights problems, yes? BYT 14:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You also have UN resolutions and other governmental declarations. The Crime of Apartheid is a fraud. I've quoted the US saying so in the article. Israel is still accused of it and that needs to be in the article. Andyvphil 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we thumbnail briefly what the tag is all about? BYT 10:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi BYT,

I don't want to be rude but please : this has been widely discussed here above and in the archives. There is no reasons to summarize one pov to start discussing them and not to summarize the other pov not to discuss them.

Currently, there is no consensus about the title (neutrality and/or accuracy) and linked to that, about the content (neutrality and/or due weight).

Does somebody deny there is no consensus ?

If so, this is against WP:GOOD FAITH;

If not, this justifies the POV flag.

Alithien 10:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude either, but that doesn't make much sense. You added this tag yesterday. If you can't briefly explain why you did that, and what it is specifically that you feel represents a POV problem, other than, you know, the article's existence, I'm afraid there's not much to say in defense of this edit. BYT 01:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree to summarize the different points if you summarize the different points explaining why we cannot move the title. Else, "I'm afraid there's not much to say in defense of [preventing] this".

Alithien 11:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The tag remains unexplained. For the record, I do want to move the article, though I'm not sure where you now feel it should be moved to. Anyway, you have inserted a tag stating that the article itself, not the title, is biased. Could you please give me some idea of the nature of the bias you actually perceive in the text of this article? So we can fix it? BYT 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Five days later: Can Alithien, or any editor, please quantify which POV issues, specifically, we should be working on in the text itself? Regarding the article's existence as biased, and refusing to identify any criteria for the removal of this tag, is a nonstarter. This article has survived multiple AfDs. What textual and editorial changes do people envision for the removal of this tag, please? BYT 14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is explained here below in all the discussion pages you refer to.

"Your are trolling" (c Cerejota who, if he would be fair, should have told you). Alithien 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And so, we continue in circles, fighting our battles in Wikipedia, where we shouldn't, meanwhile, the encyclopedia doesn't get built... People: why is it so hard to understand that this topic deserves a better treatment?

The fact that there is a thermonuclear circular "debate" going on for a permanent basis, the record number of AfD requests, and the sheer brutal number of reliable secondary sources (the likes an article that shouldn't be more than a couple thousand words has never seen) is a measure of the incredible encyclopedic value of the topic. Editors who continue to insist it isn't are engaging in disruption. Get over it.

Likewise, editors who continue to insist in a WP:SYNTH narrative in which this topic is not part of the Israeli-Palestinian (or Arab-Israeli - to satisfy the anachronistic sensibilities of some) conflict, and should emphasize views that are sympathetic to describing Israel as an apartheid state etc are not being helpful at all.

I will like to see an encyclopedic entry that touches and glimpses the complex debate around this analogy, how it touches upon seeking a wider solution to the I-P/A-I conflict, how it is viewed by academic specialists, how it is responded on the part of the Zionist movement, what commentary is provided by notable figures, and what concrete facts-on-the-ground are part of the contentious use of the analogy.

In other words, I want to see an article that accurately portrays what the secondary sources talk about.

I am not interested in the continued battles of ideology that many editors seem to want to engage in. There are places for that, and this isn't it.

Who is interested?

