Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:18, 5 July 2010

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
Article	Israel and the apartheid analogy
Status	Open
Request date	02:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	Ryan Paddy (talk)
Parties involved	User:Bjmullan User:Breein1007 User:Carolmooredc User:Epson291 User:Factomancer User:George User:Harlan_wilkerson User:Jrtayloriv User:Malik_Shabazz User:NickCT User:Plot_Spoiler User:RolandR User:Ryan_Paddy User:Stellarkid User:Unomi User:Wikifan12345 User:ZScarpia
Mediator(s)	Ludwigs2

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Israel and the apartheid analogy

Who is involved?

• User:Bjmullan
• User:Factomancer
• User:Wikifan12345
• User:Plot_Spoiler
• User:Harlan_wilkerson
• User:Ryan_Paddy
• User:Jrtayloriv
• User:Malik_Shabazz
• User:Breein1007
• User:ZScarpia
• User:Epson291
• User:RolandR
• User:NickCT
• User:George
• User:Unomi
• User:Noleander
• User:Stellarkid

What is the dispute?

The dispute is over the naming of the article Israel and the apartheid analogy. An alternative name Israel and apartheid has been suggested. A straw poll indicated 7 for the move, 5 against, and 4 neutral, demonstrating no strong consensus to move or to stay. The question of the title and whether it accurately reflects the contents of the article is raised relatively often on the talk page and there are strongly felt views in either direction, so hopefully mediation may be able to help find a consensus on the subject.

The main argument against Israel and the apartheid analogy is that the some aspects of the content may not be describing an analogy, particularly the content describing allegations that Israel is committing the Crime of Apartheid. The main argument against Israel and apartheid is that this title may be prejudicial, implying that Israel is guilty of apartheid. Another option that has been suggested prior to the renaming discussion is to split the content across two articles, one about the analogy and the other about the accusations.

There has been an on-going dispute with editors who insist that all references to Israel and apartheid are instances of "the apartheid analogy" (which they personally define as neither "apartheid" nor "the crime of apartheid"). They have prevented users from creating other articles on those topics, removed content from existing articles, created POV forks, and prevented editors from including wikilinks to Israel and the apartheid analogy in other Misplaced Pages articles. Those content disputes have been raised repeatedly in talk page discussions and are a matter that should be properly addressed in mediation.

What would you like to change about this?

Editors are in disagreement over whether Israel and apartheid is a prejudicial title, and over whether Israel and the apartheid analogy accurately describes the content of the article. It may be beneficial to have a structured discussion of the key points of disagreement, and a discussion of all possible options in search of one that would find a consensus.

How do you think we can help?

We need help to discuss the issue in a constructive fashion. The discourse described in the article is highly politically charged, and some editors have strong feelings on the subject. Mediation may help the editors to put aside differences to reach for consensus.

An existing ARBCOM remedy states:

1) Editors of articles concerning apartheid are directed to negotiate in good faith appropriate article names using relevant policies and guidelines. If negotiation is unsuccessful, interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter.

• Passed 6 to 0 at 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediator notes

I have been asked privately not to mediate this so contrary to my prior statement I cannot do so. It remains opened for another mediator. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to propose another name for the article, perhaps "Israeli Aparthied Allegations" this is descriptive, and NPOV. Ronk01 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-mediation

per this discussion on the MedCab talk page, I am willing to take over the mediation and see if any headway can be made. This is, of course, assuming that (1) Ronk01 does not want to mediate any longer, and (2) the participants to this mediation approve. Does anyone have any questions or comments? --Ludwigs2 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statements

Please do not edit this secition unless you are, or wish to become a party to this mediation

Comments by George

If I had to pick a "best" title, it would be Allegations of Israeli apartheid. It's a non-prejudicial title that accurately describes that some people claim that Israelis are committing (or have committed) apartheid against Palestinians. The UN defines apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." If someone is accused of committing a crime, and another person compares it to a similar crime, the comparison is largely secondary to the accusation itself. Likewise, while some have made analogies between alleged Israeli apartheid and other instances of apartheid, it's somewhat tangential to the allegation itself. ← George 01:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

George, I know that I am not technically supposed to favor one side, but I completely agree with your proposed title, as, like you said, it is descriptive, but not POV. Ronk01 (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Ryan Paddy

I think we need to look at all the options carefully and methodically. A great many titles have been attempted at different times, and there are numerous arguments for and against them. I don't think that attempting to push through any given title will create a durable success here. We need to have a full discussion that we can point to later and say "we discussed the pros and cons of all options, and we reached a consensus that the option we settled on was the best available", otherwise we'll just be having this same discussion again in 6 months time.

For example, it's notable that Allegations of Israeli apartheid was the title immediately before the current one. Possibly we may reach a consensus that it's better than the current title, but we can't make an abrupt decision to revert to it or we'll end up swimming in circles. There were perfectly valid reasons that we changed away from that title (many of the reliable sources cannot accurately be described as making "allegation" - they are merely drawing a comparison - and some users find "Allegations of X" titles to be unencyclopedic in tone), and those reasons will simply surface again if we don't do a full comparison of the options.

Likewise, there is no value in saying "we shouldn't be discussing this, it's been done to death". That's devoid of reasoning, it's just rhetoric. We need this discussion because this issue keeps festering on the talk page so it needs to be had out in full in a considered manner.

