Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 43

propose to delete this article

User topic-banned indefinitely from the area of conflict. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this article is part of disinformation efforts to discredit Israel and promote genocide of it's Jewish civil population. there is no legal proof or any other, that there is an apartheid situation in Israel. in fact Muslims and non Muslims in Israel by far enjoy the highest level of civil liberties , then in all Arab and Muslim world. (this part of the sentence was deleted due to site rules). |Jonathango| 18:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |Jonathango| 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)|Jonathango| 10:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs) If you look at the top of this page, under Article milestones, you'll see that this article has been nominated for deletion nine times in the past, most recently in August of last year. While consensus can change, it's unlikely that the tenth AfD will produce a different outcome than the preceding nine. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC) @JonathanGo - I think your argument constitutes "slender". NickCT (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I'm a little flattered. It's been a long time since anybody called me slender. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Ummm... I was actually talking to JonathanGo, as I thought would be made obvious by the the "@JonathanGo"; that being said though Malik, I'm sure you are indeed slender, and, in the event that you're not, it would only explain how you put so much wieght behind all your arguments. NickCT (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Judging by the colorful contrib history, this is not an editor we'll have to worry about for much longer. Barreling into an article screaming about fascists and antisemites and all that jazz. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC) The comment above about "criminal and civil procedures" would appear to be a blockable legal threat against both Wikipedia and individual editors; while the comment on his/her userpage that "this user has repeatedly asked God to strike his\her sworn enemy with brain cancer, and god answered his/her prays to his/her full satisfaction" would seem to be a threat of an even higher order, and should surely also be forbidden. RolandR (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC) User:Tijfo098 has filed a motion against JonathanGo at WP:AE for this. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Tijfo098 - in answer to your question in the motion about the removal of the lists of people pro and con, it was me who removed most of them, in a process that started with this discussion. I did it carefully to avoid losing content, and it took a month or two to complete. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I found the last round of discussions on that issue the archives, not before I got poked in the eye by the statement at the beginning of this thread. I congratulate all those that pitched it for making that change happen because it got rid of major source of WP:SYN in the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete this informative article. The topic is relevant, scrutinized to an overwhelming degree, and goes much further than simple political options. Prior to reading The Gun and The Olive Branch, I had concluded that the Israeli-Arab conflict is hopeless and beyond resolution. Now I believe that it can be resolved if only all the documented facts and testimonies were to be read and acknowledged by all involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.20.124 (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Palestinian Authority"

"Opponents of the analogy state that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel and are governed by the Palestinian Authority, so cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa". I don't get it? South Africa created 10 homelands, which were controlled by respective BLACK leaders, each with BLACKS-ONLY elections? They were governed similarly to the palestinian territories today, and in fact also had some military independence. Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A number of opponents of the analogy make the argument stated in the article in reliable sources, so we must present this argument in order to describe all significant perspectives on the apartheid label. With regard to your counter-argument, comparisions between the bantustans and the occupied territories are already presented in the body of the article, with appropriate sources. However, I agree that this perspective is not apparent in the lead. We should probably summarise the bantustan argument in the first paragraph, which describes the usage of the apartheid label. Readers can then form their own conclusions regarding this difference of opinion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank You :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Balanced First Paragraph

From the Israeli point of view, I think things need to be modified. The first paragraph needs to quickly summarize both sides and then branch off into detail. Right now its completely one-sided, and most people only read the first paragraph. A decent example is the War of 1812. (Both the UK/Canada and the USA claimed victory.)

How about this:

The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era. Opponents of the analogy generally see Israel as a democratic country which protects against apartheid-like Islamic regimes and protects the rights of Jews (including those from Muslim lands), women, gays and minorities.

I think that basically summarizes the spirit of the two sides. The "Muslim lands" part is critical because one reason Jews see this as an affront is the pushing of the classic Jewish stereotype of a being a "white jap". Anyone going to Israel quickly sees that this is really not the case at all; 40%+ of Jews are non-white and many are poor, but you'd be surprised how many people I find who believe the "white jap" stereotype.

From there, we can add in all details taken out of the first paragraph, and any needed references. That will have 3 quick paragraphs total at the top. (1) Summary of both sides, (2) "For", (3) "Against"

What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.243.80 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

i like it, but i would add a bit more explicit info about israel being a democracy. i think if you add the word 'arabs' in there, it would be better than it being left unsaid (and assumed under 'minorities'). Soosim (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the War of 1812 lead begins by summarizing the war, and likewise we here summarize what the analogy means. Since this article contains also "criticism" of the analogy it's present in the lead, too, but primarily this article is about the analogy, not why some people oppose it. In the proposed text there is also a problem in that I'm not sure all of it is sourcable, for example is it really so that opponents of the analogy "generally" see Arab countries as "apartheid-like" or that Israel protects its minorities?. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

According to wikipedia policy [1], "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral." I don't see much activity about neutrality lately; does anybody think the tag should remain? If so, what edits do you think need to be made so that the tag can be removed? Olorinish (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, per the tag's instructions it should only be present to draw attention to a current discussion on NPOV in the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination against Israelis by the Palestinian Authority

Sale of Palestinian-owned land to anyone of Israeli citizenship is prohibited by the Palestinian Authority. A conviction carries a death sentence. [2] The Black Land Act No. 27 of 1913 was created in South Africa under apartheid making it illegal for blacks to buy land in white areas. [3] Labellesanslebete (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)LabellesandlebeteLabellesanslebete (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Add a category showing apartheid against Palestinians by other countries

Apartheid laws targeting Palestinians in Middle Eastern countries other than Israel are grouped under "Racism in the Middle East". It would be helpful to direct a reader to this comparison of Israel's laws concerning Palestinians with those of other countries in the area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Middle_East Labellesanslebete (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)LabellesanslebeteLabellesanslebete (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Title completely misses the point

The movement to view Israel as an apartheid state is NOT the application of an "analogy" but the application of a legal definition. The name of this article is misleading and should be changed. "Israel as an apartheid state" would be more accurate to representing the nature of the debate. SaffoPrincess (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The title of this article has been the subject of several discussions. Please search the Talk page archives to see some of the past discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Pogrund

The article quotes Pogrund very selectively, to show only his criticism of the apartheid analogy. For example, he says,

The word “Bantustan” is often used to describe Israel’s policy about a future Palestinian state. It might look like that, superficially. But the root causes — and even more, the intentions — are different.

This shows Pogrund's actual view, that the situation is more complex than what both sides of this issue admit it to be.Wheatsing (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a fairly clear example of Pogrund being critical of the analogy. Stating there is only a superficial resemblence is not giving much credit to the comparison at all. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is critical of the analogy. But the quotation from Pogrund needs to be balanced, and it needs to be acknowledged that Pogrund believes there is a superficial resemblance. (Pogrund seems to believe the analogy is a product of careless observation, and that separates him from those who claim that the analogy is a product of antisemitic thinking).Wheatsing (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a sidebar quote from Pogrund that says "Occupation is brutalising and corrupting both Palestinians and Israelis... [b]ut it is not apartheid. Palestinians are not oppressed on racial grounds as Arabs, but, rather, as competitors — until now, at the losing end — in a national/religious conflict for land." So the article already describes Pogrund as believing that the Palestinians are oppressed by the Israelis. It also describes what he thinks the true motive is. I'm not sure that adding the quote you've suggested would add a lot more about his opinion, except for the acceptance of a superficial resemblance to Bantustans. Where would you want it to appear? Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Apartheid? Really?