Thanks!--Cerejota 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am, so let's begin with NPOV title. As I stated above: This is about accuracy, avoiding newspeak and doublespeak, and describing things for what they are without using needlessly long-winded formulations. We have articles entitled Islamofascism, New anti-Semitism, Pallywood, Arabs and anti-Semitism, etc., etc. I don't see why we need to water down the phrase Israeli apartheid. Now, I willing to compromise and go with Israeli apartheid analogy or Israeli apartheid debate, but I am not willing to go with Apartheid analogy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's a totally unencyclopedic entry and doesn't even name the subject under discussion, i.e. Israeli apartheid. I'm all for compromise, but not at the expense of accuracy and NPOV. Tiamat 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I am not interested in pretending that a political attack is just "another new word", "Alternate meanings to Apartheid" is simply another way of saying "we can accuse people of this heinous crime even if they haven't committed it, just be redefining what the term means, when it suits us." We don't need to "water" the phrase "Israeli apartheid" - we need to admit that it's a false allegation. The NPOV is compromised when you don't admit what what is being done when the term "Israeli apartheid" is thrown around as if it were true.FlaviaR 17:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is possible that "apartheid" can only ever refer to what went on in South Africa. However, I don't think people really accept that anymore. In practice, apartheid is a system of labelling people according to the communities to which they belong, imposed by different identity cards. (Pass laws, separate roads, house demolitions are secondary, it's apartheid without them). And of course, as can easily be proved, "Israeli Apartheid" is a well-used phrase with a specific meaning, understood by 100s of millions, if not billions of people. "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" is a fig-leaf that tries to suggest "some people call it this but not many people believe it". It doesn't work and can't work, it really is apartheid that's operated. PalestineRemembered 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

the previous answer was a total aberration, a complete break with wp principles, and totally against the spirit of Cerejota's idea. you just said, "we all know that Israel is guilty, Guilty, guilty!!!!! so what's the use of pretending we care about objectivity and using a title which respects Israel? Let's admit what the whole world knows; Israel is guilty!" Sorry, i disagree with this approach, with all due respect. this just took cerejota's reasonable proposal and totally derailed it. but surprise, surprise, that does tend to happen here a lot. --Steve, Sm8900 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, a title like "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" implies that Israel has committed a crime, specifically the crime of apartheid, as "allegations" in law refers to allegations being made in legal pleadings. The individuals above who are defending the current title do so on a false premise, that it is neutral or somehow gets Israel off the hook - it doesn't, if anything it raises the idea that a crime has occured. Lothar of the Hill People 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you Steve that you have yourself to blame, as you have emboldened the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian POV pushers. Your kowtowing them, your involvement of mocking and derailing the WP process and openly endorsing the breakup of WP principles will make your work much harder. I have no sympathy at all. I am about to give up completely on WP; not because of Tiamut, who I don't expect any better; but because of people like you. Itzse 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, all i can say about that other issue is that I support Tiamat 100%. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A. Who is for moving to Israeli apartheid debate - Tiamat's last proposition proposal which I support since it invites academic discussion only? B. Who is for staying with the current title? Need ten votes at least to establish consensus. greg park avenue 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"[A]cademic discussion only"? If that's what "...debate" as a title implies then I'm against it. "Academic discussion" is the least notable element of this article's subject.Andyvphil 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, you're getting to radical. Wikipedia gives right of way to scholarly sources over others, so I feel free to reseve the right to strike two most radical votes from both sides of spectrum. Yours and that one posted by an IP number. greg park avenue 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