What we need here is some solid reasoning to compare the options. No option is likely to be perfect, they are probably all flawed (or can be perceived to be flawed, which is much the same thing) in one way or another. However, only a detailed comparison will give us a chance to identify the least flawed and most appropriate. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Harlan Wilkerson

The current situation is the result of the improper use of the technique of deconstruction. A few editors have turned the article into an essay about the use of a term and are disrupting the project in order to prevent others from contributing to an objective article that surveys all of the available material concerning the State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people. A number of published sources mentioned in the article explain that the so-called "analogy" to South Africa is a legally irrelevant subject. That's because Israel's policies and practices do not have to be analogous to South African apartheid in order to satisfy all of the necessary legal elements of the crime of apartheid as defined in international law. Including the term "analogy" in combination with the definite article in the title is an example of biased or selective representation of the sources and not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

The question is not "Is Israel the same as South Africa?" It is "do Israel's actions with regard to the Palestinians meet the international definition of apartheid?" The article focuses so much attention on the use of the term "analogy", that authors expressing significant viewpoints are reduced to merely being enumerated in bullet lists as "persons who use the analogy" (whether or not they actually do so). Amazingly, some of the sources cited in the lists mention neither South Africa nor "the analogy". Their actual thoughts on the subject are not discussed at all. There have even been instances where authors were arbitrarily labeled "opponents of the analogy" by Misplaced Pages editors, despite the fact that no published source describes them as such. harlan (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by ZScarpia

My personal view is that the inclusion of words such as allegations and alleged into article and section titles is a pox that should be discouraged in Misplaced Pages. The resulting titles sound very clunky and, rather than allowing the contents to speak for themselves, hint strongly in advance that what is said should be regarded with caution and treated with suspicion (just as if, say, the article was titled Refutations of Israeli Apartheid, it would be implied that it is normal to regard the practice of apartheid-like policies by Israel as an established fact). The words are used to mutilate that which is disliked but cannot be deleted.     ←   ZScarpia   00:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Noleander

I concur with ZScarpia when he/she says that the word "analogy" or "allegation" is confusing and unnecessary. Some sources may use the term "apartheid" (in relation to Israel) as an analogy, some may use it as an accusation, some may use it as a metaphor, some may use it as a statement of fact. The title should not contain the limiting word "analogy" or "allegation", since that prejudices all subsequent content in the article. If some sources do use it as an analogy, that can be explained in the body of the article in the appropriate places. Likewise, I think "crime of apartheid" in the title would be limiting, and would exclude all situations where the source was not contemplating it as a crime. In conclusion, including any qualifying word (such as "allegation", "accusation", "crime" or "analogy") in the title is unnecessary and confusing, and will lead to endless debate - therefore the best title is the simplest one: "Israel and apartheid". --Noleander (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Stellarkid

I agree with no one here and voted for deletion for this article. However since it is here and since the title is being debated, I believe "Accusations of Israeli apartheid" is the best name for this article, since that is all it is. The idea of editors here starting an article which accuses Israel (or any other state for that matter) of "crimes against humanity" when she has not been brought up to any tribunal for such a thing is outrageous. What some editors envision here is bringing in every biased commentator that has any kind of reputation (including merely a reputation for being anti-Israel) to swear that in their opinion Israel is committing crimes against humanity. Supporters of Israel then have the onus on them to find RS that say otherwise. Of course, since Israel has never been accused in a court of law there will not be many international lawyers making a defense for her. Thus, bingo! the anti-Zionists and others on WP have created an article that indicts and convicts Israel in the court of public opinion (that is, anti-Israel propaganda) and in the world's most-read encyclopedia. Just imagine if Israel were an individual accused of murder, and WP put up all sorts of opinions that the individual was guilty. That would simply not be acceptable, nor is this. Stellarkid (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes

Discussion

It sorta surpises me that this subject won't die. We have a number editors on both of this debate who agree that "analogy" is appropriate. I hope those editors will join me in seeking a close to this debate. In my mind what's being covered by this article isn't the opinion that "the current situation in Israel is apartheid" but rather the notable opinion that "the current situation in Israel is like apartheid". In this sense, it's an analogy. NickCT (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But how can we address the concerns raised by Harlan? There seem to be sources which do in fact argue that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid whatever we may personally think of the relative merits of their arguments, can we ensure that whichever title we end up with isn't used to exclude material? Unomi (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I, as mediator would have to say that it would seem logical that that article present the avalible evidence for both sides of the argument, and that the title should reflect the contents of the article, and vice versa, per the MOS. Ronk01 (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@Unomi - Re "There seem to be sources which do in fact argue that Israel is guilty " - Sure. But, to be frank, I'm sure you accept that this idea really hasn't gained wided acceptence among reliable sources. As such, it shouldn't be stated as fact.

@Ronk01 - Agreed. This article is really about a political debate. As such, it should offer notable POVs from both sides of the debate. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the crime of apartheid

I would like to suggest the title Israel and the crime of apartheid, since Israel was charged with that offense and the ICJ cited numerous policies and practices that are, by definition, constituent acts of apartheid. According to WP:YESPOV "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints."

Since there hasn't been much discussion, I'll make a long post outlining the reasons that the analogy is inappropriate. Notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Whatever the so-called "apartheid analogy" is, the comments of NickCT and many other editors indicate that it is not intended to be truly analogous to "the crime of apartheid". See for example . The lede of the article doesn't supply a published definition of the term, although I've specifically requested that a suitable definition be supplied from a reliable published source.

I think it's clear that there is content in the article that is on the subject of "Israel and the crime of apartheid". However, there is also content in the article that is not explicitly about whether a crime is being committed, but rather about whether Israel's actions resemble apartheid or have characteristics of apartheid without reference to international law. International law is not the sole authority regarding apartheid, apartheid is also a subject of general social/historical/political interest. The proposed title Israel and the crime of apartheid would significantly descope the article, requiring another article for the non-international-law discussion. This would be a content fork, which is valid. However, I'm not convinced that a content fork is in the best interests of the article. There would be a lot of redundancy between the articles, and I think readers are best served by an article that addresses the topic of Israel and apartheid as a whole, two parallel articles would be poorer than one well-integrated article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The article will have to explain the difference between "the crime of apartheid" and the Afrikaner term "apartheid", because Israel has been charged with genocide under Article 2 of the convention on apartheid. For example, the written complaint of Lebanon in the Wall case (cited above) cited Article 2 and "the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part." The preamble of the convention explains that certain acts in the genocide convention can also be considered the crime of apartheid. The Arab League Fact Finding Mission report that was turned-over to the ICC Prosecutor cited Israel's failure to prevent incitement to commit genocide. Comments made by IDF and other Rabbis may have led to atrocities during Operation Cast Lead. Here are some other examples:

• Prof Francis Boyle called for the the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine and its President to institute legal proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Palestinian Genocide
• Professors John Docker and Ned Curthoys condemned Operation Cast Lead as an example of genocide. They are scholars working in the fields of genocide studies and research. They say it seems clear that Israel - as in the history of white Australia since 1788 - is a genocidal settler colonial society that since its founding in 1948 continually seeks to destroy the foundations of life of the indigenous Palestinians, their health, dignity, livelihood, personal security, access to education, and political organisation, so that the Palestinians can be replaced by colonizing Zionist settlers. See the Australian Broadcasting Corporation story Docker has written a paper for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, Washington DC, 26 February 2004.
• Herzliya Conference participant, Martin Kramer, discussed methods of reducing births in the Palestinian population of Gaza and suggested that was one of the goals of Israel's blockade.

Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide to describe acts of murder and/or persecution. Segregation was "a lesser included offense" in his concept of the crime. In 1948, the UN couldn't persuade the colonial powers to outlaw persecution as part of the crime of genocide. Two decades later, when they were drafting the convention on the "crime of apartheid", the members of the UN took the opportunity to address issues related to occupation, colonialism, persecution, and genocide in keeping with Lemkin's concept. The UN expert panels tried to rationalize the situation by suggesting that allof the constituent acts of apartheid could be considered a "special instance of genocide". The South Africans quickly complained that physical destruction of blacks had nothing to do with their policies and practices of "separate development" or the original meaning of the Afrikaner term "apartheid". So, we ended up with a "crime of apartheid" that is not actually analogous to the South African practice of "apartheid". harlan (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an article titled "Israel and the crime of apartheid" could define the difference between the crime and other uses of the term "apartheid" in relation to Israel. However, it couldn't detail those other uses, because that would be outside the scope of the title. Those other uses must be detailed somewhere, because they're notable, so they'd need their own article to detail them. So this title would require a content fork. Most likely, the existing title "analogy" title would then stay and the "crime of apartheid" content would be split to another article. I'm not convinced this is a good approach, I think it would better to detail it all in one place and find a title that covers the full scope. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and apartheid

I'm of the opinion that Israel and apartheid would be the best title in terms of describing the article. It is all-inclusive, covering sources that suggest apartheid-like attributes of Israel's actions and sources that explicitly suggest Israel has violated the international conventions and law regarding apartheid. The objection that has been made previously is that this article title implies that Israel's actions definitely have aspects of apartheid. I don't perceive the title this way. Israeli apartheid might have such implications, but the "and" in Israel and apartheid suggests a neutral discussion of the intersection of the subjects. However I do think it's a valid concern that is worth discussing. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested two similar "Israel and etc. ..." titles. So, I have no objection with yours - except it will require an explanation of the differences (i.e. genocide) between "the crime of apartheid" and the Afrikaner concept of "separate development". I would agree that "Israeli apartheid" is a non-starter. harlan (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In the original talkpage discussion, I was one of the neutrals. I would like to restate that my preferred title is the one being proposed in this section. The reason why I marked myself as a neutral was that I felt it unlikely that any title change would stick for long. Presumably, though, the longevity of any title settled on here would be more guaranteed.     ←   ZScarpia   00:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved user not listed in this case, so I don't know if I'm supposed to comment here, but I just wanted to say: I think this proposed name is a bad one. 'Israel and apartheid', to me, implies an article about the relations between Israel and apartheid South Africa - which, in fact, we have at Israel – South Africa relations#Israeli relations with apartheid South Africa. I think that's what most readers might expect from that title, but as I understand it, it's not what this article is about: it's about allegations that Israeli policy towards the Palestinians resembles that of apartheid South Africa, or that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. I think either the current name (Israel and the apartheid analogy) or the one before that (Allegations of Israeli apartheid) are preferable to Israel and apartheid, which should probably be a disambiguation page instead. Robofish (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a reasonable concern. However, there are also concerns with the existing title and the previous one, because each of them only includes some of the scope of the content of the article. It's unlikely we'll find a perfect title (although if you've got any thoughts, suggest away), so we have to look for the least bad title. I reckon editors should add themselves as involved parties if they have strong opinions on the title of this article. This discussion isn't a dispute between a handful of editors, it's a rolling issue. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and racial segregation

Have thought about this a little more. I still think it's a reasonable concern that "Israel and apartheid" may connote an article about relations between Israel and South Africa under apartheid. This raises the issue of what the term "apartheid" means. Is it apartheid a historical system of segregation in South Africa? Or is apartheid a generic term for systems of segregation? It's clearly both. The United Nations, academics, writers and activists use it as a generic term. However, when most people hear the word "apartheid" alone they probably think of the original South African situation. Perhaps it's unfortunate that the term apartheid is so ambiguous - unlike "genocide" for example, which is clearly a generic term with separate terms for specific historical instances such as the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. When the UN uses the term apartheid, it seems to define it as a system of racial segregation (to cut a long definition short). In order to avoid the ambiguity of the term apartheid, which is commonly used to denote a specific historical situation, perhaps we could move to a description of apartheid rather than the term. The article could be called something like Israel and racial segregation. I realise that sounds a bit left-field, but the WP:NAME policy does allow for descriptions of a subject to be used as a title if the common terms are not suitable. Redirects could be used to ensure that readers searching for Israel and apartheid still reach the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an inversion of the title to something along the lines of Apartheid in Israeli-controlled areas would help to clarify what the article is about?     ←   ZScarpia   13:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In principle yes, but that title is too close to implying the existence of the apartheid. I think using an "and" has a distancing effect, whereas a formulation like that with "in" makes it sound more definite - which we can't do because of the degree of disagreement among the prominent sources. Unfortunately Apartheid and Israeli-controlled areas is nonsense... I think the English language is our enemy here. If this were the German Misplaced Pages we could probably jam together one long word that means the-discussion-of-the-possible-existance-of-apartheid-in-Iraeli-controlled-areas-and-its-possible-nature. :) Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think something more general, like Israel and racial segregation is a good idea. However, it suffers from some of the same problems as our existing terms: (a) racial discrimination is not always illegal, e.g. affirmative action; (b) it isn't generally considered to be synonymous with the crime of genocide.

