Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 30

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.

This article is horrible... this page is an example of "wikipedians" forcefully suppressing opinions that disagree with their own under the pretense of objectivity. Check the page history for numerous rebuttals that don't mesh with the 'party line' on acceptable portrayal of the issues and rebuttals. Instead they opt for people who do not have English as a first language to provide a clumsy perspective...

I've been a Wikipedian for more than two years and this is the first time I encounter a fully protected article. I am shocked. It goes against all Wikipedia is about. Semi protection should suffice. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This was done to halt an edit war and encourage discussion; since the users involved have been registered for some time, semi-protection would not have achieved this. Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy to learn more about how page protection fits in with "all Wikipedia is about." -- SCZenz (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Emmanuelm. I don't see how a full protection is going to solve anything. Once the lock is released the edit war will resume. The only answer I can see is an administrator intervention. We need a non-involved highly-regarded admin to make a final decision regarding the name change, edit war, and everything else that can be decided upon. I don't know if this violates wki protocol, but something dramatic needs to happen. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators don't work that way. They reign in disruptive users, perform tasks that can only be done by trusted users (protection, deletion, etc.), and generally handle cleanup work. The only group that arbitrates or dictates is the

arbcom, and they only handle conduct issues. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops

) 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with A_Man_In_Black. The best admins can do is mediate between the parties.Bless sins (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in engaging in any edit wars. I will refrain for now from editing on the matter which precipitated the protection, but I would request that others weigh in. If I have something to say, I will say it on the talk page.I think the full protection is unnecessary --Tirpse77 (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that calling for admins to fix content is a bad idea. Any given admin can be just as disruptive as any other editor. Ryan Paddy (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's time to remove the protection on this article. I do not see any active disputes. --Tirpse77 (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, with a slight change: "It's time to remove the protection on this article." 6SJ7 (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

ditto. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

am i the only one who thinks the article is lop-sided in terms of political balance?

for example, the following sections include mostly negative feelings towards israel and the analogy: *2 "Apartheid" in political discussion

   * 2.1 Political discourse concerning Israel
   * 2.2 Israel and the United Nations
         o 2.2.1 Other UN-related allegations of Israeli apartheid
   * 2.3 Usage by contemporary political, academic and media figures
   * 2.4 Political commentary on Israel by South Africans
   * 2.5 Political usage among Israelis  

there is very little information that pertains to the opposing opinion within the sections, even though there is overwhelming sourced material in the ref. it is crucial that each section includes both proponents and opponents. repetitive and consecutive arguments give a false impression of legitimacy. not to say there isn't legitimacy, rather, the degree of it. can we gather some editors to remedy this? it would definitely help out with the neutrality tag.

anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article should reflect some of the more positive feelings about apartheid. -Zahd (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You can just shut down an argument stating that theres lack of balance you need to state your case for why its in balanced on the actual page under the heading. Israeli view cause lets face it your a zionist. and btw your lucky its not called Palestinian Holocaust. From a Worried Australian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.197.175 (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In order for it to be considered a Holocaust there would have to be an actual genocide, not the ouster of people who continuously wage an unsuccessful war of conquest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This can be embedded in the article: Mr. Olmert called for changing prejudices, discrimination and intolerance toward Israeli Arabs. Imad marie (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/this-is-like-apartheid-anc-veterans-visit-west-bank-865063.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some useful quotes from the article: "Fatima Hassan, a leading South African human rights lawyer, said: "The issue of separate roads, [different registration] of cars driven by different nationalities, the indignity of producing a permit any time a soldier asks for it, and of waiting in long queues in the boiling sun at checkpoints just to enter your own city, I think is worse than what we experienced during apartheid." She was speaking after the tour, which included a visit to the Holocaust Museum at Yad Vashem and a meeting with Israel's Chief Justice, Dorit Beinisch.

One prominent member of the delegation, who declined to be named, said South Africa had been "much poorer" both during and after apartheid than the Palestinian territories. But he added: "The daily indignity to which the Palestinian population is subjected far outstrips the apartheid regime. And the effectiveness with which the bureaucracy implements the repressive measures far exceed that of the apartheid regime." FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are these "separate roads"? Israeli Arabs register their cars exactly the same as Israeli Jews. Perhaps the section should be entitled "Allegations based on fantasy" since they accord with no known facts. --Redaktor (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

For instance at the Adumim/Az-Zaim crossing at 31°46'59"N 35°15'50"E in the occupied West Bank, between Jerusalem and the illegal settlement of Ma'ale Adumim. There is an article with a photo in Haaretz of the sign at this crossing. The words on the sign translate as "Welcome to the Az-Za'ayyem / Adumim crossing-point. The crossing-point is intended for use by Israelis only. It is prohibited for a non-Israeli person to cross or to be transported across this crossing-point!! “Israeli” – a resident of Israel, whose place of residence is in the region and is an Israeli citizen, or a person who is entitled to immigrate to Israel pursuant to the Law of Return – 1950 as it is applied in Israel, or a person who is not a resident of the region but holds a valid entry permit to Israel.” That is, reading beyond the legalistic verbiage, the crossing point is for Israeli citizens, for Jews, and for tourists to Israel -- and most definitely not for the inhabitants of the area, who have lost their land to the encroaching settlements, the apartheid wall, the roads and the military checkpoints, and who live unbder military occupation. They are neither Israelis, nor Jews, nor tourists. They simply live where they were born and brought up, and are barred from the roads. RolandR (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Here, with clickable coordinates, 31°46′59″N 35°15′50″E / 31.78306°N 35.26389°E / 31.78306; 35.26389. --Soman (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, one road out of hundreds is hardly significant. Second, many Israelis are Arabs, who can use the road. Distinction between nationals and non-nationals cannot be called apartheid. --Redaktor (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, why the reference to the Law of Return? What is the relevance of an immigration law to access to a road? This reference makes it clear that the intention is to permit Jews (not just Israelis) to use this road, while excluding the local population.

That is absurd. To say that it isn't apartheid because some Arabs (israeli citizen) can access it doesn't prove anything. If the road had been built in Israel proper it would still be debateable, but this road is built on the West Bank. The inhabitants of the West Bank are not Israeli citizens. To state that the inhabitants of the West Bank are 'non-nationals' in their own land is the type of behaviour that German authorities applied in wwii Poland. --Soman (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I must have missed the death camps last time I visited there (2005). Let's avoid gratuitous hyperbole, please.

Drmikeh49 (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Once againe Itzse is engaging in tendentious editing and attempting to assert the POV that Israel does not "rule" Gaza. This is becoming like counting angels on a pinhead. Here is what B'Tselem, the leading Israeli human rights organization says about the status of Gaza following the September 2005 removal of Israeli settlers and the withdrawal of occupation forces to the periphery -- the so-called "disengagement":

"In September 2005, Israel completed the "Gaza disengagement plan" that had been approved by the government and the Knesset. The two primary components of the plan were dismantling of the Gaza settlements and moving the settlers to Israeli territory, and removal of all IDF forces from the area. After the plan was completed, Israel issued an order declaring the end of the military government in the Gaza Strip, and claimed that it was no longer responsible for ensuring the proper functioning of life there. However, Israel continued to control the air and sea space, movement between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (also via neighboring countries), the population registry, family unification, and the crossing of goods to and from Gaza . Also, residents of the Gaza Strip rely solely on Israel for its supply of fuel, electricity, and gas. Until 28 June 2006, an independent electric-power station operated in the Gaza Strip, producing about one-half of the electricity needed by the residents in the Strip. The station relied completely on fuel and gas from Israel. On 28 June, Israel bombed the electric-power station. Since then, residents of the Gaza Strip have relied completely on Israel for their electricity."

"The army's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and dismantlement of the settlements resulted in appreciable improvement in the freedom of movement of Palestinians within the Strip, and much land was made available to the Palestinian Authority. Also, the Palestinian Authority was given control over the Rafah crossing, through which residents of the Gaza Strip holding Palestinian identity cards are free to cross to and from Egypt , provided the crossing is open, without Israel 's approval. However, Israel retained the power to compel the Palestinian Authority to close the Rafah crossing. Israel exercised this power following the abduction of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, on 26 June 2006."

"Other than the improvement and benefit mentioned above, the disengagement did not lead to any improvement in the living conditions of the area's residents, and Israel continues to violate their rights by its various acts and omissions."

See B'Tselem summary here

To claim under these circumstances -- which are actually worse now than right after September 2005 -- that Gaza is in any way shape or form free of Israeli rule is tendentious at best, and bordering on bad faith. On these grounds I have reverted the removal of "rule." --Tirpse77 (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me also just make clear with reference to the above that as of now Rafah is closed, and it cannot be reopened without Israeli approval, hence the complete Israeli control of Gaza's periphery. That was not at issue here, but just to clarify. --Tirpse77 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaza's periphery is not fully in Israel's control (see the next section), therefore I edited it to correct this. If you revert my edits again without first engaging in talk; I will report you for edit warring. Itzse (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence in the lead of the article says that it does, which is wrong; therefore I changed it.

I edited based on these facts:

• Under the Oslo Accords, the Gaza Strip was to remain under direct Israeli military control.

• In September 2005, following
  handed over control of the Philadelphi Route to Egypt
  .

• The
  European Union Border Assistance Mission Rafah is responsible for monitoring the Rafah Border Crossing
  to Egypt.

• Egypt, which occupied the Gaza Strip from 1948-1967 controls the southern border between the Gaza strip and the Sinai desert.

So now that Egypt controls its border with Gaza; Israel doesn't control all borders of Gaza and the lead sentence should be corrected accordingly. Itzse (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Itzse, you refuse to acknowledge the reality of today, not what was agreed and violated a million times. You do not even engage with the material I post. You are simply trying to push the Israeli government POV that is it no longer responsible for the 1.5 million souls in Gaza that it is fully responsible for under the Fourth Geneva Convention by virtue of its actual control over almost every aspect of their existence. --Tirpse77 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is inappropriate to this article. The topic of the article is the Israeli apartheid analogy, which has been applied for several decades during which the precise nature of Israeli influence over the Gaza strip has shifted numerous times. Therefore, to attempt to define the exact current nature of Israeli influence over the Gaza strip and then say "this is what all people who use the analogy are referring to" is inaccurate. Such clarifications of the current state of affiars should be made on articles about the Gaza strip, not here. Here, we can just say that the analogy has been applied to "Israeli influence over the Gaza strip" or something similarly open-ended at the start of the lead, and then discuss specifics in relation to each use of the analogy later. Readers will naturally be curious whether the analogy is only considered historically applicable or currently applicable by those who use it, but we should only discuss the current state of affairs if a source using the analogy does so, and then we can cite their opinion on the current state of affairs. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In other words, I think something like Eleland's recent change is appropriate. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Eleland's effort, but the word "relationship" is completely inappropriate. We are talking about a situation that is the longest standing and most brutal military occupation, blockade, etc, and which is being condemned universally as collective punishment, and this article is about whether it resembles the crime of apartheid. The fundamental point is that Israel has a relations of totalistic dominance over the Palestinians. The word "relationship" implies that they are somehow equal and obscures the vast power imbalance that is at the heart of the question of whether or not it is apartheid. It is totally wrong to pander to POV warriors like Itzse in this way. It should be put back the way it was before Itzse's tendentious editing. --Tirpse77 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And I am sorry Ryan Paddy, but to use the word "influence" is as ridiculous and offensive as talking about the White influence on Blacks in South Africa during the years 1948-1994, or the "influence" of White settlers on Native Americans. I could make other analogies you would like even less. --Tirpse77 (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tirpse, your edit: "The State of Israel's military control, power of coercion, blockades, severe restrictions on internal movement, egress and entry, land and road use restrictions, and other measures exercised over the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been likened to a system of apartheid" are your own words for which I don't think you have a source. I am removing it as unsourced material, and if you would like to put it back, you will need to supply a source for it. Wikipedia is not a place where someone writes their own views. You can write your own views on your user page without sources and use any adjective you like; but what you edit in Wikipedia's articles need to be sourced.