When you get that "feeling free" feeling lie down until you get over it. Andyvphil 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not waiting for your lucky year. greg park avenue 17:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Don't wait. You need to start getting over yourself right now. Andyvphil 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did this magical "ten" threshold come from? Tarc 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota's comment, who seems to me to want to discuss this topic until the "Judgment Day" before making next move. I gather he's for variant B. So where are you? greg park avenue 22:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You need more than a poll and ten votes to establish consensus. --Ezeu 23:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What about ((notaballot)) policy? greg park avenue 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Where am I? Coming down with a bad case of poll fatigue, I think. Tarc 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's good sign. Sounds like A+ to me. greg park avenue 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• A is acceptable. B is unacceptable as it implies criminal activity by Israel since there is a crime of apartheid and given the legal meaning of the word allegation. Lothar of the Hill People 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; this reasoning will do. greg park avenue 22:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am opposed to "Israeli apartheid debate" as I think it is more POV than the current title. It implies that there is such a thing as "Israeli apartheid" and that there's a debate over it. Second of all, your A and B choices imply a false dichotomy. The question of "staying with the current title" is irrelevant unless you propose a different one that is preferred by a consensus. There was a previous "nomination" for "Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", or something like that, and several people preferred that to the current title, but it did not get a consensus. Greg, I believe you opposed that proposal, which you had a right to do, but I think that was probably the most likely candidate for a consensus. I think it is time to stop these polls for the time being. There really is very little chance of achieving a consensus on a new title. And there is definitely no policy about "ten votes." It is neither sufficient nor necessary to establish a "consensus." 6SJ7 22:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow you. "Israeli apartheid" term is already in the current title, and as Lothar has explained to you, "allegations" term is stronger than "debate", not that we want to intimidate Israel. There is nothing criminal in "debate" which we can switch to "academic debate". And yes, I opposed the weasel word "controversy" in combination with "Palestine", since no such policy in the article about PA policy was documented. So, I guess you're for B option? Thanks anyway. greg park avenue 23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Greg, you are free to "guess" whatever you want about what I am "for". However, I think an easier way to tell what I am "for" is to read what I write. This discussion is not about the merits or demerits of the current title. It is the title. In order for me to support a different title, I need to be convinced that it is better than the current title. In the case of Jossi's RfM nomination, I was convinced. In the case of yours (the one that just closed), I was not convinced. In the case of your "quick poll" here, I am convinced that your new proposed title is much worse than the current title. The same kind of comparison will continue to guide my comments on future proposals until there is consensus for a new title, if that ever happens. 6SJ7 03:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Me, who boldly renamed this article a few weeks ago and sparked the current round of debate are being called the one who wants to debate until Judgment Day? LOL!

Now, seriously, 6SJ7: I deeply disagree with you. Israeli apartheid, which should be the title, neither implies the existence of Israeli apartheid, nor disproves: it is for the content, not the title, to establish verifiability. Pallywood, for example, doesn't proves it exist in reality, simply that a side of the POV uses it as epithet. But why do I bother? You are an admitted deletionist!

However, I am willing to accommodate, mostly because not a single reliable source claims there is apartheid in Israel - at most they claim that certain policies are analogous to apartheid, or could lead to apartheid - to abandon what should be the correct title. I also like formulations that provide context: this is why I found the "in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" formulations attractive. For me, "Israeli apartheid debate" has the same problem as "Allegations of". 1) It has the phrase "Israeli apartheid", which there is no way in hell we are getting, WP:POINT or no WP:POINT 2) It provides no contextual background: "Pallywood" is very evocative, "New antisemitism" is of a world-wide context. The analogy with regards of Israel happens in an specific context, and I have become convinced it is important to reflect it in the title. I do think the concern of "contamination" is valid, but I think it is also weak... see my proposal at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has become consensus, and which averted serious edit warring simply because people saw the sense of it, as per WP:SUMMARY.

I seriously doubt we will make progress soon, but I insist people need to learn to write for the enemy and realize that they have to give in a little to move forward with the encyclopedia. I am open to repeat title proposals, and to move forward, but I think Tiamat is missing the point: consensus can change, but consensus is good faith in action. And its hard to assume good faith when all you get is "consensus" proposals that people know won't get anywhere.