Once a stigma gets attached to the terms used to describe extreme policies of racial discrimination, people coin new terms to replace the old ones, e.g. ghetto, pale of settlement, and Bantustan. The Online Dictionary of Etymology says apartheid was coined in the 1920s and adopted when "segregation" had acquired negative connotations. The South African authorities usually self-described their policies and practices as "separate development" after the UN condemned apartheid. Official policy in Israel was frequently self-described using the term Hafrada. Some published sources have subsequently equated that term with Israeli Apartheid, e.g. Israeli Apartheid (Hafrada) . Lemkin coined the term genocide long after the massacre of the Armenians. It was applied retrospectively. In much the same way, apartheid is now used by the Royal Society and others to describe prohibitions on relations between various groups like those in the ancient British Isles. See Is it necessary to assume an apartheid-like social structure in Early Anglo-Saxon England?

There are at least three definitions of genocide in international law. The definition in the Genocide Convention, the same acts which are mentioned in the preamble and Article II of the Convention on the Crime of Apartheid, and the definition adopted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). See Jorgic v. Germany. See The latter corresponds very closely to Lemkin's broader definition. Jorgic was guilty of executing 8-22 people. The ECHR stated that the "destruction of a group" meant destruction of the group as a social unit in its distinctiveness and particularity and its feeling of belonging together; a biological-physical destruction was not necessary. That sort of definition includes targeted killings carried out to achieve regime changes, eviction, etc. Incitement to commit genocide is a constituent act of the crime of genocide. So, it really isn't necessary to participate in the actual killing. See Finland sentences Rwanda preacher to life for genocide harlan (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

On your point (a), note that I suggested racial segregation, not racial discrimination. On point (b), are you saying that the crime of apartheid is synonymous with genocide, and racial segregation doesn't sufficiently connote this? I would say that for most readers "apartheid" probably doesn't connote genocide either, so there's no difference. Overall, I think that apartheid largely means segregation, although the UN definition certainly has a wider scope that includes all means of racial domination. "Racial segregation" largely encompasses the UN definitions, while also encompassing other uses of apartheid such as those used by various authors who are addressing historical or social (not legal) definitions of apartheid while not connoting historical instances of racial segregation such as apartheid in South Africa. If your main concern is that apartheid is more than just segregation, that seems valid. It would be unfortunate if a title change descoped the article. In terms of the rest of your comments, I gather you're concerned that using "racial segregation" instead of "apartheid" would be a way to avoid stigma. That's certainly not my intent, and as you noted yourself "segregation" has its own stigma. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

On point (a) the only explicit prohibition against racial segregation in international law is contained in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). As the name implies, it is a species of "racial discrimination". Most readers will need an explanation of that term of art, because "racial discrimination" is defined in the ICERD to include almost anything except religion, i.e. "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin." It also permits the adoption of affirmative action preferences on a temporary basis. There have been large influxes in the past of thousands of non-Hebrew speaking, non-Orthodox Ethiopian and Russian olim into make-shift pre-fab absorption centers; Bedouins sorted-out into "descent" groups on "tribal plots" in the ILA's resettlement towns; & etc. Those sort of population transfers have resulted in instances of de facto racial segregation.

The definitions of the crime of apartheid and genocide overlap. The preamble of the apartheid convention explains that certain acts in Article II of the Genocide Convention can also be considered as crimes of apartheid. Articles II a-c of the Genocide Convention are included in Article II(a)(i), II(a)(ii), and II (b) of the Apartheid Convention. Several of the interested parties in the 2004 Wall case reported that Israel was deliberately imposing on a group living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part or murdering members of the group. An Independent Fact Finding Commission turned over their report to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on behalf of the League of Arab States. See paragraph 8 The Independent Fact Finding Commission report cited the ICJ conclusions and stated that violations of the (ICCPR), (ICESCR), (UNCRC) give rise to criminal responsibility which may constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. See paragraphs 428-433 (page 109-111). The report also said some members of the IDF may have committed acts of genocide and that the state of Israel may, as a consequence, be responsible for the commission of the crime of genocide. See Paragraph 30 (page 6), paragraph 558 (136), and paragraph 607 (page 148).

On point (b) that is exactly what I meant, i.e. we have the same problem with segregation that we already had with apartheid (it is a difference that makes no difference) - the reader won't associate either term with the acts of genocide that are included in article II of the international convention on the crime of apartheid. During the ARBCOM case an editor redirected Apartheid outside of South Africa to Racial segregation and also proposed that Israeli apartheid be merged. There is no mention of Israel in the entire article on Racial segregation, and the CERD is only listed in an info box. That hardly reflects the fact that Israel's periodic reviews have contained numerous Article 3 issues and recommendations. harlan (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediator note: just a reminder about synthesis. It is not our purpose to establish the 'true' state of affairs between Israel and the Palestinians, or to try to construct language so that readers get the 'correct' idea about what is happening in the real world situation. Our only concern lies in determining (a) which sources we consider to be reliable on this topic, and (b) what those sources have to say on the matter. If the preponderance of reliable sources use the word 'apartheid', then we should use the word without trying to second-guess what that word might mean to readers or whether it truly applies to the situation.

Please note that part of the problem we're dealing with here is that this Wikipeida article focuses on a topic (scholarly theories that Israel has created an apartheid like political structure) that is inherently critical of Israel (which is part of why I wondered whether it was a content fork, below). This means we need to find a way of presenting that critical perspective without appearing either to support or oppose that critical perspective. that's a difficult thing to do. --Ludwigs2 14:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur that we need to focus on what the sources say, rather than the opinions of editors. That is why Im suggesting that we eliminate all qualifying words ("crime", "analogy", "allegation") from the title, because those words come from editors, not sources. Or, more accurately, the sources are all over the map on this topic, and so the the title should remain silent on the nature of the relationship between Israel and apartheid. The relationship is covered in detail in the body of the article, where the sources (often contradicting each other!) are identified and explained. --Noleander (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just in search of compromise names. But you're right, we should use the terms used in prominent reliable sources, and that's certainly "apartheid". Noleander's point is solid for the same reason. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 I am discussing the definition of the topic of the article. It is Misplaced Pages policy that a brief definition of the topic should be included in the lede. The South African form of Apartheid did not include the crime of genocide. That prevents it from being an analogy, but that did not prevent it from satisfying the necessary elements of the crime of apartheid (which by definition included "racial segregation", and "racial discrimination").