I am giving you a fair warning to stop calling me a POV pusher or a tendentious editor. Here in Wikipedia you are obligated to remain

Itzse, I do try to assume good faith, whereas you on the other hand say this on your talk page: "I do believe that most people who are Anti-Israel are also Anti-Semitic and the burden of proof is on them to prove otherwise; until then, they remain suspicious. I will assume good faith to the best of my ability, until my suspicions are either gone or confirmed." In other words, you assume that all of us here who introduce criticism of Israel are guilty of anti-Semitism." I also find it frankly repulsive and racist that you hold "Arabs" collectively responsible for murdering Jews or of "aiding and abetting" the murder of Jews. This is not an attitude that inspires good faith in others. So you sit here as judge and jury on the intentions, motivations and even the souls of others. That is not the appropriate attitude for Wikipedia. It is also as RolandR pointed out deeply offensive to imply that the State of Israel, which commits horrible crimes against Palestinians, represents the "Jewish people." Let me be clear that Jews are not collectively guilty of Israel's crimes. That Israel does not represent all Jews, and they should never be targeted or held responsible for its atrocities just because they are Jews. Yes, it is true that Israel misuses the symbols of the Jewish faith to maintain colonies on other people's land, just like some Muslims abuse their religion. But targeting ALL Jews or Muslims and holding them collectively guilty is unacceptable. --Tirpse77 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with "the Jewish people"? We are talking about Israel's relationship with/treatment of/control over the Palestinians in the occupied territories, not that of "the Jews". It really doesn't help to conflate the two. Nor is it necessary or helpful to suggest that those who disagree with you "hate Jews". For what it's worth, "some of my best friends are Jews", including my parents, my wife, my children, and the face I see in the mirror every morning. You speak of assuming good faith, yet appear to take it for granted that anyone who does not support Israel's policies is motivated by racist hatred; are you not aware of the contradiction in your comments? RolandR (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not what I said, and it's disgusting to suggest that I did. Read again what I wrote and you will have your answers; and if you still don't, then read it once again. I'm sick and tired of playing this game; you know what I meant, and if not, no amount of explaining will help. Sorry, but he is the one who said that I was POV pushing, so I would expect you to talk to him, not to me. I'm not holding my breath. As

Barry Gray would say: GO AWAY! Itzse (talk

) 20:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't know what you meant; please explain it in simple terms understandable to one of my deficient intellect. I have never heard of Bary Gray, so this does not work as an appeal to authority. And I have no intention of going away, the incivility of your response is disgraceful. RolandR (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I find your above comments uncivil. If you don't want to go away, so fine STAY, you have my permission to stay. Ask an intelligent and educated friend to explain to you in simple terms what Barry Gray MEANT. While at it, he might explain to you what I meant. Itzse (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Paddy is correct that "to attempt to define the exact current nature of Israeli influence over the Gaza strip and then say "this is what all people who use the analogy are referring to" is inaccurate. Such clarifications of the current state of affairs should be made on articles about the Gaza strip, not here. Here, we can just say that the analogy has been applied to "Israeli influence over the Gaza strip" or something similarly open-ended at the start of the lead, and then discuss specifics in relation to each use of the analogy later." You have added a bunch of specifics which comes straight from your own pen, not from sources. Wikipedia's articles are not made for your opinions, but what

I prefer "relationship to" rather than "treatment of" because the point of the sentence is to say that it has been likened to a system of apartheid. Apartheid is a relationship of power, rather than a "treatment of" a group. Either way though, what we don't need is a long description of various aspects of the occupation. We're talking here about the first sentence of the article. It's supposed to give a very high-level overview, rather than go into detail. And the introduction is overlong anyway. <eleland/talkedits> 18:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you and will change it to reflect what you just said. Thank you. Itzse (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The intro needs to reflect that there is an extreme power imbalance which is the context for likening Israel's totalitarian rule over Palestinians inside Israel, the West Banka and the Gaza Strip to apartheid. I have changed the wording to more accurately reflect Eleland's suggestion. --Tirpse77 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tirpse; here you go again, reverting my edit which happened to be Eleland's edit before engaging in talk. I don't understand; if you thought that you were justified in reverting my edit, then why when you noticed that it's Eleland's edit, you reverted yourself. Are my edits automatically bad and Elelands good? Also why have you dropped your argument? If you believe "treatment" is correct and it warrants a vandalous reversion, then I would expect you to stick with it even if Eleland thinks otherwise?

As I'm sure you know that there is a difference between the word "many" and the word "some", as they don't necessarily mean the same thing; look it up in the dictionary. Therefore I find using the word "many" as making it seem as if most of the world considers Israel an Apartheid State. I don't know that to be true. If you do, then make your arguments and we'll take a census on this. Please do not unitarily change it to your liking without getting consensus for it. Can I ask you for once to be

civil? Itzse (talk

) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Itzse you are being a little bit disingenuous: you come in and make radical changes in order to push your POV, and then complain when people revert or change them because they did not engage in talk. Did you engage in talk before you made your recent change reigniting debate over the lead? No, you did not. And then when people do engage in talk, you ignore any facts that don't support your POV. So its a little bit like the pot and the kettle. Also, I have not dropped my argument. I am trying to seek a consensus that allows us to describe the reality of Israel's totalitarian control of Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip in a way that pro-Israel POV pushers cannot keep tendentiously challenging. --Tirpse77 (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tirpse for assuming good faith. I have stated my agenda over and over many times and I will state it again, that my agenda is that the Israeli POV should also be presented. I do NOT have a problem with the anti-Israeli POV being presented alongside the Israeli POV without any

It is disingenuous for you to equate my fully explained edits with your unexplained reversions. I go into painstaking detail to explain my edits. Also my edits are only geared to make the article neutral while your edits push a POV. Take for example you changing "some" to "many"; why did you do that? So tell me and everyone else; do I have to ask first before writing the word "some", or do YOU need to ask first before reverting to the word "many", which besides not being true, you don't have even a source for that. Again, for making an article neutral you will not either need to ask first, especially if you explain what you are doing, which I always do before editing; on the talk page or at least give a clear edit summary. Itzse (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I add extensive explanations of my reversions of your tendentious editing to the talk page, and all my substantive contributions to this article and many others are backed by RS. But I have learned that you simply ignore facts that do not fit your pro-Israel POV so it becomes an effort with diminishing returns to explain things for your benefit especially when you believe me -- by your own admission to be anti-Semitic (since I have not received a certificate of good conduct from you yet and I am not sure I will) So given that you assume my bad faith, why should I bother? It is self-evident that "many" people make the comparison to any who reads the article -- which is too long because we have too many sources making the comparison. If only you followed your own high standards in providing backing for your tendentious pro-Israel and -- by your own admission -- sectarian pro-Jewish editing. In any case, you reverted "many" to "some" and I did not challenge that. It's not because I think its not "many" but because I do not think it is a big enough deal. Those who read the article will see how broad is the view that Israel practices apartheid, so I am prepared to let it go. --Tirpse77 (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Where have I called you anti-Semitic? I take it from you not answering me, that you cannot state that you are interested in a neutral Wikipedia. Itzse (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's stick to the subject. I acknowledge that my suggestion of "influence over" does not characterise the situation well. I disagree with Eleland's statement that 'Apartheid is a relationship of power, rather than a "treatment of" a group.' I think "treatment of" is a much more appropriate phrasing. In discussing apartheid South Africa it would be entirely appropriate to talk of the government's "treatment of" black people. Regardless of whether you think Israel has imposed a state of apartheid on the Palestinian people, it is accurate to discuss their "treatment of" them, as Israel is clearly in a position of power over the Palestinians. "Relationship with" is too vague and doesn't adequately reflect the power dynamic. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive suggestion Ryan Paddy. I think this moves us closer. I could live with "treatment of" given that it appears later in the sentence with respect to apartheid South Africa's "treatment of" blacks. In the specific context where it appears twice in the sentence I think it is reasonable and I would accept it. So the sentence would read "The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been likened by some to a system of apartheid, analogous to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during South Africa's apartheid era." I guess on reflection I would also like to formally suggest that we change "some" to "many" to accurately reflect both the number and prominence of those making the comparison. I feel that "some" makes the comparison seem much more marginal than the sources demonstrate that it is. If not "many" then some other formula that reflects that the issue is a prominent one in virtually all discussions of Israel's rule over Palestinians throughout historic Palestine. --Tirpse77 (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the "South Africa's treatment of non-whites" wording, that's a good point. It's clearly good use of language to say "A's treatment of B has been likened to C's treatment of D". "Treatment" is the most succinct way of describing how a group in a position of power, and using that power, relates to a group that they have power over. However, I disagree with the change of "some" to "many". Some is fine. There's no way to demonstrate whether this line of argument is as commonplace as you say, and it always pays to be conservative in making such claims on Wikipedia. It's unarguable that "some" have used the analogy, but the argument over whether "many" have would long and fruitless. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Ryan Paddy. I think what you say is straightforward and fair, and complies with all rules of Wikipedia. Itzse (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will change to "treatment of". Eleland, if you still have issues with that wording feel free to revert it and we can discuss further here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

eh, im glad to see the israeli bashing lefties like eleland and tirpse are hard at work once again at poisoning the jewish/israeli image into nazi-esque portrait. im not here to argue though, as ive learned recently that fights on the internet rarely end well. but, it's good to know some people like itze wont stand for wikipedia-sanctioned propaganda and slander. most reasonable people wouldnt even touch this article, as its guardians are zealots beyond reason, but itze not only meets, but exceeds the ordinary ethical wikipedian. i will no longer edit this article since i accept and appreciate my biases, opinions, and views, but clearly others believe their perspective of the world is neutral enough and thus impose their beliefs into this article. but alas, im not here to argue. :D good luck, itze, tirsp, eleland, ryan, and everyone else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So I'm a unreasonable poisonous Israel-basher who stands for propaganda and slander... and you wish me luck? Well, I'm not sure how to take that.

i wish you good luck in the sense that i hope someday you'll come to terms with your unreasoned hate and dislike of Israel and Jews. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway on point, I'm fine with "relationship with" or "treatment of." The important thing is not to put a big laundry list into the first sentence. That's just bad writing practice - you start with a very very broad thesis statement in the first sentence, give a brief overview in the introduction, and then move to specifics. I think the introduction has improved markedly and is currently about as good as one could expect it to get. It gives more or less equal time to opponents and proponents of the analogy and touches on their central arguments.