Has anyone who's actually been to Israel-Palestine said this? How in the heck is it apartheid? Arabs have every right that could possibly be afforded to them under law - there are no separate schools, no language restrictions, no restrictions on political representation, no religious restrictions. I mean, a real-life example of Apartheid would be the forbidding on non-Muslims in certain areas of Saudi Arabia, surely? Or, non-Muslims not being allowed to visit the al-Aqsa Mosque most of the time. Or the fact that Kurds in Turkey aren't allowed to pray in their own language, or broadcast as they want in their own language, or even speak their own language in government institutions. This article reflects very poorly on Wikipedia - makes it look like a mere conduit for extremist, anti-zionist and anti-semitic propaganda. REmmet1984 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Uri Davis? Come on people. REmmet1984 (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with but please read WP:NOTFORUM also we need WP:RS to improve the article.--Shrike (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel, said it in his The war's seventh day article. I'm just saying. I make no comment on the merit of the view. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are. He's talking about the Occupied Territories, not "Israel". It's your logically infantile extrapolation that asserts the extreme POV view that "Israel" is an "apartheid state". REmmet1984 (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I make no comment on the merit of the view. I genuinely don't have a view about it because I know nothing about the formal definitions of apartheid. I was simply answering your question. It's always better to respond in a way here that is appropriate to the information that is actually contained in what people write rather than respond based on assumptions about them or what they meant. It easy to be wrong. Please don't respond like this to anyone else. If you are unclear about what someone meant, simply ask them to clarify. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, you make no comment, and yet here you are, commenting.... REmmet1984 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I said "I make no comment on the merit of the view" and I haven't. It's consistent. Wikipedia isn't a place to argue with people for the sake of it or misrepresent what they have said. It's pointless and it's inconsistent with WP:TALK. You asked a question so I provided an instance of someone "who's actually been to Israel-Palestine" who said this in a reliable source. Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia so if you have positive contributions to make based on the project's policies and guidelines, go ahead. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No he didn't say that Israel was an apartheid state - he said there was a system of apartheid in the Occupied Territories. So, seeing as you claim to have no opinion on "the merit of the view", then you should have no problem in making the requisite changes to reflect what the source says, right? Why am I not optimistic that you will..... REmmet1984 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion on this is a waste of time, we're obviously dealing with a not-new editor returning to be pointy and disruptive. Whose it is is anyone's guess, but if someone has an insight into an identity, head to WP:SPI and let's be done with this. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the best pages to watchlist for sock spotting. I would expect this to be someone like Historicist. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it's actually Ledenierhomme, but there isn't yet enough to be certain. RolandR (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's possible too. Ledenierhomme is currently active on Newroz Telecom hosted dynamic IPs in the 109.127.64.0 - 109.127.127.255 range and has been for several days now. It's trivial for User:Tnxman307 to shut them down with small range blocks. Tnxman307 is familiar with Ledenierhomme's MO. I just haven't got around to asking. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Naturally. Faced with someone pointing out a severe problem with bias, the gang all gets together to accuse the new user of being a sockpuppet. Nevermind how systemic bias reflects on Wikipedia - just try and squash the dissenting voice before your precious attack articles are altered. Activist Wiki MO 101. REmmet1984 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you know its not a new editor?--Shrike (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't. There isn't enough data to draw any reliable conclusions but his edits aren't consistent with those I normally see from a new user. Here are some examples.

• The first edit for example is maked as minor and includes a piped link.
• The 5th edit introduces a section heading and utilizes the Main template.
• The 8th edit copies content either from Islam and antisemitism or the Persecution of Jews article to the Pogrom article. New editors don't do that kind of structural editing
• The 11th edit removes content on the basis of "non-notable sources", an unusual notion for inexperienced editors.
• He is already particpating in an AfD

When asked, the usual response is that they have edited previously as an IP or they provide some kind of implausible or evasive response. Sockpuppets in this topic area always lie by the way, always, without exception and there are sockpuppets operating in the topic area everyday. They are very often aggressive in their POV pushing and respond in completely inappropriate and dysfunctional ways to comments. They usually exhibit out-group homogeneity bias in the way they simplistically model other editors tending to group them into granfalloon-like "gangs" etc that they can conveniently label as biased, leftist, anti-Semitic, Arabist or whatever. They often personalize disputes and attack other editors. They usually model themselves as some kind of righteous soldier in an information war valiently confronting the evil cabal that controls Wikipedia spreading lies about Israel. They are a menace and that is usually why they got themselves blocked/banned by sensible, mature people who understand the purpose of Wikipedia and are willing to protect it. Sockpuppetry is the reason I have this page watchlisted. It's a magnet for sockpuppets as are several others. It is a place to gather information about their behavior and tells. I have near-zero interest in the topic. I've made precisely one edit to this article about a year ago to add the book Yiftachel, Oren (2006-06-27). Ethnocracy: land and identity politics in Israel/Palestine. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812239. I'm not here to make this particular article better. Time will tell whether REmmet1984 is a sockpuppet or someone who wants to contribute positively. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You have "near-zero interest in the topic" and yet your Contributions history shows thousands of edits - many of them pushing a very clear and specific agenda - on the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict? Do you really expect anyone to believe that? You don't have a monopoly on Wikipedia. Deal with it. Nice use of granfalloon by the way. REmmet1984 (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think I'm a sockpuppet, contact Admin. Really. REmmet1984 (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Already done. nableezy - 17:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Where? I don't see it... unless of course.... REmmet1984 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ive gotten tired of writing the same SPI every few weeks, so with you I have gone a different route. Lets just wait and see what happens. Pins and needles Im on. nableezy - 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There it is folks. An admission as clear as day. The rumors are all true: the gang has grown so powerful, they don't even have to pretend to follow due process anymore. Thanks for being so honest Nableezy! REmmet1984 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the chair of the high committee for the gang of Nableezians has ordered that your comments be stricken as coming from the sock of a banned editor. Cheers. nableezy - 18:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it would be rude of me not to respond to what you said. That was my lack of clarity. I meant I have near-zero interest in the "Israel and the apartheid analogy" topic. It makes no difference whether editor's believe it or not. The I-P topic area is like a holiday for me. Every quaint, unscientific statement about my so called "agenda" reminds me why I edit in this topic area and makes me carry on. Every insult is ineffectual and makes me smile. Every editor I encounter who won't or can't follow the rules reminds me why we have them and encourages me to impose them. If I see someone making a POV-pushing/policy non-compliant edit in an article in the topic area, you might see me stop what I'm doing editing outside the topic area in articles that actually interest me and return to the topic area to make a sequence of policy enforcement edits to ensure that there is always a net benefit to the project e.g. someone messes up 1 settlement article, I might edit 20 in a row. It's my version of the Dahiya doctrine. Editors like me will just carry on making edits based on our RS-based assessment of policy compliance and they will either stand or fall. The inevitable outcome over time will be that articles will comply with policy. Victory for policy compliance is assured one baby step at a time. That is the beauty of it. There's no rush. I'm sure you're right that some of my edits push an agenda. It won't be my agenda though. I don't have one unless trying to get things to comply with policy is an agenda. You should think rule-based cold-hearted automaton rather than activist. Things will make a lot more sense and you might come to accept that POV pushing, sockpuppetry, the insults and all of the other foolishness is counterproductive. You can then relax and edit articles about all sorts of other things. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewish only settlements

In the lead it says there are Jewish only settlements. While I'm pretty sure very few israeli arabs live in these settlements what is the basis for this statement? Is there any source confirming that there is some sort of law prohibiting Israeli arabs to live there or similar? U don't mean Israeli only settlements? Fipplet 01:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

First sentence, and precise defenition of allegations

As I predicted above, the first attempt to alter the article to place it in line with what the sources - and reality - requires, was immediately reverted twice. "RolandR", please point me to where this was discussed "at length". Anti-Israel activists like yourself are at pains to point out that the West Bank is "occupied territory", so apportioning the "apartheid" policies to the State of Israel, is surely, by definition, a falsehood. REmmet1984 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There are several threads in the talk archive where this was discussed. Some sources claim that Israel is guilty of apartheid practices in the territories occupied in 1967, some claim that the state of Israel itself is based on apartheid, and some deny that Israel is guilty of any apartheid practices. All of these positions should be covered in the article, and it is not acceptable to remove any of them. I really don't understand your second point, but in any case, my own view on this is irrelevant. What matters is the views and statements of reliable sources. Some may indeed be incompatible with others, that is the nature of this argument; but that is no reason to exclude any of them. RolandR (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please point me to such discussions. Also, please point out where "UN investigators" have referred to Israel proper, as being an apartheid state, as the first sentence now reads. Waiting.... REmmet1984 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me simplify the second point for you: if the West Bank is not a part of Israel, and you charge that Apartheid is practiced in the West Bank, then how is Israel an apartheid state? Get it? REmmet1984 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's right, why engage on Talk when you can just revert at will... REmmet1984 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is an apartheid state

feeding is over
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If people want to call Israel an apartheid state, then they might as well look at Saudi Arabia, which bans Jews and also discriminates against women. 198.151.130.37 (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I agree, and the United Nations is an apartheid organization because it believes that it is illegal for Jews to live in their own homeland and wants to ethnically cleanse them from the so-called "West Bank." JudeaRemembered (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC) If you can find published reliable sources that suggest that Saudi Arabia is an apartheid state, or that the UN is an apartheid organisation, then start an article on the subject (though we have Human rights in Saudi Arabia and Criticism of the United Nations articles already - the material should probably be added there). This article isn't about either Saudi Arabia or the UN though - and this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, rather than a forum for soapboxing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC) This article would be improved by adding that the organizations and countries that falsely accuse Israel of apartheid are actually apartheid themselves. JudeaRemembered (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Way too long

The article is way too long — twice the size of the suggested max. If someone would like to address that (with spin-off articles and sprucing), that would be great. The article is already unwieldy and out-of-guidelines large.