Fight your battles elsewhere. Join the ISM, Fatah, Hamas or the IDF, Hasbara fellowships or the WJC... but keep this an encyclopedia. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So just because you are willing to appeas...oops, I mean "accommodate" the distortion of reality, doesn't mean that everyone else does as well. The notable people quoted in the article comparing Israeli actions to apartheid South Africa are making a significant and serious allegation. You're trying to weaken that by saying that their (Carter, Tutu, et al) positions aren't literally claiming "there is apartheid in Israel", as if that is somehow different or lesser than a full-blown accusation of apartheid. That is a ridiculous distinction without a difference. Their positions and claims are significant enough to warrant the term of "Israeli apartheid. The phrase belongs in the article's name in some manner. Period. It does not confer legitimacy or authenticity onto the claims, it is merely descriptive of the subject matter, which is that there has been notable and verifiable comparisons between the two. Editor's sensitivities here are as irrelevant as the sensitivities that Turks have over the Armenian genocide. Sensitivities do not override fact. Tarc 01:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"not a single reliable source claims there is apartheid in Israel" Oh, of course, any source that claims that is ersatz not reliable, e.g. Uri Davis or Yossi Paritzky or Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd. Thanks for the heads up on the catch 22. -- 146.115.58.152 03:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• While Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid was moved into Human rights in Saudi Arabia, POV pushers keep trying to move Allegations of Israeli apartheid under even more attacking title Israeli apartheid debate. This disgraceful "article" (anything like it would be unimaginable in any serious encyclopedia) should be merged into Human rights in Israel or renamed into Human rights in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• not A - not B. My mind didn't change. An article named Israel apartheid should exist but only to deal with the expression, underline it is used but clearly not dealing with the matter of the allegations of Israeli apartheid. All material related to accusations that Israel practice apartheid and/or comparisons between Arabs situation in Israel and in South Africa should be transferred in an article with a name that offers a wider context to give a neutral picture of the situation. Israeli apartheid is typically a poved expression. Eventually Israel and apartheid would respect WP principles but for an article of poor interest (such as Islam and antisemitism and the whole "and-familly" articles). Alithien 08:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• So where are we? 6 for A I guess (me, Tiamat, Lothar Tarc, Cerejota, Alithien), 3 for B (6SJ7, 146.115.58.152, Humus Sapiens) and 1 noncommital (Ezeu), meaning 2 : 1. It shall be 3 : 1 to establish consensus (borrowed from military logistics for successful campaign on enemy's territory). We need three more votes for A to request another move. Otherwise it's only pure waste of time. greg park avenue 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Greg, please stop manipulating what other people are saying. I did not support "B", I merely opposed "A". Humus did not support "B", he proposed an entirely different name and also proposed a merger of the article. When Cerejota ran his multi-option poll a couple of weeks ago, my first choice was something very similar to what Humus is proposing. So please stop dividing everybody into two choices of your own selection. You are not in charge here. 6SJ7 14:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• 6SJ7, there were only two options. For A or against A meaning B meaning no consensus meaning "allegations" are here to stay. You were against A so I deducted you're in the "no consensus" crowd. As simple as that. You have proposed another title, but it's only one step short of AfD since the word "apartheid" is omitted in it. Europeans never let you get away with that. Just be realist. "Debate" is less offending word than "allegations" and got some support from Americans who are more sympathetic to the Palestinians and Moslems than anyone else in this world, and not so hard on Israelis either. If you lose that support, forget of merge to Human rights in Israel. Only some contents of the article regarding Israel itself may apply into it. But that requires splitting the article which may be even more complicated than simple moving. Allegations means crime, debate means scholar dispute, hardly a crime, and half of the article will have to go after changing the title. And the worse half including hearsay and conspiracy theories, references to blogs and newspaper speculation. That's the deal. greg park avenue 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, that's not the deal. Either there is a consensus for a particular action, or there isn't. Lack of consensus for one option does not necessarily mean consensus for another option. You have no authority to limit the options like you are trying to do, and you also have no authority to decide the consequences of any particular article title on the contents of the article. In any event, it is pretty clear that there is no consensus for "Israeli apartheid debate", so let's just move on. 6SJ7 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you start an article as an encyclopedic entry, you start from title. So, if the title is unencyclopedic and an evident hearsay, you change the title first, then you change the content. There is no other way around. It's not a novel or a story. These you can write first and then think about title. greg park avenue 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I like the title Humus Sapiens suggests of recent suggestions. It is in parallel with other similar articles, and the most NPOV. Please note that I believe a discussion of this issue expressing all povs should remain in the encyclopedia, but I prefer a title more in keeping with NPOV policy and a consistent approach to naming. Bigglove 13:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Most NPOV and consensus are two different issues. You can't make everybody happy, not on this one. One must look for compromise. greg park avenue 13:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since good-faith efforts to address this issue have been construed as "only reasonable explanation" for the opposite, I'm reluctant to get into this. I think this article suffers under the more basic problem that we haven't even established the premise for its existence. Some want it around because they think the allegations have merit; others want it around because the allegations are prevalent; others want it moved to an article about the basis for the allegations; etc., etc. I think it's a worn-out topic at this point, having become a battleground for all kinds of willful misunderstandings and strawman arguments. --Leifern 13:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• No commitment means no consensus means this article stays as is. greg park avenue 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed and it stay as it is with the different flags.