Let's move on to another debated aspect of the article, then. <eleland/talkedits> 03:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all that Eleland. I've been trying to summarise the argument against the analogy in the lede, and I think the balance achieved now in the lede is adequate. I think the next step is to address the two article tags: too long and unbalanced. At 100K+ there's no denying that the article is too long. Balance is a more difficult thing to estimate, but I think that once we trim the article down to a more readable size it will become easier to get a sense of its overall balance. Those who argue that there isn't balance are concerned that the arguments for the analogy are overrepresented compared with the arguments against, which could be addressed by mostly compacting (but not removing) the arguments for. Many of them are over-wordy, with an unneccessary level of detailed example or exposition that the reader can find for themselves in the sources. We should just be concisely paraphrasing the sources. I think the editors who locate sources supporting the analogy need to curb their enthusiasm in the length of what they write: long text is not more convincing, because it doesn't get read. In any case, it's making the article

In the lede there is a clear distinction made between the application of the analogy to the situation within the State of Israel, versus within the occupied territories. Should we break the top-level section "Analogy between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa" into two sections to reflect arguments for and against the analogy in these two contexts separately? Or is there too much cross-over in the discussion? Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be separated, as the arguments (and the material situations) really are quite dissimilar. For example, the issue of JNF land ownership within Israel doesn't have much to do with the issue of settler-only bypass routes versus endless checkpoints and detours for Palestinians in the territories. There is also East Jerusalem, which is occupied territory but is administered as national territory, and whose Palestinian residents are treated as permanent residents rather than citizens or foreign subjects. Maybe we need three sections, one for each? Also, the current order is perplexing, as it begins with ancillary issues like marriage rights.

Let me just throw out a rough sketch of the type of structure I'd prefer. Each of these sections would be one or two paragraphs in length.

1.0 Lede

2.0 Historical roots

2.1 Pre-state Zionism and the Palestinian Arabs

This would briefly touch on the dilemma faced by the prestate Zionists: how to have a Jewish State in an area with a non-Jewish majority? The possibility of adopting "the way of South Africa" was briefly mulled over, but rejected in favour of the "transfer principle." (Morris, Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948, in Rogan & Shlaim The War for Palestine, 2001.) Following the civil war and the flight or expulsion of most of the Palestinian Arabs in what became Israel, the remaining Palestinian Arabs were granted Israeli citizenship and eventually martial law was lifted.

2.2 1967 war, subsequent occupation and settler movement

Summary of how after 1967 Israel again finds itself in the position of ruling a large Arab minority; also the rise of the settler movement

2.3 Oslo era and disengagement plans

Summary of the conflict in the 1990s and 2000s, focus on the adoption of geographical separation (esp. the wall.)

3.0 As applied to the West Bank and Gaza

3.1 Parallel legal regimes

3.2 Separate roads and infrastructure

3.3 Pass system

3.4 Separation barrier

3.5 "Bantustan" model

3.6 East Jerusalem

4.0 As applied within Israel

4.1 Land ownership

4.2 Family law

4.3 Citizenship in a Jewish State

5.0 Criticisms and counterexamples

(N.B. that criticism and counterexamples need to exist in every section where they apply; this area would be for general, broad-stroke criticisms that apply to many or all of the previous sections)

5.1 No petty apartheid within Israel

5.2 Security, not racism, motivates separation

5.3 Double standards applied to Israel

5.4 Appropriate to occupied territories, but not within Israel

6.0 Impact of the analogy on political discourse

I'm not sure exactly how we'll write this section, or even if there are enough sources to do it at all. But I don't want this to be just a long list of instances where somebody mentioned apartheid in relation to Israel; it needs to be written based on sources that are actually about the impact of the apartheid analogy on political discourse. The discussion over the Jimmy Carter book's subtitle "Peace not Apartheid" would be a good place to start.

7.0 Activism related to the analogy

This would cover such things as the "Israeli apartheid week" demonstrations, the UK boycott campaign, and petitions and joint statements like the one at Stanford.

This is just a rough sketch of course, but we need to start somewhere. <eleland/talkedits> 01:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

From my readings of the scholarly sources, I did not get the impression that the distinction betw the State and the territories is a driving factor in their outlines. So, I'm not sure that the distinction of 3.x and 4.x is covered by the sources. Of the best quality sources, which make this distinction and which don't? Are they consistent with subtopics in each? Likewise, which sources discuss the analogy and 5.4? Otherwise, the outline may have merit, but it should not go beyond (with

original research) the exposition in good quality sources, which are pretty scarce. Thanks. HG | Talk

02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to say I disagree with your reading there, HG. Many sources explicitly separate the situations of citizens ("Arab Israelis") and Palestinians in the occupied territories. See for example this IMEU background briefing on the apartheid comparison which goes into detail about the different situations on either side of the Green Line. Joseph Lelyveld in the NY Review of Books writes that "Two uses of 'apartheid' are in play when attempts are made to attach the word to Israel: the Durban usage, citing Israel as an 'apartheid state'; and, more commonly, the application of the term to the occupation in the territories[.]" Many other sources don't even discuss the idea of apartheid within Israel proper, or only mention it to dismiss it, while they take accusations of apartheid in the territories much more seriously. Carter for example says that "I've tried to make it clear that this [Peace not Apartheid] refers to Palestine. It doesn't refer to anything in Israel, which is a wonderful democracy with freedom guaranteed." Conversely, "pro-Israel" advocacy sites often refute the idea of apartheid within Israel while ignoring the more serious parallels of apartheid and the occupation. So I think there are definitely adequate grounds in the sources for taking the territories and Israel proper as separate issues.

Let me propose a condition for the section headings: Each one should be supported by at least three reliable sources which clearly and unambiguously discuss it in an "apartheid" context. And I am willing to define "reliable source" there rather more stringently than usual; newspaper editorials, for example, aren't really appropriate for this purpose. I'm confident that the outline I've suggested will easily pass this condition. <eleland/talkedits> 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, since my concern w/#3-#4 is that we rely on solid sourcing and not our own interpretations, then I do think your suggestion is responsive and strikes me as procedurally reasonable. You might try working on each of the subunits (e.g., family law) first, to demonstrate that each applies only to the state or the territories, and then injecting the headings (3.0 and 4.0) will be less controversial and reflected in the text. (I also had concerns about #2, as overly general, as discussed below. This really should be kept a minimum -- not only due to sourcing, but also to stick to the main topic.) Thanks. HG | Talk 02:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, it sounds like significant portions of your outline would be original research, where the "apartheid analogy" is concerned. They might fit better in an article about Israeli/Palestinian relations, but this isn't that article. This is an article about the "apartheid analogy". 6SJ7 (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7, I definitely understand and agree with the point that excessive general discussion of the conflict is inappropriate in this article. However, it is not possible to discuss the apartheid analogy without discussing the specific actions and policies that are cited as apartheid-style practices. All of the subheadings I've proposed can be supported with multiple reliable sources discussing them specifically in the context of apartheid-like practices. I haven't included anything because I personally think that it resembles apartheid, but only because it's discussed in the sources as apartheid, so I don't see any problem of original research. <eleland/talkedits> 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That structure would be more readable than what we have currently, and looks like it follows from the sources. We have several quotes discussing distinctions between the situation within the State of Israel and in the occupied territories. The historical breakdown is a good idea, as we have sources making points about different stages in Israeli history in relation to apartheid, and a chronology is helpful for readers. We have sources making points about different aspects of the situation that may resemble apartheid, like roads and marriage and so on, so the subtopics make sense too. It's definitely an improvement on the current structure, which is somewhat hard to follow. The subtopic "Citizenship in a Jewish State" should just be "Citizenship", as it will not survive in its current form. There may be some other tweaks required, but they can be made once it's in place. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I just created a "Counterarguments" top-level section, which - I noticed afterwards - fits in with your proposed section "5.0 Criticisms and counterexamples". Your outline is good, and I think the article should gradually move towards it. A couple of suggestions: (a) I dont know if this article needs a section on "Historical Roots" .. there are already several other articles that deal with the history of Palestine and Israel ... it should be sufficient to just have a couple of sentences in this article that refers the reader to the historical articles. (b) the division of issues into Israel vs. OT is attractive, but could be difficult since some issues cross over. I dont have a solution for that dilemma, certainly what you are proposing is attractive ... Im just concerned that "the grass is greener on the other side" and after such a change, some downsides will appear. --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

HG: I would renamed some of the sections etc, and integrate the criticisms more tightly than what you suggest. Also be on the look out for OR/SYNTH. Other than that, I think you provide the best model that I have seen so far. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this has been debated at length previously however I wish to raise the point that from an outside point of view "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is a highly confusing title (not as bad as the previous "allegations of..." but still fairly illogical). I do not wish to be offensive here but it certainly is not an accessible title. A person with little knowledge of the situation who wants to know about Israeli policies that have been alleged to be similar to South African apartheid will put in "Apartheid in Israel" not "Israel and... analogy". Rightly or wrongly people will put in the simplest form of the title "Apartheid in Israel"; this is not an endorsement of the claims of apartheid but simply logic. I think this article should be named Apartheid in Israel for the simple reason that that is the subject we are discussing: the policies that have been likened to apartheid (rather than the analogy itself which this article is clearly not focused on). Naming this article as Apartheid in Israel with a clear statement in the lead paragraph that this is alleged would clear up a lot of confusion. This just looks like

Is nobody going to explain this? --AreaControl (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi AreaControl. The archives contain much useful (and not) info about concerns with various article names. (Also, I think it's fair to say that "Apartheid in Israeli" as a title presupposes that one side of a debate is correct.) From what I understand, naming is not based on how people might search, rightly or wrongly, for a subject. In any case,

Apartheid in Israel serves as a redirect to the current title. We could say much more, but is this helpful? Thanks. HG | Talk

00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Searchers will find the article, there are several pages leading here. "Apartheid in Israel" sounds too much like a statement of fact for those who object to the usage. Personally I didn't mind the "Allegations" title, but good cases were made that the usage is more often in the form of an analogy than a description. I preferred "Israeli apartheid analogy" to the present title, but consensus could not be reached on that more concise title at the time. Having said that, I think now would be a good time in this article's evolution to look away from the title and focus on making the article more concise and more appropriately structured, as outlined above. Those seem like more immediate concerns than the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. My concerns were purely about the accessibility of the page and now that I am assured that those searching "Israeli apartheid" and various other wordings will still find this page I am happy. AreaControl (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag (dated June 2008) because this Talk page did not contain a list of specific POV problems that need to be fixed.