The article is now over 195,000 bytes, making it one of the 340 longest articles at the Project. WP:SIZERULE states: "Some useful rules of thumb ... What to do ... > 100 KB ... Almost certainly should be divided".--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we're about due for an article FAQ her,e as this is a perennial and misguided complaint. If you go by the readable prose rather than the overall character count, the article pretty much right at the acceptable limits. 16k words, 100k characters, 1188 lines. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012

Reasonable observation as to the prose (haven't checked the bytes stats, but accepting them on good faith ... looks like approx 107k characters).

However -- per the aforementioned guideline, its not "an acceptable limit". What it actually says is "60 KB ... Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)", and "100 KB ... Almost certainly should be divided". So, this is not a "right at the acceptable limit" situation. But rather, an "almost certainly should be divided" situation.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

20%

It doesn't state anywhere in the main article (apart from in quotation) that 20% of Israeli Citizens are Arab and enjoy full citizenship rights. You should probably consider including that to make sure the article is true and balanced. Don't want to be misleading people now do we? 128.243.253.111 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And it doesn't state that it would be more than 20% if Israel wouldn't keep the rest segregated and without citizenship to maintain a regime demographically dominated by Jews, which falls under the definition of the crime of Apartheid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.193.54 (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This article represent a subjective and dangerous opinion, not facts!

More over, the existance of such article in Wikipedia damages the site's reputation as an objective reliable source of information. It is almost similar to an article that will present the USA as a racist state, which is not true, not objective and not apropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't actually do any of those things. To report the criticisms that others have made is not the same as an endorsement of said criticisms. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You might find the following guide useful, Wikipedia:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

reliable source for settlement restrictions to "Israelis" vs. "Jews"

Dailycare reverted a change made by an IP editor of the phrase "Jewish-only" settlements to "Israeli-only" settlements. Dailycare's justification here was a quotation from testimony at the UN Committee to End Racial Discrimination at which a committee member, Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr responded to testimony of an Israeli official with a series of (more or less rhetorical) questions, including:

The Israeli delegation had referred to Chief Justice Barak. Was he the same judge who had ruled that the torture of Palestinians was legal? Could the Committee have a copy of the decision by that court, issued on 15 November 1996, allowing Palestinians to be shaken so roughly that death could ensue? It was likewise difficult to see what was democratic about the daily bulldozing of Palestinian homes or the construction of a dozen new settlements in the Jerusalem area for Jews only.[4]

I don't see how this can be considered a reliable source for the claim that settlements are for "Jews only". This is something of an off-the-cuff remark from, what the Jerusalem Post describes as a former Egyptian and Arab League diplomat with a history of controversial statements about Israel. See: [5]. Can we get a better source for this claim? GabrielF (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, and the article repeatedly refers to Israeli settlements, using the expression Jewish settlements only once. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I offer a non-neutral source?

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern+History/Centenary+of+Zionism/Jewish+Settlement+in+the+Land+of+Israel.htm

Clearly biased, right? Hcobb (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And clearly off-topic. What does that have to do with the subject of Israeli settlements in the West Bank? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of "Jewish only settlements" has been published in mainstream sources, but only in a way that could be attributed to the author or to critics, not as fact from the sources I have seen. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Perhaps a compromise here would be to use "Jewish settlements" which would be easy enough to attribute to RS [12]. Dlv999 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Quoting off my source above:

"After the 1967 Six-Day War, the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, as well as the Sinai peninsula, came under Israeli control. In the 1970s, a group called Gush Emunim dedicated itself to the establishment of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the biblical Land of Israel and the places where events recounted in the Bible took place. After a protracted struggle, the government finally permitted settlement in these areas, until then populated solely by Arabs, and by the mid-1990s some 150,000 Jews lived in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip."

So the term used is "Jewish settlements" and the source is the UN recognized government of Israel. Hcobb (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't even understand what "Israeli-only settlements" would be and why they'd cause controversy here... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of wikilawyering. The CERD Committee itself has explicitly addressed the subject of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territory as a violation of its published guidelines and an concern under article 3 of the Convention:

The prevailing human rights doctrine was that a State was responsible for actions in a territory under its control. In the case now under consideration, it had been argued that the situation was under the control of the Palestinian Authority but, regardless of the validity or otherwise of that argument, it failed to address the issue of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. -- CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 ... The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its General Recommendation 19 (1995) concerning the prevention, prohibition and eradication of all policies and practices of racial segregation and apartheid, and urges the State party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate any such policies or practices which severely and disproportionately affect the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and which violate the provisions of article 3 of the Convention.-- page 6 CERD/C/ISR/CO/14-16, 9 March 2012.

The material in the article about Jewish-only settlements should be restored. harlan (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

UN Section

I have removed the following paragraph from the UN section:

Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [147] says "States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction." A review of Israel's country report by the experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination took issue with the establishment of Jewish-only settlements and stated "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law.[148][149] In 2007 the CERD addressed a number of concerns regarding situations involving separation and segregation in Israel and the Occupied Territories and applied article 3 to violations of human rights generated by the construction of the Wall and its associated regime.[65][150]

The first problem here is the sentence that starts out "A review of Israel's country report by the experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination..." and then continues on to a quote. The quote here appears to be attributed to the Committee's, "experts", however, it is actually from Theo van Boven, who is one member of the committee (or at least was, in 1998, when this meeting took place). One individual may believe that Israel is violating Article 3, but that doesn't mean that the committee has reached this formal conclusion.

Further, when we examine source 65[13] there is no mention of the word apartheid. This article's text says that CERD "applied article 3 to violations of human rights..."

Is any of this really relevant to this article? Article 3 includes language regarding "racial segregation and apartheid" but it doesn't define "apartheid". Let's look at what the committee actually says in reference 65. Here's the strongest language I could find that references Article 3:

"The Committee is of the opinion that the wall and its associated regime raise serious concerns under the Convention, since they gravely infringe a number of human rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel."

Generally, the committee's language states that it has concerns about a particular Israeli policy given certain articles of the convention. That's not saying that the committee thinks Israel is violating those articles. But even if it were to say that Israel violated Article 3, which as far as I can tell it doesn't, to say that a violation of article 3 equals apartheid is original research. The implication of this paragraph is that this UN committee supports the apartheid analogy with reference to Israel. I see nothing in the given sources that indicates this.GabrielF (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Concluding Observations of the entire CERD Panel for the 2013 report cited Article 3, the General Recommendation, and Apartheid. It said

The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its General Recommendation 19 (1995) concerning the prevention, prohibition and eradication of all policies and practices of racial segregation and apartheid, and urges the State party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate any such policies or practices which severely and disproportionately affect the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and which violate the provisions of article 3 of the Convention.-- page 6 CERD/C/ISR/CO/14-16, 9 March 2012.

I think the article should cite these observations. harlan (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Toronto

Only the second part of this has anything to do with Israel and rhe apartheid analogy.