This is not a question of compromise. This is a question of finding a good solution. Alithien 15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good solution is always the most simple solution like this one: Israeli apartheid (term). But who is going to endorse it? Better try to learn how to accept things you cannot change instead. greg park avenue 16:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Support While I prefer the straightforward NPOV description of the subject at hand as simply Israeli apartheid, Israeli apartheid debate does not compromise accurate description and offers those who feel that Israeli apartheid standing alone without some kind of qualifier is somehow offensive, a word to soften the blow. Tiamat 16:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose A and B. Support Humus sapiens's suggestion to merge into Human rights in Israel or rename into Human rights in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip as was done with Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. --MPerel 18:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose A and B, as per MPerel's comment, directly above. Agree completely with MPerel. --Steve, Sm8900 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Humus's (strangely unencyclopedic) suggestion to merge into Human rights in Israel, as this whitewashes a mainstream terminology dispute with ample citations -- one that clealry deserves an article.

Oppose "debate" in title as experience has shown that there is nothing civil or organized about this discussion, either here on WP or anywhere else.

Did we just miss a breakthrough? Alithien's suggestion seemed worthy of closer examination: focusing Israeli apartheid exclusively and concisely on the usage of the term, and moving all content about the dispute over whether Israel has actually engaged in apartheid (a far more controversial question) to some other (compromise-driven) article title. So: One article would be about whether prominent people like Jimmy Carter have actually used the term "apartheid" in connection with Israel; the other would be about whether such use is justified. BYT 18:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there would be consensus for having an article titled "Israeli apartheid." I, for one, oppose it. 6SJ7 19:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose it is not a debate. It is an allegation. Nothing more. This is just another attempt to remove "alleged" from the title. This suggested title would be more POV, not less POV.--Sefringle^Talk 01:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose any of the changes proposed, be it that of Greg, MPerel or Alithien. Saudi Arabian apartheid has 550000 entries in Google, Israeli apartheid has 2000000, that is 4 times the former, maybe that allows to understand why the former was moved (although I would have opposed that move). Don't understand Alithien's proposal: how can we deal with the fact that some authors speak of an israeli apartheid without stating their reason? That does not make sense to me.--Jorditxei 09:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, "Saudi Arabian apartheid" gets 435 google hits whereas "Israeli apartheid" gets 131,000. Google counts conducted without putting those terms into quotes include pages where all the words appear, though not necessarily in relation to one another. Tiamat 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Thanks for the tip!--Jorditxei 14:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• That can mean whether : "Israeli apartheid" is an expression more used than "saoudi apartheid" becasue because Israel has more enemies than Saudi Arabia OR : more people, among which scholars, consider there is an apartheid situation in Israel than people think there is one in Saoudi Arabia. Alithien 07:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose any name change - this discussion has consumed far too much of our time already, and the name has rough consensus as it is. Further attempts to change it start to look like disruption. And seeing the same people constantly argue with the castors of every vote is particularily disconcerting. PalestineRemembered 14:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Agree that these endless move requests are now simply disruption. --John Nagle 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: New comments about the proposed renaming of this article to "Israeli apartheid debate" should be placed in the NEXT section. Comments about other potential names or other proposals may still be placed in this section, above this note. 6SJ7 00:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid debate - The odds are about 2:1 for consensus, not very impressive ratio, but Wikipedia guidelines are behind this one this time - it says: scholarly sources override any other ones, and debate means here an academic dispute; only notable persons with at least PhD shall be allowed as sources of references or quotes into this controversial article. greg park avenue 17:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• FYI various oppose and support statements may be found in the preceding