Neolander's point that the word "crime" comes from Misplaced Pages editors, and not the sources, is incorrect. For example, the, Special Rapportuer, John Dugard and the state of Lebanon (page 8) both cited the 1973 Convention on the Crime of Apartheid, and said that Israel's policies and practices satisfy the necessary elements of the offense. Lebanon cited this constituent act from Article 2 of the convention: "the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part". Prof. Richard Falk, the current United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, cited the very same constituent act a few years ago in connection with the Gaza blockade. He said it was an example of the Crime of Genocide. The apartheid convention itself explains that certain acts of genocide may also be qualified as acts of apartheid. WP:PSTS permits the use of the text of the conventions so long as the analysis is provided by sources like Dugard, Falk, the International Law Commission, etc.

The ICERD and its definition of "racial discrimination" is discussed in Dugard's report under the heading "VII. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND APARTHEID". The Apartheid convention uses the words "crime", "racial segregation", and "racial discrimination". The preamble of the Apartheid Convention says

"in accordance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, States particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction,"

Article 1(1) of the Apartheid Convention says

"The States Parties to the present Convention declare that apartheid is a crime against humanity and that inhuman acts resulting from the policies and practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination, as defined in article II of the Convention, are crimes violating the principles of international law,"

Some commentators think that Article II limits the scope of racial segregation to the actual practices of Southern Africa (Rhodesia, Angola, South Africa, etc), while others say the regular ICERD definition of racial discrimination still applies. No one ever claimed that the included acts of genocide were actually practiced in 1973-era Southern Africa. harlan (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan: When I said that "the word 'crime' comes from Misplaced Pages editors, and not the sources" what I meant was that emphasizing "crime" in the article title would be a decision made by editors, not by sources. Let me try to rephrase my point: WP needs to reflect what the sources say. The sources discuss the relationship between Israel and apartheid from several angles: (1) as an analogy with South Africa; (2) as an accusation of discrimination; (3) as a crime in violation of international law; (4) in a rebuttal manner, refuting negative allegations; and (5) other ways. My point is that mentioning a single focus in the title (analogy vs. accusation vs crime, etc) violates POV policies because it steers the article (and reader) into just one aspect of the relationship. That is why I maintain the most neutral title is "Israel and apartheid". I know some editors don't like it because it seems to draw a conclusion, but contrast it with the proposal of "Israeli apartheid" which is perhaps too conclusive (and I dont support that title). Here is another idea: imagine some day that the article grows so large that it is broken into several sub-articles. What would they be? Whatever the answer is, then ask this: "What should the title of the parent article be, so that it encompasses all the subarticles?". --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

harlan - discussing the definition of the topic of the article is acceptable, so long as it's focused on the mediation goal (deciding on the article title). The problem I'm trying to avoid is having the discussion wander off into more general debate, which would be distracting. Most sources on this issue are going to demonstrate a distinct POV, and within the body of the article all those POVs should be spelled out with proper respect to balance. But there is no room for that in the article title - the title should be minimal and purely descriptive. As best I understand it (currently) this article is about a common argument which compares the state of human rights in Israel to apartheid (either the original apartheid in South Africa or the UN definition of apartheid). There are going to be more extreme and less extreme statements of that (as well as rebuttals) in different sources, obviously, but we don't need to sort through that here. what we need to do is find a nice, neutral, less-than-ten-word statement of what the article is about that we can use as a title.

In other words, we all know that there are sources which call what Israel is doing a crime or say that it amounts to racial discrimination - you don't need to demonstrate that such sources exist. However, is it your contention that 'crime' or 'racial discrimination' are the most common/mainstream/frequent designations used in the preponderance of sources? If you believe that they are, then say so; if you don't believe that's true, then it seems to me that 'crime' and 'racial discrimination' are probably not useful terms in the article title. --Ludwigs2 15:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Scope - Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid

The article already includes sources, like the HSRC study, which discuss occupation, settler-colonialism, and genocide/apartheid. John Dugard mentioned the fact that "The international community has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights - colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation." See A/HRC/4/17, 29 January 2007.

The inherent connection between displacement by military occupation, colonization, racial segregation, and genocide/apartheid had been a topic that was openly discussed in the works of Jewish thinkers of the day like Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Raphael Lemkin, and Hannah Arendt. There are many modern works which address the colonization of Palestine, e.g. "Settler Colonialism in the Twentieth Century: Projects, Practices, Legacies, by Caroline Elkins (Editor), and Susan Pedersen (Editor), Routledge; 2005, ISBN: 0415949432.

The General Assembly summed up the Nürnberg crimes by including that linked combination in the "Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity":

(b) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (I) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid , and the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed.

The General Assembly resolution which contained the draft convention on apartheid, UNGA resolution 2786 (XXVI) 6 November 1971, had explicitly linked the crime with occupation and colonialism. So did the subsequent drafts:

Reaffirming again that the conclusion of an international convention on the suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid would be an important contribution in the struggle against apartheid, racism, economic exploitation, colonial domination, and foreign occupation. -- UN GA resolution 2922, 15 November 1972

Imperial Germany colonized the land and committed genocide against the local Herero and Nama peoples. So, before the Union of South Africa was established in 1910, the Boers had already concluded their genocidal phase and went on to persecute the remaining native population in subsequent years. See "Prelude to disaster: An analysis of the racial policies of Boer and British settlers in South Africa before 1910", by Okon Edet Uya, Dept. of History, Howard University

Benjamin Madley, Hannah Arendt, and others wrote that the German Imperial experience in places like Namibia was a crucial precursor to the Nazi policy on colonialism and genocide, Lebensraum. See Benjamin Madley, "From Africa to Auschwitz: How German South West Africa Incubated Ideas and Methods Adopted and Developed by the Nazis in Eastern Europe," European History Quarterly 2005 35(3): 429-464 and "Hannah Arendt and the uses of history: imperialism, nation, race, and genocide", Richard H. King, Dan Stone eds, Berghahn Books, 2008, ISBN: 1845455894. The latter contains a discussion on Palestine Thoughts?