In March 2011, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has said that he will not allow city funding for the 2011 Toronto Pride Parade if organizers allow the controversial group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) march again this year. “Taxpayers dollars should not go toward funding hate speech,” Ford said.[297] However, in April 2011, the city manager reported to the city's executive committee that the use of the phrase ‘Israeli apartheid’ does not violate the City’s Anti-discrimination policy, nor does it constitute discrimination under the Canadian Criminal Code or the Ontario Human Rights Code[298]

The first part is a dispute about funding for a group. It needs to be made clear if there is any criticism of the analogy with apartheid. This is not there at the moment. It is not made clear as to what is meant by hate speech, or whether this claim has anything to do with the apartheid analogy.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Territories are disputed, not occupied.

In order for the legal definition of 'occupied territories' to apply, the territories need to have been legally recognized as an independent nation at some point in the past. There has never been an independent state known as 'Palestine', Gaza formerly being controlled by Egypt, and Judea and Samaria by Transjordan. Egypt, though in control of Gaza, never attempted to annex the land, leaving it Israeli land based on the last internationally accepted partition of the land, which created Transjordan. Judea and Samaria were claimed to have been annexed by Transjordan, but only Britain ever recognized the claim, again leaving these territories to be Israeli territory under international law.

The legal definition of Judea and Samaria (seeing as Gaza has been completely evacuated) is 'disputed territory'. I've made the change, but no doubt someone will change it back. The dispute is between Israel - which under the most recently internationally recognize and locally accepted boundary change with the creation of Transjordan, legally owns the territory - and the "Palestinians", a people that didn't exist prior to 1967. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.23.204 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's almost exactly what it says in my WUJS Hasbara Handbook. I reverted your edit. The term 'disputed territories' is the language of the Israeli government and its supporters. The standard neutral term used by reliable sources is occupied. This has been discussed countless times. I'm not sure what led you to believe that Palestinians as a people didn't exist prior to 1967 given that it's demonstrably false e.g. two random samples, The Glasgow Herald - Feb 16, 1924, "Further these conditions had already formed the subject of discussion with the Palestinian Arabs..." or Ze'ev Jabotinsky's "The Iron Wall" (1923) article, (English translation, original Russian) in which he uses the term палестинскими арабами. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You are taking your links out of context. In 1923, Jews were also called "Palestinians" - your article calls them "Palestinian Arabs" to distinguish them from the Palestinian Jews. The region was referred to as Palestine, there was no people referred to as Palestine. The exact same situation likely applies Jabotinsky's work. The people living in what is now Jordan were also called "Palestinians" at the time. The Syrians considered the area to be part of their country, and later the Jordanians considered it to be part of there's. The neutral term is 'disputed territory', and is the legal definition. It can only be occupied if an independent nation existed prior, which none did. The term 'occupied territory' is an anti-Israel term, not a legal term. It is misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.23.204 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you came to conclusion that this neutral term?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a term that reflects the view of the international community (including Israel's Supreme Court in the West Bank's case) that is featured in countless reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source which states: "East Jerusalem is regarded as occupied Palestinian territory by the international community, but Israel says it is part of its territory." That clarifies both what is the more commonly used (="neutral" in Wikispeak) term, and that Israel has its own view. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley

The opinions of Adam and Moodley are massively overrepresented in the current article. The exposition of their opinions needs to be trimmed and put into the appropriate section (criticism of the Apartheid analogy) where it belongs. Dlv999 (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is wrong. They are not critics of the analogy, rather analyze the analogy in their book, pointing to similarities and dissimilarities. Read their book. They are as closer to a "secondary, reliable source" than the vast majority of the sources used in this article.Marokwitz (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

They are certainly highly qualified to comment on the topic and are an excellent source for the article, but they are largely critical of the analogy, although as you rightly point out there criticism contains many reservations and they do find similarities between the two regimes. It is wrong to frame the whole article based on one book that has come out largely against the analogy, just as it would be wrong to frame the article purely on the basis of one publication that has supported the analogy - Say Jimmy Carter's book. This material is criticism of the analogy and should be put in the appropriate section. Dlv999 (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be highly inaccurate to label them as critics or supporters of the analogy. In fact, if you look at the history of this article, they were for a very long time in the "supporters" section until I fixed that. The state of this article is extremely poor, judging by academic criteria. I think it is crucial that we reduce the amount of op-es cited in this article and focus on what balanced, reliable secondary sources say, even if this means trimming down this article dramatically. That is why I feel that this book is an extremely important source that should be emphasized, along with other , academic-level, reliable publications on the topic. I really don't feel it is a good idea to give op-eds the same weight that we give reliable secondary sources. Don't you agree? Marokwitz (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying that an academic level publication should be treated the same as an op-ed, but framing the whole article with an extended exposition of the views of two authors from one cited publication, who largely came out against the analogy, is not neutral. Dlv999 (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that labeling them as either "supporters" or "critics" of the analogy would be against their own views, and original research? I don't see why simply moving this section outside of the "supporters" vs "critics" debate would result in "framing the whole article with an extended exposition of the views of two authors". In any case, I will look for additional reliable sources that give a balanced overview of the topic and try to incorporate those as well. Marokwitz (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not willing to concede the points about Adam and Moodley. But your proposal on how to move the article forward seems reasonable. If the Analysis by Adam and Moodley section can include the viewpoints of (at least) several other academic level sources so that it is more of a general overview of scholarly opinion on the topic, rather than just a detailed exposition of the position of 1 cited work then my objections would disappear. Dlv999 (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I am searching for additional reliable secondary sources in order to provide a more general overview of scholarly opinion on the topic and hopefully make this article rely less on op-eds/primary sources. Already found one good source, looking for more. Let's see how that works out. Marokwitz (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Dialog poll

I reverted the edits regarding the Dialog poll because they stated opinions as if they were facts (e.g., "the significance was difficult to assess due to the question's formulation", "the conductors admitted that the term 'apartheid' may not have been clear enough"). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Initially, an article from Haaretz that reported on a poll was put into the article, including the lead. I added some more information from another RS (Times of Israel article) which discussed some of the methodology of the article (it was not an op-ed) and had some additional information.

This was reverted by RolandR, who said he was reverting POV edits, because they “attempt to hide this survey and remove evidence of positive support for apartheid.” This edit summary itself is a POV - any info that goes against the poll and does not show "positive support for apartheid" should be removed. Hence, a removal of reliably referenced info, in order to hide any flawed methodology or controversy over the poll to make it seem as though the results show most Israelis believe Israel is an apartheid state, which itself is POV. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove reliably referenced info. Then a revert, a revert...

So now what are we left with? Well, instead of fixing any POV that editors felt there was, we now have the polar POV. We have a poll in the lead that purports to show that Israelis, using a sample of 500 people out of 6 million, believe their country is Apartheid. There is not any mention of the additional information provided in the Times of Israel reference, which discussed its methodology, the fact that the questions weren’t clear, etc. It gives a completely wrong impression in favor of a POV. Firstly, it shouldn’t even be in the lead, which just gives general overview of support/against arguments, rather than specifics.

Instead of removing reliably referenced information, why don’t instead fix any POV problems? As it stands right now, a POV has been created in order to provide “evidence of positive support for apartheid,” to quote RolandR.

Mr. Shabazz, specifically what is wrong with those two sentences you cited? They are both directly from a reliable reference, which is not an op-ed but a news piece. I can see an issue with the word "admitted," but why not just change that to "said" instead of simply pushing revert and removing this? Critical information has been covered up that is incredibly misleading. --Jethro B 03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The first example might need attribution, the second seems to be a fact? It's in the 5th paragraph of the ToI article. The way the article is left now is certainly an NPOV violation though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The part in the lead is also obviously UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Part of the POV in your edits is the effort to attribute the facts you don't like to Haaretz or Dialog, and state the facts you do like in Wikipedia's voice. Also, what does the NIF have to do with anything?

The number of people polled is a red herring. Statistical sampling always involves a small number of people (e.g., usually a few thousand or less for the United States, with its 300 million population).

I'm going to remove everything about the poll from the article until we can agree on how to present it in an NPOV fashion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Shabazz, I appreciate simply removing the poll entirely from the article while we're discussing, as that takes POV issues into account.