section. HG | Talk 11:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a separate article to me. Where's the article about the usage of the term by, for instance, a Nobel Laureate? And can you break down that 2:1 summary? How did you get there? BYT 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Section above. All Nobel Prize winners qualify. greg park avenue 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Tutu have a Ph. D? And again -- when you say it's 2:1, can you tell me what number of people represents "2" in your analysis, and what number of people represents "1"? BYT 18:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Doctorates honoris causa awards qualify too. 2 means 6 people, 1 means 3 people. The rest didn't stay on topic or became a bit too, eh, off the base. greg park avenue 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your vote-counting (which doesn't matter anyway) is very creative, Greg. At the time you started this section, the "votes" in the previous section were at most 4-3 in favor, and since Bigglove favored another option, it was really 4-4. With subsequent comments, it is 4 in favor and 7 against. Maybe 3-7, since Tarc did not actually express support. As for your comments about the contents of the article, you do not get to decide who qualifies as a source. 6SJ7 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't count BigGlove in, because he didn't vote neither for A nor for B, just for Humus' and his new version of the title which didn't belong to the quick poll. And the rest of Magnificent seven of yours (I think they were only three) joined Humus either. I counted you and Humus in but not all his crowd. I only counted persons who were either for A or against A (meaning B meaning no consensus meaning the title stays as is now), not against both or for something else. greg park avenue 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Greg park avenue, you do not own this page. What I wrote is for everyone to see. I did not support either A or B. You are making it very difficult to assume good faith. This fuzzy math is useless anyway because we should use arguments. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens, poll was not for arguments, and this page is not for polling. Besides, they do count votes on RfM, not arguments as on AfD. Take a look at the Request to move History of South Africa in Apartheid era to Apartheid. How many invalid votes do you see in there? That's why I started polling first before requesting another move. greg park avenue 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

<snip -- see next section> HG | Talk 16:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If GPA wants an article on some fragment of this topic where the sources are limited to PhD's, honorary and otherwise, I suggest he write it and name it. Just don't try to change this article into a redirect. Andyvphil 23:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Supersonic strong support - once and for all, someone is actually proposing a title that is a) NPOV and b) properly describes the subject. That's what this is: a debate. Putting this whole Allegations of thing in front gives the whole thing legitimacy, while debate (properly) shows that this is exactly what it is. I must say, I'll be extraordinarily disappointed if people end up opposing this. The Evil Spartan 04:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose it is not a debate. It is an allegation. Nothing more. This is just another attempt to remove "alleged" from the title. This suggested title would be more POV, not less POV.--Sefringle^Talk 01:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Are you kidding me? If anything, this shows that this is a debate. I would think the term "debate" would lessen the sting of allegations. It seems to me that this is "just another attempt to" derail a good solution. The Evil Spartan 05:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sefringle's opposition does reflect the earliest concern over the phrase "Israeli apartheid", which is why "allegations" was added after the initial dispute. If I'm not mistaken, opponents argue that the phrase itself presupposes one side's answer to what is being debated (or not even a debate, see previous section). For instance: "Evil Sparta" is more POV than "Moral Qualities of Sparta" and "Athenian Democracy" is more POV than "Political Decision-making in Athens". This is also why Tiamut is commendably flexible (see Talk Archive 24) for supporting both type-A titles that retain the phrase "Israeli apartheid" and at least one type-B title -- "Israel and apartheid" that grammatically delinks the words. We also discussed the notion that consensus might be best explored through type-B titles (as was tried in Cerejota and Jossi's latest Move proposals) but we didn't finish discussing the arguments pro/con on type-B. (Our discussion thread was broken, so we're just repeating ourselves here. That's why I think it would be more efficient for us to write-up a stable and concise documentation of the argumentation.) Thanks for hearing me out! HG | Talk 10:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HG.