Im not suggesting that the article is perfect, but if someone wants to insert a POV tag, they should add a section here in the Talk pages giving specific examples of the POV problems, and include a couple of examples of how they think those POV problems could be remedied. --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose to shrink the size of this article by reducing the verbosity in the "uses of Arp. analogy" subsections. The guidelines I would follow are:

1. Do not remove any citations
2. Do not remove any sources (people or organizations that mentioned Arp. Analogy)
3. Do remove lengthy quotes if it can be found in the cited document / link
4. Do remove excessive or redundant verbiage /commentary inserted by editors.

In other words, my proposal is to have the text be something like:

"... Person X used the apartheid analogy in 2003 in document Y [cite document Y here] when person X was addressing the United Nations".

or

"Notable person A wrote a commentary in newspaper B in 1999 [Cite article here] in which A used the arp anaology".

I wont start this for a few days, to give anyone an opportunity to comment here on this proposal. --Noleander (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. Where possible, if you're removing a quote can you insert it into the citation so that it appears in the footnotes? That way it's still possible to access it on the page but won't affect page size. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If we were to edit the page in an ordinary encyclopedic fashion, I'd say that we don't need an exhaustive list of everybody who used the analogy, it's sufficient to mention the main illustrative cases (e.g., by type of person or type of comment). I also think the quality of the analysis, pro or con, would be more suitable for informing readers. Cheers and thanks for explaining your approach calmly and in a neutral manner. HG | Talk 00:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point about eliminating repetitive or duplicate "uses of A. Analogy" ... for each "class" of usage, 1 or 2 representative examples would be best. However, I suggest that in the short term, we retain all current mentions in the article for two reasons: (1) This is a very controversial article, and it is better to take things in baby steps: first tighten-up the wording, and then - after the dust has settled - return and eliminate duplications; (2) As one who has spent many tedious hours researching citations, I am very reluctant to eliminate any on-point citation. Perhaps a good long-term goal is to have one or 2 representative "uses" immediately followed by additional (if they exist) uses but these additional uses would simply be referenced citations (rather than full-blown text). --Noleander (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the end goal is to have statements that make the arguments in broader terms, followed by a set of citations that either support the general argument or provide specific examples. For example, a statement like "fruit contain vitamins" could be followed by a set of citations from articles that say exactly that, as well as articles that clearly support it with more specific examples such as "apples contain vitamins". So long as the citations include footnoted quotes from the sources to make their relevance clear (so that they don't get eliminated later for lack of relevance to the statement), there is no harm in stacking a number of citations against a single statement in the article. That way we get the readable broad-stroke arguments in the article, but no on-topic sources need to be eliminated to get there. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. --Noleander (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a paper encyclopedia, and the need to shorten the article is less pressing than the need to ensure the topic, which needless to say is controversial, is exhaustively discussed. Now, I suggested I think something like a year ago, that we move extensive quotes to an appropriate page in WikiQuote. I mean, that's the whole purpose of Wikiquote. This simple, common sense solution greatly increases the encyclopedic value of this article, builds the web, and contributes to an underrated sister project. The page is at q:Israel and the apartheid analogy. I created one a long time ago but it was deleted.--Cerejota (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

I have to agree with Canadian Monkey on this one since Tel Aviv and Jaffa were merged into a single municipality in 1950, two years after the establishment of the State of Israel. This is not intended to say I support CM's version as I haven't even read it, but if there's a clear error in the other version, then the problem should be fixed rather than having a fairly clear error repeatedly reinserted back into the article. Basically, I'm suggesting you iron it out on the talk-page rather than edit warring. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article cited refers to "the twin city of Jaffa"; you may think the article is mistaken, but the source is quoted accurately. In any case, the official name of the conurbation is Tel Aviv-Yafo, so if you are concerned that the text misrepresents the relationship between the twin cities you should make sure to use the correct name (as indeed Jaakobou does in the heading to this section). CM is certainly wrong to write in his edit summary that "Jaffa is a part of TA",

The article is about a family from East Jerusalem who "have the legal right to travel anywhere in Israel", so it is a further misrepresentation of this source to summarise it as referring to "Palestinians who do not have valid travel permits". RolandR (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jaffa is in-fact part of Tel-Aviv, Roland. If you review the Tel Aviv article, you'll notice that Tel Aviv is an extremely common abbreviation for the full name - and with good reason. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No comment regarding the rest of the content (not in the mood to review it, to be honest). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I made what is hopefully an improved representation of Jaffa, based on both your comments. Also, it property seizure may merit criticism but it seems like a side effect of the beach policy cited. Sorry if my editing is inadequate. HG | Talk 03:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not hearing further objections (and please w/my own work!) I'm marking this thread as resolved. Thanks to you both. HG | Talk 07:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article has worsened severely since it was restructured. Here are a few overall concerns:

1. The first section with the table "Examples of apartheid-like policies and conditions in Israel and O.T." strikes me as quite one-sided. First, these are "allegations" not "examples." Second, the table has blanket generalizations (or accusations) that lack nuance and do not reflect countervailing views. Third, it's not clear that each row is backed up by a sufficient set of notable sources on a consistent basis (i.e., rows not sufficiently comparable to all deserve placement in table). Which are politically-motivated allegations and which have at least some scholarly backing?
2. The second section is organized by "notable sources." But notable sources is insider Wikipedia jargon; it looks like this whole section exists merely to prove the notability of the topic. In the previous structuring, the section was based on political discourse (vs. more scholarly analysis, though perhaps by non-mainstream scholars).
3. The third section gives the counter-arguments. Shouldn't it have its own table, too? Well, really, the counter-arguments should be presented with the allegations (Section 1) in a balanced point-vs-point way, as near as possibly within each subtopic. Added: The table should list alleged similarities as well as (alleged?) differences. HG | Talk 04:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Until these problems are resolved, I strongly recommend a POV tag and a fuller discussion of how to structure the article in a more encyclopedic manner.

I realize that editors made an attempt to float the new structuring idea and, certainly, I do not mean here to disparage anyone's work and effort on the article. Nevertheless, I don't think this structure has gotten or deserves broad and representative support. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing but did not want to take that step. Your comment persuaded me though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I never would have thought to add that table, but it does present the comparison to apartheid in a succinct and clear manner that is desirable. Perhaps that section needs a more neutral title, and a third column with sourced rebuttals of each comparison point? The "notable sources" section could be renamed, but it does seem a succinct way of grouping all discussion of the subject. If the first section was called something like "Summary of arguments and counter-arguments" and had counter-arguments in the table, then there wouldn't be need for another table at the bottom. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being responsive to my concerns with the table. I also value succinct, but so far I'm not seeing how it can be down other than at the expense of a neutral and balanced presentation. Maybe you or others could illustrate (or discuss here) how this might be done. Cheers, HG | Talk 23:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By having a third column in the table with sourced counter-arguments to each point. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I get the format. I'm asking, how do you formulate a succinct response, say, to this allegation: "Many Palestinians evicted from original homes and became refugees" (from the table). It's not just a matter of stating the opposite, but rather providing readers with both the factual

knowledge

and the opposing view's interpretation on this matter. We have a whole article on this topic, trying to reflect several analytical approaches.

In addition, and I'm sorry if this isn't clear from my remarks above, the table should reflect both points of similarity as well as dissimilarities. For instance, unless I'm mistaken, SA apartheid denied certain political and civil rights that are not denied by Israel. Should these differences be in the Table?

Please do not construe my comments as taking sides, I am merely trying to articulate the need for balance. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to incorporate rebuttals/counterarguments into each of the ten or so sections at the top (that describe the allegations). On the other hand, most of the existing counterarguments (in the bottom section) are not specific to any one allegation. For example, "S.A aparth was based on race, Isr aparth is basede on security" applies to many of the allegations, so from that standpoint, maybe it is better to leave the Counterarguments co-located at the bottom?

I dont think a 3rd "Counterargument" column should be added to the table because (1) it would make the table too unweildy for web browsers; and (2) the table is simply a brief summary of the article (in fact, perhaps it should be placed in the Introduction paragraph?). The table certainly should not be deleted: for instance, it is the only place in the article where the key aspects of South African apartheid are summarized, which is essential for _this_ article. --Noleander (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't happen to agree w/Noleander, so let me try to offer 3 (hopefully) constructive responses:

• First, are you saying its needed to summarize South African apartheid? Yes, here I would agree that a concise summary of South Africa apartheid would be very helpful for giving the reader some context, not a mere link. However, I believe a prose summary might suffice.
• Second, if you are suggesting that the article needs to summarize the allegations (but you didn't say this exactly), then I would respectfully disagree. A summary might be ok -- but it could also run the risk of
  original synthesis
  since there is no consensus among the alleging parties, and I doubt any party has made all the allegations listed in the table. (Indeed, this may be another problem with the table itself, come to think of it!)
• Third, we seem to disagree about whether it's adequate to put the counterarguments at the bottom. There are at least two WP policy issues at stake: We want a
  undue weight
  . Let's keep in mind that the counter-arguments, in general (perhaps exceptions on specific subtopics?), reflect the mainstream view that the allegations are only allegations; most scholarly and other discourse on Israel does not describe Israel as apartheid. Accordingly, if we are to lump together all the subtopics addressed by each side, it may well be preferable to summarize the mainstream view before the allegations. Of course, I'd prefer to do a side-by-side (in a Table) or point-counterpoint by specific subtopic, i.e., as the article was previously structured.

Thanks for your consideration. Take care, HG | Talk 17:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your points. Yes, certainly this article needs balancing counterarguments. However, I dont see the logic in your "side by side" argument. This article is about the allegations (as crazy as some may be). By its very nature, the primary focus of this article is to describe the allegations themselves, so naturally that information comes first and foremost. Allegations by Pres Carter and N. Chomsky are not fringe. To make the reverse argument: should the Israel article contain 50% information about apartheid and alleged discrimination against Palestinians? Of course not, because that article is primarily about Israel, and any allegations of discrimination would be "at the bottom" of that article. The same is true here: this article's primary purpose is to enumerate and document the allegations, not to argue for or against them. This article is a list, not an essay or polemic. Balancing information is appropriate in this article, but should not detract from the primary thrust. "Mainstream vs. fringe" may apply when discussing the "flat earth theory", but does not apply when the purpose of the article is to document statements by notable people. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Just to clarify: I'm not asserting that the allegations are a

"NPOV says

that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.")