Mr. Shabazz, I would appreciate it if good faith is assumed. I only have good-intentions, and I wanted to balance out the way this information was presented here. I did that to the best of my ability. Criticize it if you'd like, and improve it, and remove any POV that you find. That's part of Wikipedia, and I don't object to it. Obviously, just saying though that I attribute facts I don't like to Haaretz and facts I do to Wikipedia's voice doesn't help, as this was not my intention. If you can provide concrete examples and what is wrong with them, like the two you gave above, then we can work on fixing it all. I have no objections to that. What do you think of mine and NMMNG's comments regarding the two examples you gave? --Jethro B 03:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the assumption of bad faith, Jethro.

I've drafted a paragraph that I think summarizes the salient points. Please let me know what you think. Feel free to edit the draft paragraph as you'd like. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Draft language

In September 2012, Dialog polled Israeli Jews regarding anti-Arab attitudes. The poll revealed that 38% favored annexing an unspecified amount of land in the West Bank with settlements and 48% opposed annexation. In the event that Israel annexes the West Bank, 69% of those surveyed favored preventing Palestinians from voting. The Times of Israel wrote that the significance of this response was "hard to assess" due to the question's formulation. 39% agreed that "there is apartheid in Israel in some ways", 19% agreed it was there "in most ways", 31% said "there is no apartheid at all", and 11% said they did not know. The pollsters said that the term "apartheid" may not have been clear enough to some of those interviewed. 24% believed that the existence of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank was "a good situation" and 50% believed it was "a necessary situation".

References

Mr. Shabazz, all is fine in regards to the good-faith bad-faith. Don't worry about it. As for the draft, on a first glance I think it looks good, although it is late here and I'm too busy to spend a lot of time on it tonight, so I'll leave it open to others if anyone wants to comment and then respond afterwards when it's not that late and I have time. But thank you for being very responsible here and doing a good job, I admire that. --Jethro B 04:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, you can call me Malik. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok Malik, I've looked it over, and your draft seems fine. What will happen below, I don't know... --Jethro B 23:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I object to the complete removal of any reference to this from the article. On israeli matters, Haaretz is as reliable source as we can get, and it reported this as a major story on its front page; it is certainly notable, and should be included.

Nor do I agree with the proposed edit above, which suggests that the attitudes expressed only related to annexation of the 1967-occupied territories. The poll showed that a majority also favoured discrimination against Arab citizens of the state of Israel, with one third wanting to ban them from voting for the Knesset. 49% believe that the state should discriminate in favour of Jewish citizens, and 47% wanted to remove at least some Arab citizens from Israel to the PA. This is not dependent on annexation of the occupied territories, but relates to withdrawal, or a continuation of the status quo. I also think that this editt gives unndue weight to the alleged unclarity of the term "apartheid"; what is clear is that, according to the findings, "e interviewees did not object strongly to describing Israel's character as "apartheid" already today, without annexing the territories".

So I propose reinstating my original edit, and using that as the basis for further improvements, rather than omitteing any mention or using the version proposed above. RolandR (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You made bold edit and you was reverted now we discuss per WP:BRD the apropriate language in Malik proposal is very reasonble and I agree with it but you may propose you own draft if you like--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the succinct original edit made by RR.

• There can be no question this belongs to the page.
• The proposed draft is too long and detailed for a lead, indeed automatically by its length prejudices the question as to the inclusion of this into the lead. It assumes this datum cannot be put into the lead, but must be included lower down. No doubt there should be expansion lower down (including the differential data regarding religious and ethnic breakdowns of voting patterns)
• The text reverses the order of prominence in the main source, downplaying what the news was focused on. Both the title, and the opening paragraphs of Levy's article highlight an Israeli majority for an apartheid regime in the case of WB annexation, and discriminatory practices against Israeli Arabs.
• Having reversed the article's focus, it rewrites its language:
• 'Over a third (38 percent ) of the Jewish public wants Israel to annex the territories with settlements on them, while 48 percent object,' is rephrased as
• 'The poll revealed that 38% favored annexing an unspecified amount of land in the West Bank with settlements.

Therefore, clarification is required why the brief sentence covering the essence of the polls two points (apartheid/West Bank and discrimination in Israel) cannot go in the lead, as is being assumed by the proposal.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The proposed "draft language" violates WP:NPOV. On the pertinent points it only gives the view published in TOI and not the different view (from the original news report) published in Haaretz, i.e. that "Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank." As nishiadani rightly points out, the proposed text totally downplays the focus of the news story, which also happens to be the topic of this Wikipedia article. Dlv999 (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

this wiki article is about 'apartheid' and israel. hence, the poll and review thereof should only discuss the direct apartheid references - anything else is just not relevant here (as per other wiki articles with malik and dlv and others who feel very strongly - rightly so - that if the RS doesn't say 'x', then 'x' is not relevant). so, i think we can only include: "39% agreed that "there is apartheid in Israel in some ways", 19% agreed it was there "in most ways", 31% said "there is no apartheid at all", and 11% said they did not know. The pollsters said that the term "apartheid" may not have been clear enough to some of those interviewed." Soosim (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

After some consideration of the matter, I think I agree with you, Soosim. Unless sources specifically tie some of the other poll results to apartheid, I think it would be OR to include them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Did a quick search for English language news reports on the poll. The reports I have seen support the Haaretz coverage, which means unless there is further evidence (which I haven't seen), we should report this view as the majority view, with the TOI view as the minority (unless other RS are also found which support this position). - For sources see Nishidani's list bellow Dlv999 (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody considered that the Israelis might just be making a rational response to a difficult situation? Just because they see a situation which is logically equivalent to apartheid as the least bad outcome does not mean that they are evil or that we should label them as such. Can we have some balance please? Hcobb (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not true at all, there are a good many which note the results aren't what they seem. But the fact that Harriet Sherwood writes in The Guardian something hardly makes it more of a fact - it means that she based it off the Haaretz article. There are two main bodies of information regarding the poll - the Haaretz article, and the Times of Israel RS reference which discuss certain flaws in the polling. We don't report stuff as "majority" or "minority" because that's how we like it. --Jethro B 23:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Editors opining on the morality of Israelis support for apartheid policies is not appropriate discussion for this talk page and is likely to be highly counter productive. Dlv999 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wise words from Dlv999 there but Hcobb makes a point that may be relevant to this article in terms of perceived causes and their effects, if suitable sources can be found. "Siege Mentality in Israel" by Daniel Bar-Tal and Dikla Antebi is an interesting paper in this regard but it doesn't really go into the kind of details that might make it useful for this article (although there may be more recent papers from the same authors available that could be useful). John Mearsheimer's 2010 lecture at the Palestine Center "The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners" may be of interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the coverage here ought to be so heavily based on the Times of Israel's article. The subject of the article is apartheid, looking at e.g. the Guardian and Independent sources we have the main points: 1) most of the respondents said Israel practices apartheid, 2) most said Palestinians should be denied the vote if the WB were annexed and 3) 30% said Israeli Arabs ought to be denied the vote. This poll has received quite a lot of coverage in RS, so it should obviously be discussed in the article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A poll is worthless without knowing the methodology used, as anyone who's learned statistics will tell you. If the pollsters admit that people may not have understood the questions, or if, as the Globe and Mail tells us, Haaretz said that the "questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists", that stuff should go in the text otherwise you have an NPOV violation. I'm surprised nobody published the margin of error, which is also important. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ie, results of a poll reported in a major Israeli newspaper are worthless unless we investigate the methodology of the poll itself? By the way, no one seems to have objected to the substantial use of polls at Palestinian political violence where surveys of support were amply cited. Official Israeli government sources are cited all over the I/P area, as are IDF reports on violence, all written by groups of people who are not peace activists or academics and therefore neutral. B'tselem and Human Rights Watch data is written by peace activists, and included unproblematically. At Jerusalem I don't think we plied the worry beads when Tritomex cited a poll there from the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, whose founder is a 'democracy' activist. What makes this article any different? It's simplest to follow standard procedure, i.e., since this will cover at least a paragraph when more sources over the next week and month arrive, to write (a) what Haaretz said (b) the various follow-ups, and keep RR's summary sentence in the lead, because leads have to sum up sections.

According to Pollard, the poll's results repeat what polls have found in the past, similar figures for Israeli public support for separation, and the only 'shock' was to find the same results repeated when the original word, apartheid, which of course means 'separation', happened to be used in the polling questions. (Pollard smh)Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If other polls have their methodology questioned by RS, that should go in articles where they are cited as well. Is there any particular reason you want to obscure pertinent information about this poll from the readers of this article? If Noam Shelef (I assume you know who he is) questions the methodology of a poll like this, why should we not include that?