I think the article is already large with the scope it has, attempting to increase its scope further may make it unwieldy. Those related subjects could be covered in other articles, perhaps as sub-articles under an overarching parent article regarding the relations of Israel and the Palestinian people. This article isn't that overarching article, it would have to lie somewhere between this article and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it because Misplaced Pages already has unrelated articles that do not mention the historical relationship between occupation, colonialism, and apartheid/genocide: Human rights in Israel, Israeli-occupied territories, Israeli settlement, Israel and the apartheid analogy and Settler colonialism - Israel. harlan (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Harlan would answer just one question for me. That is, every Jew in Gaza and West Bank is an unwelcome "settler" because the Palestinians believe they own that real estate. "Settlers" (ie Jews in land Palestinians call theirs) are considered #1 problem. Well, sure. The Jew is the problem. Yet "Arab citizens of Israel comprise just over 20% of the country's total population." Arab citizens of Israel (who, according to WP in the majority ..."identify themselves as Arab or Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship") basically (perhaps with a few arguable exceptions) have the same rights and privileges as other Israelis. Why is it that the Palestinian Arabs will not tolerate a Jew on what they consider their land? I say your Palestine is a better example of apartheid than Israel is. The leader of the Palestinian people Mohammad Amin al-Husayni met with Hitler to urge him to "oppose the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine." Surely you will not contend, that today's Hamas, whose charter (a legal document?) acknowledges that they wish to throw the Jews into the sea (figuratively of course), and has wrenched total control over the Gaza Strip and has no qualms about seizing the rest of "Palestine" immediately upon Israel ceding it to the Palestinian people, intends to allow Jews to live there with the same rights and privileges as the Muslim Arabs, ie with the same rights and privileges of the general population? I don't have any sympathy with your attempt to make a legal case against Israel, since I can make a much stronger moral case against Palestinian Arabs and their Arab neighbors. But WP is not court of law and it is not up to us to make either a legal or a moral case against any person or groups of people. If you want to accuse Israel of the "crime of apartheid," I suggest you obtain a blog somewhere, write a book, or get a legal degree and find the appropriate court. This is not the appropriate venue. Stellarkid (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Harlan's comment seemed to be veering off topic for this mediation case, and yours seems even further off topic. Can we stick to the subject of what to call the article? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Harlan had a whole section to himself and his prejudices. I think a few words from the other side is not unwarranted. Stellarkid (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Harlan is welcome to comment on my questions on my talk page, so as not to further clutter this generally anti-Israeli diatribe pretending to mediation. For that matter, looking above, I would argue that you would do well to follow your own excellent advice. Stellarkid (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it looks to me that all this conversation has been entirely one-sided, since I am the only individual on the "pro-Israel" side that has commented here, am I not? Pretty, good, and first thing that happens is I am essentially told to shut up and stick to the topic. About par for the course, colleagues. Stellarkid (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying shut up, I welcome your presence - especially given that, as you note, the case hasn't attracted representatively diverse opinion yet. I'm not the mediator either, so my comment was just a suggestion. It's just that with this topic, it seems like there's a real risk of veering into discussing general Israel/Palestinian topics, rather than discussing the article title. You're probably right that I got sucked into discussing this above too, I was hoping we might squeeze some sideways relevance to the case out of Harlan's section. Will try to stay on topic. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A pretty similar situation occurred recently at the Gaza Flotilla Raid talkpage. At 22:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC) I asked you a question about the legitimacy of Palestinians blockading Israel since, according to Israel, a state of war existed; I was politely told to shut up; I accepted that my question wasn't relevant to the talkpage; I dropped the question.     ←   ZScarpia   10:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, the original ARBCOM case was the result a wheel war over the scope and topic of the article. One of the things that we should clear-up at the outset in this moderation case is the scope of the article - so that we can dispose of the notion that Misplaced Pages can't have more than one article that discusses this topic, i.e. every mention of apartheid is another instance of "the analogy". I agree that the HSRC Study and the John Docker/Ned Cuthoys article address issues related to military occupation and colonialism that together with Jabotinsky's Iron Wall, and Pedersen's Twentieth Century Settler Colonialism should be the basis of separate article(s). I see no reason that Misplaced Pages can't have standalone articles on the HSRC and Barcelona studies. Misplaced Pages has related articles, e.g. like the Sasson Report, and etc., and MacMillan's "The Modern Encyclopedia of the Middle East and North Africa" has articles like the Karp Report (1984) . harlan (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

* I've just signed myself on as mediator for this case, and I want to step in and make three comments here:

1. it will be much better in the long run if all the participants make opening statements first in the section above, and save the discussion section for more structured questions later. We don't want this page to become a mere extension of the dispute on the article talk page.
2. I will be posting a set of discussion rules tomorrow later today, but in the meantime please try to avoid comments directed at other editors. Everyone in this mediation has their own opinion, obviously, but we don't want to focus on editors, we want to focus on issues.
3. Please keep comments contained within the scope of the mediation, which currently is on the article title. Obviously we'll have to consider the broader picture to a certain extent, and anyone can open a discussion here in the discussion section about expanding or changing the scope of the case, but it would be best to avoid wandering off into more general discussions as much as possible.

Thanks. --Ludwigs2 09:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Table listing candidate titles