I agree that the article should not be an essay or polemic. I disagree with your claim that "this article is a list." For our readers, it is our responsibility to properly contextualize info, like the allegations, so I wouldn't think that the mainstream view should be unduly subordinated. Anyway, I'd be curious to hear input from other editors. Thanks, HG | Talk 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is a reasonable POV concern, and warrants a section NPOV tag. Your second point doesn't seem like it's a POV concern, just a title issue. You third point is only an issue because of the table section, which is tagged. Overall, the NPOV aspects of the points you raise are all centered on the table section, which is the new content in the article. Another editor commenting below also had issues with that new section. That's why I think the NPOV tag is best placed there. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You missed my main point. As I say at the outset, "the article has worsened severely since it was restructured." The entire structure of the article is problematic from a neutrality standpoint, not only the 1st section. The second section is arranged by sources/authors -- but encyclopedic articles should be arranged by subtopic. The UN, academics, etc, should not be given discrete sections but rather their views should be explained in each subtopic as appropriate, eg land, housing, education, etc. This goes far beyond the section title, which emblematizes the neutrality problem. Likewise, the third section should not exist that way, but rather the views dispersed by subtopic, e.g. land, etc. For people who merely use the term for general political rhetoric, we can have a separate section (per prior consensus on this Talk page). Please, Ryan, I would really appreciate it if would you stop telling me that my concerns about neutrality are only for the first section. Please restore the NPOV template. HG | Talk 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just realised that the recent restructuring you're referring to did introduce the final "counterarguments" section, which I'd previously thought was an older change. So I need to ask some more questions to get a handle on your point. The NPOV concern you've expressed here is not with the content of the article as such, it's with the order and manner in which it's presented, is that correct? You think that it should be presented in a point-counterpoint manner, and sectioned by topic rather than type of adherent? Can you refer me to some sort of policy or guideline indicating that point-counterpoint is the preferred approach for achieving NPOV in articles of this sort? This is an issue that I've seen arise in a number of articles, and there seems to be strong division of opinions on the subject and whether it's a NPOV issue. I personally don't have a strong opinion on it in terms of the body of the article. In the lede, I strongly believe that presenting the argument in one block followed by the opposition in one block (as we presently do) is far more readable than interspersing arguments, but I don't think it's a NPOV issue, just style. In the body of the article the order of presentation is certainly a question of style again, but I don't know which style is better and I'm not convinced it's a NPOV issue and would like to see some policy or guidelines on the subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, sounds like communication is improving. Article

structure is central to our neutrality policy. Yes, I suppose my concerns are more about how the content is presented, rather than content details, but please don't reduce this to merely a stylistic matter alone. WP:NPOV -- "Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral. Examples that may warrant attention include: ... "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself; .. Other structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints." I hope this persuades you that the presentation structure is an NPOV issue. Thanks for listening and helping me listen. HG | Talk

23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I gather from

WP:STRUCTURE that point-counterpoint versus sectioning is a somewhat debated issue in terms of NPOV. See footnote 6: "There are varying views on whether and to what extent ['pro and con' sections within articles] are appropriate." That matches my experience with this debate in other articles. I think we're going to have to move forward with our own interpretations of how to apply that guideline to this article. As I said, I don't have a position on point-counterpoint versus sectioning. Noleander's stated position above is that the analogy is the subject of the article so should come first, followed by criticisms. I read that as a style argument, not a NPOV argument. So right now the debate over structural NPOV is coming from you. What I need to know now is what the precise basis of your NPOV concern for this specific article is. Why should arguments and counterarguments be presented side-by-side for NPOV? Is it that you don't like the counterarguments being left to last, because it de-emphasises them? Or because you feel that each argument should be addressed individually, for the benefit of readers who might only read a couple of sections of this long article and should get a balanced view from each section? Those are points of view I have some sympathy for. However, it needs to be noted that even prior to restructuring there wasn't much point-counterpoint going on in the "examples" sections, because not many refutations of specific examples of apartheid seem to have been sourced as yet. If refutation sources for specific examples can't be found, do you agree that presenting just the arguments that the examples are apartheid without refutation is sufficiently neutral for Wikipedia? Overall I see the NPOV argument as arguable but would like to move to a structure that editors will not perceive as POV. I'm more interesting in fixing the article than tagging it. Ryan Paddy (talk

) 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To avoid repeating the reasoning, please see my explanation above. The mainstream view would be best as the context from which the allegations are then described, w/"refutations" (etc) made, if any. (Often mainstream discourses ignore such minority views.) Yes, the mainstream view should not be de-emphasized and, yes, readers need to get a balance on each policy subtopic, esp because many subtopics are complex and we don't want to repeat context-explanations in segregated "views" sections. We also need to avoid

WP:SYNTH, as above. Also, see my concerns w/the Table and section 2, which is structured by speaker rather than by policy issue. Hope this is sufficient. HG | Talk

01:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. "Balance on each policy subtopic" I can agree with the reasoning behind, but note my previous point that subtopics for which we don't have sourced refutations are not unduely "unbalanced" by the lack of them. Synth is not an issue with the current content as I see it. As for "the mainstream view would be best as the context from which the allegations are then described", what do you mean by that? Are you proposing that the article explains the lack of Israeli apartheid before explaining the apartheid analogy? That would be odd in an article about the analogy. The context is more properly the unfortunate political situation that has led to the allegations. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User "Canadian Monkey" removed the section on military-service-exception, saying in his/her comment "Not relevant to aparthied". However, the source of that section was an article (by an Israeli) entitled "Our Apartheid State" and the author uses the military-exemption in support of his apartheid allegation. So, although some may find the relationship tenuous, the fact that the author made it is what we need to base editorial decisions upon. --Noleander (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it becuase it is not relevant to allegations of Apartheid, and because it does not make the claim you make. You stated "an exception is made for ultra-orthodox Jews, which is alleged to be discriminatory against Palestinians " - but such a claim is nowhere to be found in the article. Instead, the article says " Arab Knesset members, who justifiably protested the terrible discrimination against them, voted in favor of the Tal Law, which allows discrimination among Jews. " - please read more carefully in the future. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify please? The article is entitled "Our Apartheid State" and it is about 3 "racist, discriminatory decisions" one of which is " the legislation known as the Tal Law – ". I dont understand your point ... clearly the author of the article saying that that law regarding exemption from military service (due to religious status) is apartheid in nature, no? --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The cited article is about decisions which the author finds discriminatory, or even racist, but not all 3 are relevant to this Wikipedia article's topic. The first line of this article tells you what it is about (my emphasis added): "The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been likened by some to a system of apartheid". A discriminatory practice between Orthodx Jews and non-Orthodox Jews is not relevant to the State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians . I know you tried to get around this obvious problem by alleging that the author says it is "discriminatory against Palestinians", but that is not correct - the author makes no such claim. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry Im so dense, but I cannot understand what you are saying. The _title_ of the cited article is "Our Apartheid State", and it contains 3 examples of discrimination. Are you saying that the examples are NOT being used by the author to support his allegation that Israel is apartheid? --Noleander (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

... oh, I see: you are focusing on a line at the start of this article that defines the scope of the article. Would it help if we adjusted that initial line to include the kind of apar. analogy in the cited article? Clearly, the intention of this article is to include all uses of the analogy. --Noleander (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the intro again, and that 1st line you refer to is not defining the scope of this article: it is just stating some background info. Later lines in the intro make it clear (well, maybe not too clear :-) that the purpose of the article is to document uses of the apar. analogy. Perhaps the intro should be clarified? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I am focusing on what this article is about: allegations that Israel's treatment of Palestinians is analagous in some ways to South African Apartheid. This article is not about general compliants about discrimination in Israel - e.g between Orthdox and non-Orthodx Jews, between Ashkenzi jews and Mizrahi jews, between men and women etc... You may have mistaken this articel for Complaints about Israeli Society, but I assure you, it is not. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think you are straining against common sense when you suggest an article entitled "Our Aparthied State" should not be cited in this article. --Noleander (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this article is clearly the use of "apartheid" to describe any actions or inactions of Israel. The scope is not limited to Israeli treatment of Palestinians. It also compares treatment of Arabs citizens of Israel treatment of other Israeli citizens, including ultra-orthodox Jews. The source under debate here is clearly about whether Israeli actions can be compared to apartheid, it's in its title of the source. So there is obviously no justification for removing text from that source on that grounds that it's not about aparthied, when the author of the source clearly thought it was. The author's opinion is what matters and what is being cited. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So far, this looks like an outlier, a single op-ed piece appying apartheid rhetoric to laws re: Orthodox Jews. I'd advise against adding that subtopic to the article until there's most substantive sourcing. Of course, the section on Arab purchase of JNF land is relevant, if it offers new information. Thanks. Please give them some additional thought. HG | Talk 22:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid it is not an "outlier". The key assertion (by this Israeli) is that Israel - as a Jewish State - has many laws that single-out a particular religion (unlike many democracies). Many people use these religion-specific laws to claim that Israel is discriminatory for/against one religion; hence it is like South African apartheid. To justify this usage of the analogy, it is sensible to produce a list of laws that treat Jews different from non-Jews. Any article or op-ed piece that produces such a list is a notable source for this particular allegation of apartheid-ness. This article _did_ produce a list of laws, and is clearly pertinent to this article. Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there other reliable sources that draw an analogy betw laws concerning Orthodox Jews and "apartheid" (with 'apartheid' in the text)? Really, I'd be interested to read them. HG | Talk 00:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the only source for that specific apartheid-allegation is http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3429070,00.html. This source _is_ a former Israeli cabinet minister, so I think one is enough in this situation, true? --Noleander (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, doesn't strike me as sufficient. Israel has all sorts of politicos who say the darndest things. Seems like a rhetorical ploy, though I am sure he is deeply aggrieved at the policy, and not at the level/meaning as the overall thrust of the allegations in our article. If this usage catches on, then we'd have to figure out where to put it, but now it seems pretty far afield. At one point, we had a kind of trivia or miscellany section (was David Duke in it?) and, if we restore that, maybe this outlier could go there, too. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Applying your criterion to other items in this article, what is your opinion of the following items in the "Counterarguments" section:

• In an op-ed for the Jerusalem Post, Gerald Steinberg, Professor of Political Studies at Bar Ilan University, argued .....
• Benjamin Pogrund, author and member of the Israeli delegation to the United Nations World Conference against Racism, has argued that petty apartheid does not exist within Israel:[190][dead link]
• French activist Jean-Christophe Rufin, in a report prepared for French Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin, mooted the idea of amending the Gayssot Law, which criminalizes Holocaust denial, to forbid allegations of Israeli apartheid ....