I doubt there will be "more sources over the next week and month". Gideon Levi has pushed this to all his contacts already. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Very peculiar. Nowhere here have I suggested any RS information be excluded. Indeed I have listed as many RS, some quite critical yet missed, that I am familiar with, as a basis for the section draft. I always argue for complete coverage, of all sides. 'Is there any particular reason you want to obscure pertinent information'!!. I only wished you applied that principle on theAshkenazi Jews talk page! That's the first time anyone has accused me of excluding pertinent information from wikipedia. My whole problem with wikipedia I/P articles is dealing with the strength of opposition to my inclusionist principles. And, by the way, using a talk page to impute or insinuate that Gideon Levy, note the spelling, is manipulating world-wide the media take-up of his story sounds uncannily like a topsy-turvy spin of the mapcap Jewish conspiracy theory, and is a WP:BLP violation, It should be struck out.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you said "results of a poll reported in a major Israeli newspaper are worthless unless we investigate the methodology of the poll itself?". I await your proposed text.

That Gideon Levy promotes his articles to the foreign press is not imputing on anything. It's a well known fact amply documented in the Israeli reality show "connected" in which Levy participated. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You are making an inference. Even were it true, it is not documented the way Mearsheimer and Walt comprehensively provide the evidence for massive lobbying in all media (they ignored wikipedia though) that skews all Western reportage to the Zionist narrative. So the point you made is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to not apply NPOV like we always do. Namely, see what most of the sources say and weight accordingly. Most of the sources said in fact what I listed above with 1) and 2). One source as far as I can see questioned methodology, so that aspect can be mentioned and given that weight. Making the whole text about Times of Israel's criticism would be giving ToI undue weight. That Guardian and Independent report what Haaretz said of the poll and not what ToI said of the methodology reflects an editorial choice which we need to take into account, since it affects the weights given to various aspects of this information in reliable sources. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, most sources said that Haaretz reported those numbers. None of them seem to have independently verified them. The Guardian and Independent are not bound by NPOV (obviously). We are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, 40 hours after the text was reverted, there is no mention in the article about this significant development. Unless there is agreement soon about a replacement text, I intend to restore my original edit; it is ridiculous to omit any reference to this. RolandR (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your text was an obvious NPOV violation and included irrelevant material. Please don't restore an edit that was objected to by multiple editors without first gaining consensus for it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Where was the NPOV violation in my purely factual and conmpletely accurate summary of an article in Haaretz? I don't think I added even one adjective. RolandR (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If anyone can find an NPOV violation there, document it. Most of the argument concerns how the sentence rightly included by RR in the lead, should be developed in a section below. Many seem to have forgotten that this article is about 'Israel and the apartheid analogy'. We have polling evidence, it has generated much comment, the poll was conducted under the purview of Camil Fuchs (please check his credentials, he's one of Israel's foremost experts on statistics), and appeared in a mainstream Israeli paper. I support the restoration of this one sentence to the lead. I would call on all editors to develop a section to explain the poll's details, criticisms in sources, and its impact abroad. Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The NPOV violation, as has been documented above, is that it did not include any of the criticisms that appear in RS. And we don't put something in the lead and then develop a section. We first develop the section and then, if appropriate, summarize it in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No. The section was written, by Jethro, after Roland's edit. It was badly done, but expanded that lead sentence. Just restore both in their respective sections. All Roland need do is write:-

According to a September 2012 opinion poll, a majority of Israeli Jews expressed support for discriminatory measures in Israel and the Occupied Territories, and for an apartheid regime if Israel were to annex the West Bank. 58% said Israel already practiced apartheid there. The results have been challenged.+ref to Times or Israel/HonestReporting.

And, in the same edit, add the Malik/Jethro expansion in a separate development section below, and your objection drops. The expansion is in a sorry state, but rather than talk infinitely, we should simply restore both, in their respective sections, and ask all to read the sources and improve the section, which hasn't been touched since it was proposed.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the article history, you will see that I first added information about the poll in the body of the article[14], and only then added a sentence to the lead[15]. I know better than to put potentially contentious article in the lead without adding a substantive edit to the body of the article. RolandR (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My comment about the lead was addressed to Nishidani.

As for the lead text, first of all I don't think that one poll that will maybe get a short paragraph in the body actually belongs in the lead. Second, even it if did, it should be attributed to Haaretz since every single source (except Haaretz itself) attributes it to them. Third, the poll didn't ask if they supported "an apartheid regime if Israel were to annex the West Bank". That omits both the fact that the question didn't actually use the term "apartheid" and the fact that most respondents said Israel shouldn't even annex territory with settlements on it, not to mention the whole thing. Third it omits the fact that the pollsters admit that people might not have understood what "apartheid" means. There's more, but we can start with these. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely does not belong in lead. Results for a hypothetical scenario with a vague question whose conductors said was vague. Gideon Levy opens up sensationalist journalism with writing "Israelis support the establishment of an apartheid state,"i ignoring again this isn't supported by the #s, which discuss a hypothetical scenario which most Israelis oppose and uses a vague term (which Levy said the word "apartheid" was unclear in the question regarding the current situation), and most likely the issue regarding voting, which again was in a hypothetical scenario that most Israelis oppose, was out of a natural tendency not to support the political suicide of a country via changing its foundational character. Again - the poll says most Israelis oppose annexing the West Bank - which makes all the following stuff fantasy. Why would they perhaps oppose annexation? Because if they don't want to commit political suicide, they'd likely be forced to be associated with apartheid - something that they show they do not support.

Feel free to access the poll results here, and learn a few interesting things you won't encounter in Levy's article, such as 59% of Israelis opposing limiting the right of Arabs to vote. So when it says that most don't want Arabs to vote in the Knesset, based on some hypothetical scenario that would be split alon citizenship lines and not racial lines, this is simply contradicted by other answers.

There is no reason to include the results of a survey that discuss a hypothetical scenario using a term that was confusing in the lead, which simply discusses for and against arguments. The current way the lead is is structured in 2 paragraphs - for and against. Including a hypothetical scenario isn't relevant to the lead. There is also no reason to remove the vital information regarding the flaws in its questioning and methodology, in favor of that it was simply challenged (the times of israel isn't an opinion piece btw, it's an actual newspiece, and they're simply reporting on the facts, not challenging it themselves), in favor of a heavily misleading passage. Note that Nishidani's draft includes in the event of annexation, but then fails to note that such an event is opposed by most. Note also that the results haven't been challenged, but rather the survey Levy's article has been criticized as not representing the true side of the survey, while flaws in the survey have been pointed out. --Jethro B 00:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Procedure.

• RR put text into the body of the article, and then added the lead sentence. No objections there.

Importance of item

• We now have a specific poll listing the results of an empirical study into Israeli attitudes regarding the topic of Israel and Apartheid. The poll goes to the meat of the topic argument. It is thoroughly relevant.

Analogy

• The priority of editors at Price tag policy was to insert poll results into the lead, indicating strong Israeli opposition to these attacks. No objection from me or anyone else.

Poll source

• Impeccable. It is run by one of Israel's foremost statisticians. Jethro and NMMGG are opposing this by questioning the poll (the primary source, and Haaretz's reportage). That's not our job. We look at the RS, and do not make editorial judgements about the source.

Hypothetical scenario

• Jethro. It is in the nature of polls to examine audience 'intentions' or 'attitudes'. See Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 and the many correlated articles. Objecting to our use of one result because it deals with a response to an 'hypothetical' situation reflects subjective distaste, is neither here nor there, and not grounded in a policy argument.

Levy's report missed stuff in the original source'.

• That applies to all reportage. Leads give a thumbnail summary, and the body of the article expands to point out everything related to the primary source and its media response, per the subsequent reportage of responses. This is not an argument.