Both for the analysis on the title and the analysis on the importance of a synthesis for the arguments discussed here. Alithien 10:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - It is way better than the current title, and further clarifies the topic. I am persuaded by Evil Spartan's argument. This is not by far my first choice, HG might understand that there is a general consensus that the current title must be changed. The concerns of "Israeli apartheid" are made moot by Nigger, unless black people's repulsion at that word is less important than the Israeli's repulsion at "Israeli apartheid - if Nigger exists unqualified, I do not understand how "Israeli apartheid debate" can be seen as violating NPOV. I do understand the concern with the phrase, and if we change titles it should be addressed in the lead of the article, but these are ultimately concerns that fail NPOV: resolving differences of POV via titles is not recommended. I have been flexible, but I am tired of opposition without realistic counter-suggestions and disruption via POV pushing. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "debate" would leave me wondering where, in WP, we would cover, in a standalone article, the term's manifestly notable use as an epithet. Or are we saying that all politically charged epithets are going to be folded into larger articles, so as not to offend people? BYT 14:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose as with previous two move requests from this editor. Agree that these endless move requests are now simply disruption. --John Nagle 15:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

John Nagle, I understand your concerns and in some ways I agree with you about the declining need for any further debate, even though it appears we have differing opinions on the actual issue. However, I feel that currently we are responding to a specific tangible effort by HG to resolve things. he is someone with much crdibility in resolving and handling debates and contention. So I would suggest that we continue this debate, only in the context of participating this once in order to help theis positive process continue, precisely because we don't want it to arise again and again in the future, as you rightly pointed out. i understand and accept some of your concerns. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• OPPOSE I also request that all quoted guidelines (phd only, 10 votes needed for consensus, etc) be linked to the appropriate policy page in this and future proposals. Bigglove 17:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• What in the world are you talking about? No such guideline exists for 10 votes, or whatever you're talking about with a phd. The Evil Spartan 17:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is what Bigglove was trying to point out, that the suggestions (phd only, 10 votes needed for consensus, etc) are not backed by any guidelines. --Ezeu 18:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was trying to point out. Thanks. Bigglove 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