It may be helpful to use a concise table to list the candidate titles. A sample table is below. Perhaps if the mediator were the only person able to edit the "advantages" and "disadvantages" columns (after getting input elsewhere in this mediation page) that would keep it terse and minimize polemicizing. --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How about Accusations of Israeli Apartheid? Ronk01 (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added it to the table. BTW: anyone is welcome to edit the above table. --Noleander (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that Israeli apartheid allegations sounds less clunky and looks better (the emphasis is put on the word Israeli rather than Allegations) than Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Anybody know whether a precedent has been set for the use of trailing qualifiers in forms such as Israeli apartheid (allegations of)?     ←   ZScarpia   22:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Israeli apartheid allegations is not desireable because readers may think it means "allegations by/from people/government of Israel". As for Israeli apartheid (allegations of) ... I've never seen that in the encyclopedia, so it may be unorthodox. On the other hand, there is the precedent of Joe Smith (author) or The River (song) but that is - I think - only used to disambiguate multiple articles that would otherwise have the same name. In any case, the word "allegation" also has the downsides described above. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dropping the letter i, Israel apartheid allegations then? I would prefer the word allegations not to appear in the title. It's just that, if the consensus goes against that, I'd far rather see the apartheid allegations rather than allegations of apartheid form.     ←   ZScarpia   23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think some sort of summary structure like this table would be good. I reckon the advantages and disadvantages should be input into the summary by the mediator, with notes on the degree of consensus for each. We don't want to end up with edits and counter-edits to the summary by parties in disagreement. There could be a fourth column called something like "Support", that records the level of consensus support for each option as an acceptable title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a fourth column, per that suggestion. I added some names as an example of how the 4th column could be used ... but not with the intention of starting a voting contest ... just to show how it could work. --Noleander (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good approach, but I think it needs to be tweaked some. for instance, in my position as mediator what I think are the advantages and disadvantages of each possibility is irrelevant. I mean, I can state the obvious - e.g. any title that involves the word 'crime' would be suspect, since there has been (to my knowledge) no UN or ICC ruling that Israel has committed an actual crime. titles of that sort would at very least need to add the word 'alleged'. i am happy to moderate any discussion about the pros and cons of each position, however, and will fill in the blanks if and as you all reach consensus about what the pros and cons of each are. maybe someone wants to start that discussion? --Ludwigs2 05:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's how I imagined its use, with you facilitating us to reach consensus on the pros and cons and prefered names, and noting our consensus. Inevitably, in some cases unanimous consensus won't be reached, so you could note "consensus -1" or whatever. The table might be best somewhere at the top of this page, as a summary of progress, rather than bang in the middle where it is. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions from mediator

ok, seems that things have gotten a bit quiet here, which may be good, or bad, or meaningless... But since it is quiet, let me throw out a few questions that have occurred to me for general discussion to see if they get us anywhere. --Ludwigs2 07:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What are the search keywords that need to be in the title?

An article title needs to do two things - it needs to describe the topic (briefly) and it needs to provide search keywords for readers on wikipedia. what are the search keywords that need to be in the title for effective searching? --Ludwigs2 07:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly "apartheid" and "Israel". Related words are "crime", "alleged", "accusations", "south africa", "analogy", "jimmy carter", "apartheid wall", "palestinians". I think the WP search function will look at words in the body of the article, as well as the title. My suggestion would be to de-emphasize the search aspect of the title, because adding additional words (such as "allleged" or "accustations") into the title has the effect of (1) limiting the scope of the article; and (2) biasing the reader as to what the sources on the topic say. --Noleander (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be useful to mention that WP:RNEUTRAL provides that WP:NPOV does NOT apply to redirects. So key words, and even redirect page titles, like Israeli Apartheid, already exist. harlan (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"Israel" certainly. "Apartheid" probably, because it's the term commonly used, although I do have some reservations about its ambiguity as a generic term or the name of the historical SA system. "Palestinians", perhaps. Because of the nature of this article, no title will be one that everyone, or even a majority of people, would search for. But "Israel" and "apartheid" are probably the two terms that a big majority of people with an interest in the subject would use. Per WP:NAME (which I guess is recommended reading, seeing we're mediating the name of an article here), the key attributes are that the name should be recognisable, unambiguous, and consistent with English-language sources. Searchability, conciseness, and consistency with other names are desirable too. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable topic or content fork?

I am torn whether to consider this article a notable topic in its own right or a content fork of a different topic (e.g. 'Israeli Palestinian relations' or some such). would this article be better off merged into or with a related article, just to balance the perspective? --Ludwigs2 07:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has been around for over four years, and has survived five (!) deletion proposals. Each deletion proposal contained extensive debate about whether the article was a POV fork, and every time the article was kept. Expanding this mediation to consider a Merge proposal may be steering the mediation into a direction the originators of the mediation did not contemplate - and there is a 100% certainty the result would be "dont merge". So - for purposes of this mediation - it may be best to just concede the result those AfDs, and limit the mediation to selecting a wording for the article title. --Noleander (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Granting that you are almost certainly correct about the outcome, I'll say that I've participated in deletion debates in the past, and as a rule they are not great examples of deliberation. I think this mediation would be a good place to discuss and clarify the issue in a reasoned way, so that we have clear statements about (a) what the article is, and (b) why the article needs to exist on wikipedia, which should forestall any future AfD discussions.

also, please note I said content fork, not POV fork. There are some good reasons to create content forks (usually having to do with article size), and if we can identify this article as a content fork of a broader debate we might be able to quell a lot of objections by adding a header that says, effectively, "This page explains one perspective in the broader debate about <...>. See that page for details." if you see what I mean... --Ludwigs2 14:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the mediator, so it is your call. I'm just pointing out that if this is expanded into a Merger proposal, it may get off-track and the original purpose of the mediation (a very specific question about what the best title is) may get lost, and we may all waste a lot of time with nothing to show for it. My 2 cents :-) --Noleander (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The huge number of prominent & lengthy reliable sources specifically about whether Israel's actions amount to apartheid or not suggest this is a notable topic in its own right. If it wasn't it would be goneburger after the large number of AfDs, which attracted a lot of attention and were largely well-argued. It's only a content fork in the sense that every article about a country could be viewed as a content fork of that country's article: i.e. not in any useful sense. Not only is it very notable, but it's very involved and the length of the discussion would overwhelm any article it was merged to. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Have looked into this some more. Israel and the apartheid analogy is a spinout of Human rights in Israel, which summarises the article in its "Apartheid analogy" section. Per WP:CFORK, this is an acceptable article spinout from a parent summary-style article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Ryan Paddy, and would also note that the article is using the Template:Discrimination sidebar template. Also it can be viewed as as subarticle of Crime of apartheid. So there are a few paths a reader could follow to get to this article:

• Israel -> Human rights in Israel -> Israel and the apartheid analogy
• Template:Discrimination sidebar -> Israel and the apartheid analogy
• Crime of apartheid -> Israel and the apartheid analogy

But as far as splitting articles, indeed Human rights in Israel appears to be the parent article of Israel and the apartheid analogy. --Noleander (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis completely overlooks the actual events that took place prior to the last Arbcom case. The Misplaced Pages:NPOV tutorial describes the procedure that was employed: a "split can be performed in a POV way, for example by putting everything you don't like in a new article and then giving that article an un-common name, so obfuscating its whereabouts."