So far all I have seen are WP:IDONTLIKEIT opposition. Editors should not be seen opposing a poll on one page which they find distasteful, while polls that indicate results they like go unchallenged on similar pages. There is no coherence in approach in these objections.Nishidani (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

as long as it includes the comments about the respondants not understanding what apartheid is, that's fine. also, btw, the new york times wouldn't even go near it, calling it a 'push poll'. Soosim (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Do I have to repeat this? I am an inclusionist whose only criterion for exclusion is bad sources. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to this is probably using wiki rules to censor coverage. That's why I entered into the Ezra Nawi page his conviction for underage sex, though RR was understandably opposed given the POV pressure there to use it to smear him. We should stop fighting over this. Everything RS report goes into an article. Everything does not go into the lead, self-evidently. RR's laconic line is perfectly trimmed to give the essence of the poll. Three extra words, if editors agree, re 'contested' would satisfy NPOV holdouts. The New York Times, from my knowledge, usually waits some weeks, if not years, before anything controversial reported of Israel gets covered. The New York Times did not call it a push poll. Jodi Rudoren, one of their ME reporters, did in a tweet, according to Jonathan Hoffman in his instant blog comment,'Ha'aretz twists poll, Guardian and JC follow but JC then has second thoughts,' at Jewish Chronicle, 23 October 2012. Not RS, though certainly interesting, in the extraordinary suggestion implicit here that Amiram Goldblum, perhaps to make his deceased wife smile in her grave, managed to manipulate Prof. Camil Fuchs, so that he forgot his reputation and outstanding analytical gifts in order to 'influence or alter the view of respondents' and make Gideon Levy and the Haaretz jihadis happy? I'm sure the blogosphere's gone ballistic with conspiracy theories of this kind. Who cares? None of it is RS, unless you take RS to be code for 'ratshit'.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, are you inventing new requirements to sources? Weight is determined by the volume of coverage in reliable sources. Independent and Guardian are reliable, simple as that. "Reliable", by the way, means that we can rely on them without speculating on whether they did some kind of unspecified additional checks. I agree we should restore the text, to it can be added a short (per weight) mention of the ToI criticism. --Dailycare (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Your last post was speculation on why the Guardian and Independent didn't cover the criticism and now you're telling me not to speculate? We don't need to speculate if they did additional checks or not. Every single one of them attributes it to Haaretz.

@Nishidani - so you're saying a single poll is lead material? There are all sorts of polls floating around. If this single poll that will get a few lines in the body goes in the lead of this article, I might feel compelled to put all kinds of single polls in other articles. They're not hard to find and some of them have all sorts of very unflattering results.

I'm also enjoying what you have to say about blogs. You freely include them when they advance your POV, but now they're "ratshit". Awesome. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree the inclusion of one specific poll would be WP:UNDUE] and against WP:LEAD--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, I never participated in a discussion on such an article so I can't control the results there. However, you need to distinguish between a survey that has ground results, and a survey that is simply about a hypothetical scenario that is opposed by most Israelis. If you asked an Israeli, "If a million dollars fell out of the sky, would you take it?" That doesn't make the results suitable to go into the lead of an article on Israelis. This is especailly true when we have RS, not just ourselves, questioning the accuracy and reliability of these polls, and the fact that the results can be very misleading (making it innacurate to put into lead).

So yes, there actually are serious objections to what RolandR put into the article and the lead.

If the survey was not a hypothetical scenario that was opposed by most respondents, and the questions were not confusing to anyone and everyone understood what it meant, it could be acceptable for the lead. But the nature of this poll just doesn't make it suitable. --Jethro B 19:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro, your personal opinions about surveys are irrelevant to this discussion. We represent what reliable sources say, not the personal opinions of editors. If you want to claim that there are different types of surveys that can be distinguished, find an RS that says so in the context of this article, otherwise its just your opinion. We have numerous RS that report the findings of the survey. We have one or two that question the findings. It shouldn't be a difficult task to put together a text with the majority and minority viewpoints covered. Dlv999 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that even Levy admits that the term "apartheid" was unclear and that the question was asked only in regards to a hypothetical scenario, which another question found was opposed by most Israelis. --Jethro B 19:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. Explain to me what is hypothetical about the following :the interviewees did not object strongly to describing Israel's character as "apartheid" already today, without annexing the territories. Only 31 percent objected to calling Israel an "apartheid state" and said "there's no apartheid at all." In contrast, 39 percent believe apartheid is practiced "in a few fields"; 19 percent believe "there's apartheid in many fields" and 11 percent do not know. Dlv999 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the second case, where the pollsters explained that the term was unclear to respondents, and hence the results may not be accurate. While perhaps suitable for the body of the article, it's far too misleading and controversial to simply put into the lead. [If you're interested in just thinking logically, what does apartheid in a few fields or most fields even mean? Apartheid refers to a government policy of discrimination. It seems the pollsters were saying that respondents thought they were being asked about discrimination in various fields in general, and the use of the term "apartheid" was unclear to them, giving misleading results.] --Jethro B 21:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No. The survey conductors said: "perhaps the term "apartheid" was not clear enough to some interviewees", however interviewees had the option to select "don't know" if they were unfamiliar with the term "apartheid", but only 11% went for that option for that particular question. Regarding your OR, as I have already requested, it would be more helpful if you just stuck to the sources instead of giving us your own theory. See eg the SMH report :"When specifically questioned on whether there is apartheid in Israel, 58 per cent said there was – of those, 39 per cent said apartheid existed "in some respects" and 19 per cent said it existed "in many respects". Thirty-one per cent believed there was no apartheid." - which makes perfect sense, no need for original theories from editors. Dlv999 (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, so do you have any basis in policy for your allegation that those sources shouldn't be taken into account when determining weight, if they used Haaretz as their source? I sincerely doubt that you don't, as WP:NPOV says "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" (my italics). If a story originates in one source and is immensely reported thereon, it becomes very prevalent. Prevalent means "widespread" (source), and spreading inherently in fact implies that is began somewhere and spread from there. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The story that is prevalent is that Haaretz reported something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems we're sort of in agreement. --Dailycare (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The original front page article [16] is now renamed by Haaretz. This, I think, should be mentioned, when citing the source, otherwise it look as if it was traveling under wrong flag.89.139.71.1 (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Source List for the article section

Probably this will become controversial over the following days and weeks, and will require a paragraph, with one sentence lead summary. For convenience, here is a source list. One can add to it. Please note (for far) how the article headings and lead paragraphs report the information.

• Given the number of emerging sources this probably will end up in a separate article, to which this page will provide a link.

• Original Poll at scribd
• Gideon Levy, 'Apartheid without shame or guilt,' Haaretz 23 October 2012

• Gideon Levy, 'Survey:most Israeli Jews would support Apartheid regime in Israel,' at Haaretz, 23 October 2012, carried also in The Forward here

• Gabe Fisher 'Controversial survey ostensibly highlights widespread anti-Arab attitudes in Israel,' at The Times of Israel, 23 October 2012

• AFP, Israelis approve discrimination if West Bank annexed: poll, Agence France-Presse, 23 October 2012 (same day, apartheid not used in text)

• Catrina Stewart, 'The new Israeli apartheid: Poll reveals widespread Jewish support for policy of discrimination against Arab minority,' at The Independent, 23 October, 2012

• Adrian Blomfield, 'Israelis favour discrimination against Arabs - poll,' at Telegraph. 23 October, 2012

• Noam Shelef, 'That poll's apartheid problem,' at The Daily Beast/Newsweek, 23 October 2012 ('claiming the poll demonstrates support for “apartheid” is spin at its worst.')

• Natasha Lennard 'A majority of Israeli Jews support apartheid regime, survey finds,' at Salon.com, 23 October, 2012

• 'Israeli Jews support apartheid in Israel,' at Jewish Chronicle, 23 October 2012

• Gianluca Mezzofiore, Israeli Jews Support Apartheid Regime, Survey Reveals,' at International Business Times, 23 October 2012

• 'Poll shows majority Israelis favour 'apartheid' policies,' in The Guardian, 24 October 2012

• Ruth Pollard 'Israelis back discrimination against Arabs: poll, at Sydney Morning Herald, 24 October, 2012

• Paul Koring ‘Many Israelis Jews support apartheid style state, poll suggests,’ at Globe and Mail, October 24 2012

• 'Israeli Jews Believe The Country Already Practices Apartheid Against Its Arabs, Survey Shows,', at Huffington Post, 24 October 2012

• Joshua Lapide, Most Israeli Jews for apartheid regime in Israel,' at AsiaNews, 24 October, 2012

• Jack Khoury and Jonathan Lis, Arab MKs: Israeli Jews' support of apartheid is not surprising,' at Haaretz, 24 October 2012.