10 is ballpark figure, PhD is not: WP:RS, could be BA if recognized scholar. Not some anonymous page, radical student leaflets, blotters, editorials in questionable magazines like the Guardian, the New Yorker or known from fabricating data pseudo-medical paper The Lancet. If unsigned by a notable scholar, it shall not be allowed into Wikipedia, not into this article, which under current title is rightly POVed. greg park avenue 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about the contents of the article, so I am not going to bother refuting your interpretation of WP:RS, except to say that I don't agree with it. And also that this article raises a problem that WP:RS does not really resolve, and that is, how to deal with articles about opinions rather than facts. As for the Guardian, I invite you to go ahead and spearhead a consensus to have it declared an unreliable source for all articles, not just this one. I suspect you may run into some opposition, as a number of articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be left with very little content. 6SJ7 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says we discuss content? It's about the current entry name which in itself is not encyclopedic, because it invites propaganda from questionable sources like the Guardian. And if the other articles related to Israel/Palestine conflict depend on the "Guardian", they are probably even more infested by POV than this one. God save the Queen! And I won't cry if these articles would be left without content after removing the "Guardian" references, because it means they're worthless and not suitable for Wikipedia. See, I'm not taking sides, and that's why I'm not afraid of opposition, but I took your word for it. Can't follow any article related to Israel and the Middle East. Just leave me a message on my talk page if you find major holes in an article related to this one and you decide to go for it. I come to rescue. It's not the question of notability here - every kid knows there is a conflict; it's the question of NPOV and RS (reliable sources). greg park avenue 20:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Nagle. These endless move requests are now simply disruption. PalestineRemembered 19:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I believe the title is more POV than the current title, as it implies more strongly that there is such a thing as "Israeli apartheid." Wikipedia:Naming conflict says: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." This proposal does not meet that standard. 6SJ7 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The word allegation is vital and the only thing that gives the article some credibility, a title that instead implies that "Israeli apartheid" is some sort of well established phenomenon would be simply be anti-Israel prejudice and hate-mongering having no place on wikipedia. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am tired of these endless anti-Israel accusations. It's like antisemitism was a merchandise marketed for sale. If a state with almost half of its inhabitians having been treated as second class citizens which builds borders inside borders, cannot be compared to apartheid South Africa, than who can? Maybe UK? But they don't treat Scots as second class citizens and don't build wall between England and Scotland, even if Scotland has some autonomy either. greg park avenue 15:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1) there is no debate. It's a bunch of people making different kinds of comparisons to make more or less valid political points, i.e., allegations. Others refute the comparisons as invalid and (at best) misguided. 2) I don't think moving this article will reduce the controversy.--Leifern 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I am not withdrawing this RfM even under pressure. Where is my yesterday's comment anyway? Someone pushed it to another section, a cheap trick. So I give you my reasons again: For starters, this article uses quite a lot of references like newspaper clippings or blogs as sources. StandWithUs is one example. If you have a specific academic sources contradicting the proposed title or content, cite them, instead of complaining and alleging anti-Israel prejudice by me and others, and stop littering this article by adding any possible allegations made by any which source you can only find regardless how ridiculous it sounds - a procedure which may go forever if the current title will stay. Newspaper contradicting a scholarly source loses per WP:RS. Another reason is: many editors from both sides of the fence expressed support for the "debate" version. I am not leaving them in the cold. Period. greg park avenue 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Greg -- I had moved comments that weren't about the RfM to the section below, in a manner that I thought was respectful and transparent. You inserted your comment yesterday there, perhaps not realizing it wasn't under the RfM. Sorry about the confusion. Your comment is below and can be copied back here as you wish. HG | Talk 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, HG. Let's leave it like that. greg park avenue 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Allegations" is much much better than "debate", as "allegations" seems more NPOV. removing that word seems to imply an acceptance of allegations as fact. --Steve, Sm8900 14:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Motion to strike. Double vote! greg park avenue 14:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you have a point. i have revised my answer and crossed out portions of it. does that address it? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do, however, this is not a poll and without giving your reasons, your vote is meaningless or at least it supposed to be treated like that. "As per MPerel" or "As per XXX" won't ride, especially, as they did almost the same thing. greg park avenue 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that point too. i made the change. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No offence taken, but let me explain something. It seemed to me like everybody liked Mr X, so Mr A gave him a vote, Mr B gave him a vote, Mr..., etc, know what I mean? It's like an unanimous voting among party members, the kind of democracy practiced actually in Poland, where all bills introduced by a majority party are voted "yea" by all majority party members without exception, while all bills introduced by minority party are voted automatically "nay" by the same people. Rings a bell? Half of Israel speaks Polish, so they supposed to know, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg park avenue (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

that makes sense. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, now your vote is valid. greg park avenue 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that you get to decide such things. 6SJ7 19:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose another attempt to inflame POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Typical example of completely groundless allegation. That's why allegations don't belong to Wikipedia. Humus sapiens, why are you afraid of scientific debate? For want of contradicting arguments? You can introduce them into debate, you can't do that now. If you want to move this article into "Human rights" department, how you gonna call intifada then, the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT? Makes some sense, huh? greg park avenue 13:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)