Are these all "outliers" that should be deleted from the article? That is a rhetorical question. Israel apologists would keep those in the article, of course, based on some convoluted logic. My point is: this is not a paper encyclopedia: if a former Israeli cabinet member uses the apartheid analogy in a unique way, it deserves mention. If we insist on deleting that mention, we also need to delete the other "outliers" in the Counterargments section. Including apologitic "outliers" but excluding critical "outliers" is POV. --Noleander (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Really, it needn't be a rhetorical question. Many aspects of the article deserve a thoughtful and unbiased review. We need to assume that any objections are

made in good faith, but the logic for placement in the article should be justifiable on policy and editorial grounds. Anyway, when I said outlier -- I mean also that the subtopic is odd. The examples you gave all fit within the article's focus on allegations of anti-Palestinian policies, right? But the Tal Law comes out of left field, if you catch my drift. Thanks for discussing this here. HG | Talk

03:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how is this for a compromise: We create a new section that captures the essence of Yossi's criticisms (namely that there are quite a few Israeli laws that discriminate on the basis of religion, and therefore are - in his opinion - similar to S.A. apartheid); and we give it a section title and textual wording that is more neutral. Can you propose a section title and wording that would capture that essence and be acceptable to apologists? --Noleander (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to help you/us think about a new section. In return, I'd like to suggest that we pursue some mechanism on the Talk page to elicit opinions from other (and uninvolved) editors. For title, I guess Yossi is making a second order analogy, an analogy based on the (anti-Palestinian) apartheid analogy. So many "Spin-off Analogies" or something to that effect. Or, for the content, "Use of the analogy for policies Jewish religious practice" or the like. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Noleander: If I'm reading the history correctly, you've just reverted and restored the very edit we are discussing. Please don't go in that direction. You have 2 editors questioning the edit. Pls do not try to settle the disagreement by revert. I've suggested we use some kind of

agree - this is extremely bad form. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I disgree. Noleanders recent edits are clearly an attempt to find a compromise phrasing. Not all edits have to be talked to death here, editors can be bold and try to find phrasing that will meet consensus by direct editing. Also, I think the "outlier" argument is far-fetched. The military service discussion appears to be undisputedly factual and orginate from a reliable source worthy of mention. As relevant content it deserves a mention, if not necessarily a whole section to itself. If the concern is undue weight being given to it, then it should be shortened and not given its own section. But relevant content from a reliable source should not be removed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is not an outlier, can you please point us to the other source who have claimed that the exemption that some ultra-orthodox jews get is a case of "Apartheid"? Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement for multiple sources for a minor point. One reliable source is enough. This is clearly a reliable source for this minor point. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. If you don't mind, pls look over the thread above. It's not that we need a reliable source for a minor point, it's that -- in my view -- this would be an entirely new usage and subtopic for this longstanding article, and we'd like to see a better indication that this new usage is relevant. (Yes, you've stated above that it's relevant, but what else backs up the claim?) So, we're not talking about how to rephrase via direct editing, but whether it's in or out. Noleander, by putting it in, has basically put those who disagree into the position of having to revert. As you know, editing by revert is frowned upon and so it is better to proceed by talking -- which we had been doing until then. Thank you. HG | Talk 23:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This subject has been in the article since I first started editing it several months ago (and probably longer), it doesn't originate just now with Noleander. He's just blocking it's removal by Canadian Monkey - you could say that CM put him in the position of "having to revert", although I think such arguments about editing approach are pointless. Noleander is engaging in talk, he's taking the points in talk into account in his edits, that's the recommended approach. I have read the thread above, and can't see a good argument for this subject's removal by Canadian Monkey. The subject is a minor point, but one made in a reliable source in direct and uncontravertable relation to the "Israeli apartheid" comparison. Whether you or I think it's relevant to the apartheid analogy doesn't matter, the author of the source clearly states they do. If the article was to dedicate a lot of space to the subject, I agree it would need further sources to demonstrate its weight. But as it is, the subject is given appropriately small weighting. I would agree with it not having its own section, if a better place could be found for it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to respond. So far, the author who says that it is pertains to apartheid is a lone voice, arguably a

fringe view. That's why we're asking for other authors/sources, so we can establish that this is considered a "significant minority" view (in WP parlance). I mean, really, you hit the nail on the head at the end of your remarks. If it doesn't get it's own section (and the only source in it), there what "better place could be found for it?" It doesn't fit in any other section. Thanks for your keeping this conversation substantive. Take care, HG | Talk

00:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The concept that there is a kind of apartheid involved in ultra-orthodox Jews being except from compulsory military service is hardly fringe, and neither is the source, an ex-Knesset memeber. It's a straightforward argument that being "more Jewish" in Israel gives you greater rights, included the right to not serve in the military. The argument is that there is a sliding scale of rights based on ethnicity/religion, with the "most Jewish" having the greatest rights, secular Jews being in the middle, and Arab citizens of Israel having the least. See similar sentiments expressed here: http://www.newstatesman.com/200407120015 Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan -- thanks for the link. However, this article only uses the word 'apartheid' once: "The settlements dispute is at the heart of the battle over the country's future. If Israel clings to the territories, it will slip into an apartheid-like reality in which a Jewish minority of 235,000 rules over an Arab majority." This sentence uses apartheid only in relation to Arabs, it doesn't use apartheid in relation to the military exemption.

If the analogy of apartheid and the military exemption is not fringe, then it will appear in a variety of reliable sources. In WP policy, [[WP|FRINGE}} isn't based on the office held by the speaker (e.g ex-Knesset) but rather on the role of the issue within reliable sources = the discourse on the topic. (And I'm not disputing the "straightforward" logic of the analogy, one way or another, because it's not

our research analysis but rather needs to come from non-Wiki sources.) Thanks. HG | Talk

16:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance at the article tells me that the problem is in the first line "The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been likened by some to a system of apartheid, analogous to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during South Africa's apartheid era". I'm not sure how long it's been there, but it's wrong - the "apartheid analogy" doesn't refer to only one class of divisions and different citizenships. Classic South African apartheid had numerous categories (with non-citizens included as one) and many of those who use "apartheid" in relation to Israel intend the analogy to apply to the whole range too. PR^talk 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

PR, per the thread above, if you claim is correct about the right vs wrong way to make the analogy, then have you found a reliable source that considers Orthodox vs non-Ortho Jews as two different "apartheid" divisions? Thanks. HG | Talk 16:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Even a

Hi. Well, perhaps I'm mistaken, but you may be on thin ice here. What precedents or policies support the idea that a fringe theory floated by one person, in one source, warrants a single line in an article? A main motivation for the fringe policy is to keep such fringe views from be injecting into articles. Anyway, our conversation is important because we are building collaborative relationships, not because of this single edit. It's a pleasure bearing the weight of our WP responsibilities with you, Ryan, I'll try to pick it up again later. Ciao, HG | Talk 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting rather selectively from

WP:UNDUE. Canadian Monkey (talk

) 03:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That argument applies to why this subject shouldn't be covered in a more widely scoped article, such as "Israel". However, minority views are appropriate "in articles devoted to those views", as you've just quoted. This article is devoted to the use of "apartheid" about Israel. We are presently discussing one such usage. Within the narrow focus of this article, that one promonent usage in a reliable source is suitably notable for inclusion, whereas it certainly wouldn't be in a wider-scoped article, and it probably wouldn't be if we couldn't name a prominent adherent of the view. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this basic Wikipedia policy applies to every article. This article is about the use of the Apartheid analogy to describe Israel's treatment of Palestinians. The fringe view (held by, apparently, a single person) that Israel's treatment of Ultra-Orthodox Jews is also apartheid may, according the what I quoted above , be included in an article about that view (i.e: the view that discrimination favoring Orthodox Jews is apartheid) - but not here, per the very clear and explicit policy which I've quoted to you - and which is a repeated 3 times to make it absolutely clear that fringe views don't belong in Wikipedia. Either provide multiple sources for this, which show that it is not a tiny minority (e.g: the opinion of one man) or out it goes, per

WP:UNDUE. Canadian Monkey (talk

) 22:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I do agree with CM on the basic meaning of the policy. I don't feel that you've quoted selectively from UNDUE above, though, it's just that your quote concerns "significant viewpoints" and this Orthodox treatment issue does not qualify as "significant" (with the meaning of the policy) so far. Thanks to both for your patience in talking this thru. HG | Talk 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this article is not apartheid as it applies to Palestinians. It is "Israel and the apartheid analogy" or "Israeli apartheid", depending on what title we have at the time. The apartheid in question is discrimination based on "Jewishness" (just as South Africa's was based on "whiteness"), that's clear from the sources. For example, Uri Davis wrote in 1987 that apartheid in Israel was based on "an official value system of Zionism". The subject we're discussing is an example of suggested apartheid in Israel, hence clearly in the scope of the article. Further, it is clearly an example of apartheid founded in discrimination based on "Jewishness", which is clearly in line with the ideology suggested by authors like Uri Davis as the underpinning of "Israeli apartheid". Because the subject in question is in scope for this article, and because it has been put forward by a prominent author, it warrants at least a sentence in the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this article is "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy". Within this scope, there are 2 dominant opinions (I don't know which one is more prevalent) - one is "Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the OT is like South African Apartheid (and here are examples)", and the other is "Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the OT is not at all like Apartheid (and here are the reasons)". Both these opinions should (and do) dominate the article.

There is also a minority opinion, that Israel's treatment of its own Arab citizens is like Apartheid. This minority view is has a number of notable proponents, so it is described as such in the article, and the proponents are named, and the view is given an appropriate limited mention.

Then there is the

WP:UNDUE, does not belong in Wikipedia, not even with a single sentence, unless you can demonstrate that it is held by more than a tiny minority. Canadian Monkey (talk

) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, we've fleshed out these issues pretty well. Assuming there is still disagreement, the next step would be to post a balanced and nicely worded
  canvass it, of course.) To show our cooperativeness, perhaps you could both work on drafting the request, describing the disputed edit, source, and reasoning on both sides. That's my suggestion of how to proceed. Thanks. HG | Talk
  23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've strated the RfC. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey: You removed an apartheid-analogy allegation that there is segregation in the Occupied Territories. Are you saying that there is no such allegation? I think there are dozens of sources that say there is. Can you clarify? --Noleander (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that the particular sentence I removed was unsourced. If there are sourced allegations, feel free to add them, with the appropriate sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing your recent edits, I realize I should have been more explicit. By "appropriate sources" I mean

reliable source. Canadian Monkey (talk

) 20:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is unique, because it is documenting the usage of a new analogy around the world. This article is not about, say, the chemistry of hemoglobin, where "reliable" means "a peer reviewed journal". This article is documenting the emergence of the usage of a idea. If the idea starts appearing on the web, in blogs, in newspapers, then _those_ citations are appropriate in this article to document the spread of the idea. No? --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to chime in here. No, the usual policy on

reliable sources remains in effect. We are not doing original research, harvesting a meme from blogs etc., but rather we would rely on reliable secondary sources. Do they cover this topic as an emerging new idea? If so, then we would cite those sources. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk

21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If Carter uses the word "Apartheid" in the title of a book (but does not _analyze_ the emergence of the analogy) is that citable in this article? Of course. Hence mere _use_ of the term makes the source appropriate for this article. I would agree that blogs are below the threshold of use for this article. But what about Electronic Infitada? What about Al Jazeera? What about CNN? What about an op-ed piece in NY Times? If they use the term in their reporting, is that citable? Of course. --Noleander (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Noleander. I'm curious about why you have the idea that mere use of the term makes it appropriate here. This seems similar to your idea, above, that the article is a list (e.g., a list of meme usage). Certainly, the NYT is a reliable source and we can use NYT articles about the allegations. But a passing or trivial mention of the allegations (or any topic), even in a reliable source, isn't helpful for writing encyclopedia articles about the topic. Perhaps you'd be interested in the WikiQuote idea floated by Cerejota above, where various uses of the meme can be collected. For articles, we

wouldn't indiscriminately list random uses of the meme -- we compose a coherent description of the topic. I hope this is useful in sorting out our objective here. Thanks. HG | Talk

22:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You raise excellent points. Rather than talk in generalities, let's look at specifics. Consider the allegation "Israel is like apartheid South Africa, because it segregates (in the O.T.) jewish settlements from Palestinians (via the wall, barricades, checkpoints, etc)". User "Canadian Monkey" is saying this assertion cannot be inserted unless supported by citation. I added a cite to Electronic Infitada, and he/she said that was not a "reliable" source. So the question here is: If key critics of Israel are using the analogy on their web sites, is that a valid source for this article? Or can this article only include citations to hardbound books? Or is a notable web site sufficient? Many palestinian organizations dont have access to mainstream publishers, and instead rely on the web as their primary outlet. Are they disenfranchised from this article? How should we handle the gradual evolution of publishing from paper to the web? Are you saying that the allegation of segregation in the O.T. is "passing and trivial"? --Noleander (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. On passing and trivial mentions, I simply mean that the article doesn't strive to be a collection of every single comparison of Israel/OT with apartheid. Yes, we should let on case-by-case basis which RS comparisons are worthy, either to add info or source existing info in the article. It's good that you bring up a specific edit. (And below, same?) I didn't see it in the article history. If you don't mind, can you give us

a diff? Thanks, HG | Talk

00:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here is the diff from when the allegation "Segregation in the OT is apartheid-like" was inserted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy&diff=234642117&oldid=234640535 --Noleander (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please add a link to the edit in question? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence at issue is under Segregation section: "Critics of Israel identify segregation in support of their use of the apartheid analogy.[70][71]". --Noleander (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. (cont. from above) Thanks for the diff. I see two concerns. First, and probably most important, the two websites cited do not seem to be reliable sources. I think CM noted this, above. Secondly, the two websites themselves might not qualify as significant enough "critics of Israel" to be worth mentioning in Wikipedia. The zionismexplained piece doesn't have a named author (aka critic). Is the author of Electronic Intifada worth mentioning? I don't know but would suggest it be discussed here on Talk. Many other people cited in the article are known figures, often w/various official roles. Thanks, hope this is helpful. HG | Talk 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for a reality check: Are you contending that segregation in the OT is not similar to South Afr. apartheid? If the only problem is the reputation of the sources, tag it with a "citation" tag or similar and we can work on it. --Noleander (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to point you to

WP:V

, and specifically this part:

As Jimmy Wales has put it:

I'm not saying the claim you keep inserting is false, or that it can't be sourced to reliable sources. I'm saying it was orginally unsourced, and now sourced to 2 websites that do not meet

WP:RS. Please source it properly, or remove it. Canadian Monkey (talk

) 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not making a personal assessment of Israeli policy, one way or another. But I do have decent skills at reading sources, so it helps to see a source. Especially here, a highly contentious article, we need to proceed slowly and there's less flexibility for leaving in unsourced claims, I'm afraid. Anyway, what kind of "segregation" do you expect to find in more reputable sources? Segregation in housing or public accommodations or schools? Right now the section only deals with beaches, so it's a pretty odd section. If I'm not mistaken, apartheid means separateness means segregation, so the term itself doesn't add much unless it is narrowed down. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 03:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Useful sources that support this claim would be John B. Quigley's, The Case for Palestine, page 150 available here and page 13 of Israel:Challenges to Identity, Democracy and the State available here which is most explicit about this: "Other writers have used the concept to argue that Israel developed along a similar trajectory to Apartheid South Africa, with the Zionism-Apartheid analogy becoming a highly controversial part of international diplomacy in the 1970s and 1980s. Such analysis has been based on consideration of imposed ethnic segregation within Israel, the political and economic subordination of Israeli Arabs to their Jewish counterparts, the racist ideological and legal justifications for such segregation adn subordination, and the regional imperialistic tendencies of the two states." These two sources are reliable and scholarly enough to support the statement above and can be used without difficulty to replace the two that HG and Canadian Monkey find to be inadequate. 82.102.241.49 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Both those sources look like they can be used. So we need to figure out, what do the sources support? The first seems to use "segregation" in terms of land use, where the article has an existing section. Hence the 1st source could be used to contribute there. The second source uses "segregation" in the general sense, insofar as "segregation" denotes "apartheid." I'm still having trouble understanding how such general statements about segregation merit a distinct section, rather than serve to supplement the overall sourcing of the analogy. How is segregation different than other sections or the overall article?

Doesn't the second source cited directly support the sentence in question? i.e. "Critics of Israel identify segregation in support of their use of the apartheid analogy." The source says quite explicitly that those who used the Zionism-Apartheid analogy in the 1970s and 1980s based their analysis on a "consideration of imposed ethnic segregation within Israel...." As far as I can understand from the disucssion above, both HG and Canadian Monkey were challenging the reliability of the sources cited. Well, now here is one which speaks exactly to what the sentence says. Or have I misunderstood the locus of this dispute? Tiamut^talk 20:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say the source can be used in the article. But where? It mentions "ethnic segregation" which is the same as (synonymous with) the general "apartheid" claim. So the source can supplement the article's info on overall discourse. It doesn't add anything specific enough for a segregated separate subsection. See what I mean? Thanks~ HG | Talk 01:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not make the "Segregation" section a discussion of the term and its relationship to the charge of apartheid both in general terms and then citing specific examples? We can begin using the source suggested above (i.e. Israel:Challenges to Identity...) which also provides some historical background for the use of the Zionism-apartheid charge in the 1970s and 1980s, discuss ethnic segregation, include some of the examples elsewhere int he article such as the differential notes on identity cards (i.e. the presence of a Hebrew claendar date for Jews and its absence for non-Jews, even in Israel). I do not see why the discussion should artificially be limited to segregation within the Occupied Territories when some critics who claim apartheid in Israel insist it applies even within Israel itself. Tiamut^talk 11:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We might see a bit of improvement if we could replace 'has been likened by some' with something less awkward. I've put in 'some compare,' but better yet might be 'Carter and others compare,' with the existing citations. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is already easy to read, so I've reverted your change. Apologies for any offense, but your change made the wording less clear. There is absolutely no need to pin the usage down to a particular author such as Carter, the use of the analogy is spread across a number of sources and has no "origin" or central usage that needs to be characterised. The article goes on to lay out many specific authors who use the term, so "some" is not a weasel usage in this context. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me an awkward construction in the passive voice, obscuring who says so. And the sentence is only cited to President Carter. Also, though the first edit you reverted [1] did mention Carter, my second [2], which you also reverted, did not. That's because I read your edit summary and tried to address your concerns in a spirit of collaboration and compromise. Editing by revert is probably not the best way to approach the matter, especially about stylistic improvements, and I hope you'll not make it a habit. It might give the impression someone owns the article, and a new user might find that discouraging. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your first change because it didn't need to mention Carter, and your second because the wording was worse. "Who says so" is made clear in the remainder of the article, because it's a diverse group of people it's hard to summarise them in the first sentence. We could load the first sentence up with many references beside Carter of people who use the analogy, but what would the point be? Your second wording seemed inelegant to me, starting an encyclopedia article with "Some compare..." seemed like poor phrasing. It doesn't make it any more clear who makes the comparison, and there is no need for it to do so because that is described below, both in the lede and the article proper. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

THis article is extremely problematic, not only becuase of its considerable bias toward pro-Palestinians, but becuase many of the allegations against Israel have been taken out of context, and are relatively false. Here's an example:

and uses this reference to back it up, which deals with Palestinian refugees of the

• There was never a country called 'Palestine'. Up until 1948, 'Palestinians' did not consider themslves 'Palestinian' as a nationality. For the sake of the argument, there already is a 'Palestinian' country, its called
  Holocaust
  survivors.

• The questions arise surrounding the legality of such an act. Firstly, one could argue (according to the Un Resolution 181 as well as the 1949 Armistice Agreements) that the Palestinians were illegaly encroaching on Jewish land, and as an independent entity, Israel had every right (As all independent States do) to evict illegal immigrants.

• The majority of Palestinians gave over and left their homes for Jordan, without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

• The issue of taking land: Bearing in mind my first few arguments, the land that Israel 'forcibly took' belonged to the Jewish people and not to 'Palestine'. Even if one argues that the land belonged to 'Palestine', after the
  6 day war
  .)

This article must be placed up for deletion, because it serves as an outlet for Anti-Zionst and Anti-Semitic Prejudices, as well as to misinform the general public. Until this issue has been sorted, i've placed this article up for {Npov}. Cheers! --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has been listed in Articles for Deletion eight times (see list at top of this page). It remains on Wikipedia because of the undeniable

WP:NPOV. Wikipedia's policy is for all sides of arguments that have been expressed in reliable sources to be presented. A reliable source voices the opinion of illegal land seizure. If you have reliable sources denying this allegation, then they should certainly be presented as well. That's how neutral point of view is reached, by presenting all sides. Not by deleting one side because you disagree with it. I'm going to remove the article NPOV tag. But I will leave it on the section that has been previously objected to because it only presents one side. That section also contains the sentence you have objected to. Ryan Paddy (talk

) 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ryan, please restore the NPOV tag you removed. As you'll see in the above "Neutrality concerns" section, I've listed a series of POV concerns and that section has not been resolved. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 02:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand the purpose of placing misleading opinions and arguments in what is meant to be a factual encyclopedia? How does the source for the statement in question make it any more credible? The website that contains the source that backs up the statement in question does not specialize in the Israel-Arab conflict. It is in fact an "Environment and Planning" website. Using this reference as a source is ludicrous, because it just means that anyone can take anything published on the net as 'fact' regardless of the verifabity and veracity associated with it and use it as a reference in articles. I suggest someone looks into this matter further, and at least, if unable to delete the entire dection, remove that particular statement. Cheers --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 10:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of neutrally representing all sides of an argument, while citing reliable sources of that argument, is to allow readers to reach their own conclusions. In some subjects, it is clear that expert opinion lies strongly in a particular direction (although I believe the relevant Wikipedia policies do not refer to such strong trends in expert opinion as establishing "fact", because absolute certainty is never possible). In political articles like this, there is often a strong degree of disagreement over both the state of reality and how it should be interpreted. The purpose of representing all sides fairly is that if someone wants to know more about a political conviction such as the one described in this article, they can research it here, along with the counterarguments. It's presence is not a statement of support for the conviction from Wikipedia. As you point out, all references should be checked to ensure that they are