Articles and split-out material that were critical of Israel's policies and practices were labeled propaganda, de-linked, and targeted for deletion no matter how notable the topic or how reliable the sources they were based upon. One of the issues mediation should address in this case is the longstanding content dispute stemming from the contention that any (and all) references to Israel and apartheid are instances of "the apartheid analogy". That claim was usually followed by tag team deletions and reverts that established a firewall between articles using opposing shop-worn arguments, e.g. (a) "this page is not about the apartheid analogy", e.g. - "Israel and the apartheid analogy is nothing but a propaganda tool" - "the comparisons some people choose to make, for their own purposes, are of little relevance." ; and (b) "(we're discussing the analogy (between Israel's actions and apartheid, not apartheid itself)"

In another example, human rights groups won a decision in the High Court of Israel on the IDF's use of human shields. The article was AfD'd and delinked from Human Rights in Israel The same group of users AfD'd Israel and the Apartheid analogy and many other articles, e.g. Hafrada. The Arbcom resulted from a renaming/delink/move/AfD war.

There are hundreds of references to the crime of apartheid, racial discrimination, and racial segregation in the proceedings of the UN political organs; the International Law Commission Yearbooks; Law digests (e.g. The Israel Yearbook on Human Rights); the International conventions; the ICJ Wall case and its exhibits; and textbooks on humanitarian and human rights law, political science, and sociology. "The apartheid analogy" is a partisan political construct coined for use in Op-Ed columns, & etc. It is a separate political topic that receives scant, to no attention, in official and scholarly literature. Any editor who claims the written statement of Lebanon in the ICJ case is an instance of "the apartheid analogy" is violating WP:Synth.

Any ordinary user can usually create an article. Hwever, in the case of Israel and the crime of apartheid, the standing ARBCOM decision requires mandatory mediation regarding article titles dealing with apartheid. I've asked for a separate article harlan (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, ok... One of the problems with mediating a case like this is the tendency for broad-ranging issues to arise. I do not doubt that there is a bit of a problem with these articles - I've seen enough cases on wikipedia of otherwise well-intentioned editors letting their POVs get the better of them to know that it happens. However, we are not in a position here to fix a problem that spans multiple pages; we can only work on this page. Now, if you and the other editors want to expand the scope of this mediation to include content problems, that's fine with me, but let's do it explicitly (i.e., let's start up a thread about it and get everyone to agree that that's what we're discussing here). It certainly sounds to my uninformed ear like the comparison of Israeli actions to apartheid is a notable topic, so it shouldn't be excluded (if that's what's happening). we just need to make it clear that this is a comparison made by activists and some scholars, not a statement of established fact under international law.

It seems to me like you are objecting to the term 'apartheid analogy' because 'analogy' doesn't reflect what you hold is actually happening in Israel, is that correct? If that's so, then we ned to consider the nature of this article - it should be on human rights abuses in Israel, and the apartheid analogy should only be one perspective on those abuses. but isn't that what the human rights in Israel article does? If this article is specifically intended to be a (valid) content fork of human rights in Israel dealing with the apartheid analogy as a discourse in that conversation, then the article ought to be titled something like "The apartheid analogy for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians". If this article is supposed to be something broader than that, what would that broader thing be? --Ludwigs2 06:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the objection to the term "analogy" as an adequate description of the complete subject matter is what prompted this case in the first place. The problem with "analogy" is that it suggests a comparison to the historical South African regime. This is a perfectly good way of describing some sources, they are making such a comparison. However, other sources are not making any such comparison. Those other sources are suggesting that Israel may be guilty of the "crime of apartheid" under international law. This cannot be described as an analogy, because the "crime of apartheid" is not identical to South African apartheid. It's also not an analogy because it's not a comparison being made, it's an argument that Israel's actions may meet the definition of the crime. The title "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is underscoped to include that notable aspect of the topic. Therefore we need a title that includes that scope - either as the title of a new article as Harlan suggests, or as a new title with a broader scope for the existing article, which I'd prefer. I'm not as concerned as Harlan that some sort of broader Misplaced Pages cover-up of Israeli human rights issues is happening here, but I do agree that sources discussing Israel and the crime of apartheid cannot be described as an analogy - although I took some convincing to reach that conclusion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan: Thanks for educating me about your proposal for a new article dedicated to "Israel and the crime of apartheid" .. that clarifies things a bit. I agree with Harlan that the word "analogy" in the article's current title is not consistent with the fact that many sources describe it as an actual crime. The two solutions to this dilemma are (1) Create a new article on Israel and the crime of A, in addition to the "Analogy" article; or (2) re-name the current article to eliminate the word "analogy". Of those two paths forward, I think (2) is better for a couple of reasons: (a) solution 2 is less controversial than solution 1; and (b) solution 2 is the topic of this Mediation effort. So, I recommend that we focus - for the short term - on improving the article title. The article already has a section on the "Crime of .." right at the top. That section may (or may not) grow over time: when it gets too large, it can be split-off into a new "Crime" article as a legitimate content-fork. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. So we are having an article where Israel is accused of a crime against humanity, and every XXXXXX in the world's opinion will be brought to bear to convict her. Israel has not been accused of this in any court, so there are few if any lawyers that are working on a defense. Thus we will have an article that will essentially use a number of biased commentators to "prove" her guilt, and up to the rest of us to try to find RS that defend her. Since it has not been adjudicated anywhere, we will manage to be judge and jury right here on WP. The only thing that would be any better would be if we could be the executioner as well, lol. Stellarkid (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the mediator

What are the four points that you are noting in the table above, and how are editors labeled ie Editor A, B, C etc? For example, who is editor D in your list? Stellarkid (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that table is just a suggestion from Noleander (who is not the mediator) on how to structure agreements reached during the mediation. The "Editor A" etc. are just examples of how the table could be used, not actual editors. The mediator hasn't commented on whether he wants to use the table idea yet. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Medcab active cases