WP:R for how that's defined. Ryan Paddy (talk

) 19:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

HG, my reading of your NPOV concerns in the section several above is that they primarily originate from the new section with the table of allegations. I still agree that concern is valid, and still think it can be balanced in the manner I previously suggested. That section is marked with a NPOV tag, which seems the approriate level of scope to mark it at. The danger of marking the whole article because of your issues with particular section(s) is that later, when those specific issues are resolved, it will be difficult to remove the whole article tag because some editors misuse the tag as a means to protest the existence of this article. We should continue to discuss your specific concerns in the section where you raised them, to keep the discussion together, and see if we can find solutions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My concerns clearly refer to all 3 major sections of the article and "a fuller discussion of how to structure the article in a more encyclopedic manner." Placement of a tag should not be based on worries about future misuse, esp because we

assume good faith

collaboration here. Please replace the article tag at you earlier possible convenience.

fyi --

WP:TAGGING: "Adding and removing tags without discussion is not helpful, and can be seen as disruptive. Where there is disagreement, both sides should attempt to discuss the situation rather than play whack-a-mole. ... In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." HG | Talk

19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My basis for editing is current misuse of the tag against the whole article. Concern for future misuse based on

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a side-issue, it's just my observation that current misuse can drag into future misuse. My position is not to remove the tag, but to place it against the section under contention. See my response in the talk section where your NPOV concerns were raised. Ryan Paddy (talk

) 20:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The section that comment has been requested for is

Yossi Paritzky, former Israeli cabinet minister and Minister of National Infrastructure and Energy under Ariel Sharon. The reliability of the source, a political op-ed piece by a former Israel cabinet member, is not debated. My position is that the prominence of this adherent warrants at least a small mention of his statement in this article, which is a niche article specifically devoted to statements of this sort. Ryan Paddy (talk

) 19:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this article is "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy". Within this scope, there are 2 dominant opinions (I don't know which one is more prevalent) - one is "Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the OT is like South African Apartheid (and here are examples)", and the other is "Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the OT is not at all like Apartheid (and here are the reasons)". Both these opinions should (and do) dominate the article.

There is also a minority opinion, that Israel's treatment of its own Arab citizens is like Apartheid. This minority view is has a number of notable proponents, so it is described as such in the article, and the proponents are named, and the view is given an appropriate limited mention.

Then there is the

WP:FRINGE, does not belong in Wikipedia, not even with a single sentence, unless it can demonstrated that it is held by more than a tiny minority. Canadian Monkey (talk

) 22:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Some well-known ideas don't get a huge amount of RS attention because nobody's very excited about any "problems" caused. This gripe is not "surprising" or very contentious, it's just there (and the discrimination itself is very well known indeed). The strongly expressed views (service of the Orthodos mentioned first in a "in a series of three decisions that are separate but connected through a stench of racism and discrimination") of an Israeli ex-cabinet minister, expressed in a main stream media source, can hardly fail to be notable. PR^talk 17:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is a well-known position, it should be easy to name numerous notable supporters of it. Who are they? Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC is designed to get the views of people otherwise not involved on the TalkPage. The whole purpose of the exercise is ruined if proponents use it to weigh in yet again. Everyone knows your position, I added mine. PR^talk 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And I am asking for a calrification of your position, namely, who are the numerous notable supporters of the theory that the treatment of Ultra-Orthodox Jews is "Apartheid"? You claim this is a "well known posiotn", so they should be easy to name. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• leave UO Jews reference out. This article implies violent racial segregation (thus the Apartheid comparison); it is unlikely that UO Jews are at risk for the kind of physical violence that Africans suffered under Apartheid or that some Palestinians and Arabs claim to experience in Israel. calling the treatment of UO Jews a form of apartheid strikes me as an unserious attempt to co-opt the term for political use, not as a serious description of the situation of UO Jews in israel. --Ludwigs2 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the citation is about Orthodox Jews benefiting from an allegedly apartheid-like situation, not suffering from it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've skimmed through the sources in this article, and some of them are extremely problematic. After receiving an unsatisfactory answer regarding a reference in the

• Ref #1: http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=25&pid=522298&agid=2 This does not allege an apartheid, rather the author speculates the possibility of an apartheid like scenario as a solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict Highly unsuitable to back up this sentence: The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been likened by some to a system of apartheid, analogous to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during South Africa's apartheid era.

• Ref #25: From this website envplan.com - An Environment and Planning Website??? - Quote: The Environment and Planning family of journals are concerned with all aspects of the evolution of space and spatial arrangement, from the environment and nature through planning and policy to theory and design.This source seems highly credible especially when used to back up this statement: "Israel illegally took land from Palestinians"

(Also, many of these sources deal with Arab Citizens of Israel, others deal with Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Seeing as this article states that it only deals exclusively with "Israel's treatment of Palestinians", then all References that deal with Israeli Arabs should not be used, for example this one: Ref #29: http://www.jstor.org/pss/178360?cookieSet=1)

• Ref #41: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713766432~db=all I haven't managed to get a copy of this article (And I doubt it states that the Arab minority in Israel has little political power). I disagree that in proportion to their population that the Arab minority are under-represented. See
  here
  .

Thats enough for now. A more experienced editor should certainly look over all the reference to ensure that they're

Otherwise, seeing as the wikipedia community have been unsuccessful in attempting to delete this article, I suggest that we nominate certain sections for deletion, especially

The first reference is to the whole book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, not just that extract. Did you mean to say that the second reference was not credible? It does appear to be a reliable source, even something of an expert opinion on land law. If you haven't read the third article how can you comment on its contents? Certainly we should be checking that the sources are reliable and suitable, but you're picking on some odd ones. Your characterisation of the deletion process is inaccurate. The numerous times that consensus has determined that this article should not be deleted is a clear demonstration of how appropriate its presence on Wikipedia is. Deletion of sections will depend on WP:consensus for it, just like all other content edits. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The section "Examples of apartheid-like policies and conditions in Israel and O.T." Is grossly inaccurate and biased.

1. Israel's policies are based on SECURITY! 2. Israel did not illegally steal land. Israel became a country the same way America did, by declaring its independence! 3. The Palestinian refugees were told to leave by the Egyptian government, not thrown out by Israelis. 4. The Israeli education system is NOT designed to discriminate, it was segregated to avoid violence. 5. Blacks couldn't BECOME citizens in South Africa! 6. Arabs have equal votes in elections. 7. Segregation in Israel is due to violent outbreaks, South Africa was just to dominate over blacks. 8. Whites tortured black civilians, too.

http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/arabsinisrael/index.htm http://masada2000.org/Apartheid-State.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zib Blooog (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This contribution/section could usefully be deleted - the "masada" web-site given is Kahanist. (Until a short time ago, it was also carrying incitement, perhaps threats, to nuke any nation that traded arms to Arab nations). And the material here is denialist, offensive to other editors. PR^talk 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This article seems really unnecessary. Do we need to start articles about how there are more elected Arabs in Israel than in many Arab nations? How about articles about how Israel is one of those rare democracies open enough to have political parties (with elected officials in the Knesset) whose raison d'etre is to dissolve that nation? Do we need to start articles about how gay Arabs are tortured and murdered in their own countries (including the West Bank & Gaza), yet they can and do live freely in Israel? I don't believe that this article serves a purpose to educate or enlighten, which is what any article in Wikipedia should do. Its purpose is clearly to advance a point of view. I think that those who are trying to use Wikipedia in this manner should have their user ids and articles eliminated. I'm tired of all this sort of stupidity and finger-pointing which does nothing but misinform and support hostility. There are victims and aggressors on both sides. mp2dtw (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the table is an appropriate way of organising the information. None of the "rebuttals" are sourced, and I'm not convinced that the references for the allegations all explicitly make comparisons with their corresponding apartheid conditions. Furthermore, they leave out who is saying what, which I think is essential for neutrality. —Ashley Y 09:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. Even the material that is sourced as separate individual items, has been thrown together in a way that creates an inappropriate original synthesis. The table should be removed. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There is clearly some synthesis with this presentation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Support inclusion - looks good to me. It claims to be well-referenced (any concerns about these cites?).

Entitled Summary of apartheid-like Conditions in Israel and the Occupied Territories and intro Many critics of Israel accuse Israel of practicing Apartheid-like policies, especially within the Occupied Territories. ^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} Some of the issues raised by these critics are summarized in the table below:

PR^talk 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is miles too long. It is overstuffed with repetitive examples. It goes on at such tedious length that only an individual who felt passionately about the subject would read it all. Someone coming for reference purposes would give up and google up a more succint source.Historicist (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Agreed. The language needs to be tightened and the long paragaph quotes turned into short, specific inline quotes. The text can be trimmed a lot without losing any information. Editers adding new information should also make their changes as concise as possible. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Have just gone through the first few sections. On closer inspection, "Marriage law", "Political rights, voting and representation", and "National identification cards" are all well written. It's clear language that steps the reader through the key relevant points in a logical order, and I had trouble identifying ways to make it more concise without losing information or making the explanation less clear. I've cut down "Land and infrastructure" by shortening and paraphrasing quotes, and I imagine there are similar edits that can be made later in the article to condense it. The article is currently about 100k and we should be aiming to bring it under 60k, according to

WP:SIZE. Ryan Paddy (talk

) 21:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The page size is just fine. If you follow

WP:SIZE, it notes that article length should be calculated excluding headers, external links, markup tags, etc...i.e. just the "readable prose". Doing that brings it to roughly 54k. Not saying that it couldn't use a touch-up here and there for readability, but there's no need to do it according to a restriction that it already satisfies. Tarc (talk

) 16:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIZE says that to work out the true article size you should search for it and the size will be displayed. Click the link, this article is 106 KB, and that's without markup etc. Same size is displayed when you edit this article. Ryan Paddy (talk

) 19:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that size reported via search is with markup and everything else with it. Go further down the page there and note this footnote; "To quickly estimate readable prose size, click on the printable version of the page, select all, copy, paste into an edit window, delete remaining items not counted in readable prose, and hit preview to see the page size warning."

When you do that, it comes to less than 60k. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, you're quite right. I misread

WP:SIZE in regards to the different types of article size. When I do the test of readable prose size for this article, I get 53KB and that's with the citation numbers still left in - e.g. "[1]". The article may need some tightening of the wording in places (especially block quotes), as 50KB is at the upper end of the "30 to 50 KB" readable prose size suggested. But it should not have the size tag warning, I was mistaken about that. I'm glad, because many of the sections are well-written but need to be expanded with opposing POV as discussed below. Ryan Paddy (talk

) 22:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)