• Christa Case Bryant, Momentum builds for Gaza to secede, Israel and West Bank to become one,' at Christian Science Monitor, 24 October 2012-10-29

• Gideon Levy, 'Meet the israelis,' at Haaretz, 25 October, 2012. (op-ed)

• Ilene Prusher 'Politics: Breaking stereotypes', at Jerusalem Post, 25 October 2012

• Jenni Frazer, 'Shock findings of ‘apartheid’ poll questioned,' at Jewish Chronicle, October 25, 2012

• Benjamin Pogrund 'Israel has moved to the right, but it is not an apartheid state,' at The Guardian, 26 October, 2012 ( The original headline of this article, "Israel is hostile towards Arabs, but it is not an apartheid state", was changed at 17:46 on 26 October 2012 at the request of the author) (op-ed)

• Yehuda Ben Meir 'Most of us don't want apartheid,', at Haaretz, 28 October, 2012 (op ed)

• Gideon Levy 'Errors and omissions excepted,' at Haaretz, 29 October 2012

• Ben White, 'Israel is an apartheid state (no poll required) ,' at AlJazeera, 29 October, 2012 (op-ed)

• Shany Mor, 'BICOM Expert View: The Apartheid Smear, by Shany Mor,' at Bicom, 29 October, 2012

• Shany Mor,'‘Apartheid’ poll: Errors that traveled round the world,' at Haaretz, 29 October, 2012

• Richard Goldstone, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html 'Israel and the Apartheid slander,'] at New York Times, 29 October, 2012.(op-ed.

• 'Israeli poll finds majority would be in favour of 'apartheid' policies: Clarification,', at The Guardian, 30 October 2012 •

• Elhanan Miller 'Haaretz changes tack on major story that alleged widespread ‘apartheid’ attitudes in Israel,', at The Times of Israel, October 30, 2012,

• Alex Ryvchin 'Shonky poll serves to demonise Israelis as pro-apartheid ,' at The Australian, 1 November, 2012

• 'Israelis debate significance of apartheid survey,' at Deutsche Welle, I November 2012

• Gideon Levy, 'Practising apartheid -- and proud of it,', at Mail & Guardian, 2 Novem,ber 2012

• Anna Sheinman,'Apartheid' pollsters reject Bicom criticism,' at Jewish Chronicle, 1 November 2012

• Jeffrey L. Smith, 'Two State Solution,' Calgary Herald, November 1,2012

• Gerald M. Steinberg, apartheid pseudo-poll,' at Israel Hayom November 1, 2012 (op-ed)

• Paul Koring paper clarifies controversial poll story, The Globe and Mail, 2 November, 2012

• Gideon Levy, Apartheid, by any other name, at Haaretz 11 November, 2012

• • Sources that bear on the topic but which some might query as RS-compatible.
• The proposed paragraph reprints essentially the reorganizing of the data in, and reflects the priorities of Simon Plosker, 'Ha’aretz Creates Non-Existent Apartheid State,' at HonestReporting, October 23, 2012

• Ha'aretz's Apartheid Campaign Against Israel, at Camera, October 25, 2012

• Noam Sheizaf, ‘Poll: Israelis support discrimination against Arabs, embrace the term apartheid,’, at +972mag , 23 October 2012 (Sheizaf is often cited in the RS above, but may legitimately be challenged here)

See also

• Carlo Strenger, The psychology of Israel’s declining democracy,' at Haaretz, 24 October 2012Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

and see how quickly the 'new israel fund' has distanced themselves from the poll: http://www.timesofisrael.com/survey-highlights-anti-arab-attitudes-in-israel/ "The NIF later denied any tie to the poll. “The poll released today by the Goldblum Fund/Dialog was not commissioned or sponsored or in any way related to the New Israel Fund,” Naomi Paiss, NIF Vice President, Public Affairs, wrote in an email. “The Goldblum Fund gets some funding from Signing Anew, a non-related organization with whom we sometimes jointly sponsor projects, but this wasn’t one of them.”

The equivocation of the NIF does not invalidate the data. RolandR (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

How many of those sources are just reporting that Haaretz reported something? Seems like all of them. Did I miss anything or are these not exactly independent sources reporting on a poll they actually read? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well in that case lets just use the Haaretz report and forget all the rest. Or do you just want to just forget all the reports that support Haaretz coverage and only include the one or two reports that do not support Haaretz coverage. If so that is bias and certainly not compatible with our NPOV policy. Dlv999 (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure he's saying that we can divide these into two (I say three really) groups - the Haaretz article and reports that were based on this article, and reports that discussed the Haaretz article/survey/issues, rather than simply just using the article itself. My third category would be opinion pieces, some of which there are above. --Jethro B 00:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of the sources. All of the reports use the initial Haaretz report as the basis of the story. All of the reports add there own further reporting to the story. Dlv999 (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

They commented on the story as published in Haaretz. They all attribute it to Haaretz (or in other words, do not take responsibility for the data) and add no data from the poll itself that doesn't appear in Haaretz. What we have here is A reporting "B said C" and other sources saying "A said B said C". It should not only be attributed to Haaretz like all the sources do, it should also be attributed to Gideon Levy since he's the only actual source for the data. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this is a news story not an opinion piece by Levy, and as far as I can tell the story contains no editorial comment at all. Haaretz is reliable for reporting the results of a poll. It can be attributed the Dialog Group, but not to Levy, and not to Haaretz either. Unless you would like to challenge the reliability of a news article in Haaretz to report the results of a poll at RS/N that is. nableezy - 22:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be attributed to Haaretz because that's what every other source does. And of course it contains editorial content. It's interpreting poll results, not just publishing them. In fact, it is very light on actual quotes from the poll and very heavy on interpretation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Haaretz_and_poll_results nableezy - 22:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Newbie's draft wrongly placed in article mainspace. Relocated here

I've added two newbie or anon suggestions from the article (A) and (C). I've edited C for NPOV, but haven't checked the refs. What is lacking is reference to the criticisms. The section requires (a) the data of the poll direct (b) its publication in Haaretz and the way it was taken up by several newspapers (c) comment by sources on both the poll, Gideon Levy and the apartheid issue. Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(Propoal B) “Most of the Jewish [Israeli] public (58 percent) already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs”, according to an opinion poll of Israeli Jews in Oct. 2012 published in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and analysed by Israeli human rights activist and journalist Gideon Levy.

“The survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews. The survey was commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund and is based on a sample of 503 interviewees. The questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists. Dialog is headed by Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs.

The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don't want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don't want their children in the same class with Arab children. A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.

A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter - 24 percent - believe separate roads are "a good situation" and 50 percent believe they are "a necessary situation." Almost half - 47 percent - want part of Israel's Arab population to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority and 36 percent support transferring some of the Arab towns from Israel to the PA, in exchange for keeping some of the West Bank settlements. Although the territories have not been annexed, most of the Jewish public (58 percent) already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs. Only 31 percent think such a system is not in force here. Over a third (38 percent ) of the Jewish public wants Israel to annex the territories with settlements on them, while 48 percent object.” Added from the article where it was prematurely proposed Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(Proposal C)

Polling evidence

According to an October 2012 opinion poll (sample 503 Israeli Jews) commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund and published in Haaretz, a majority of the Israeli Jewish public (58 percent) believes that Israel already practices apartheid against Arabs, and 59% wants Jewish Israelis to be given preference over Arab Israelis in the selection of personnel for jobs in government ministries.

The poll found that almost half Israeli Jews, 49%, want the state to treat its Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42% do not desire to live in the same building with Arabs and 42% do not want their children to share classes with Arab Israeli children. It emerged also that a third of Israel's Jewish public would support a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset. A large majority of 69% was found to object to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote were Israel to annexe the West Bank.

To be fair, it is getting a bit silly now, we are 4 days after the original edit and there is still nothing in the article describing this widely reported poll that is clearly relevant to the topic of the article. Dlv999 (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The situation is ridiculous, and, irrespective of intentions, looks like filibustering. It's normal to have such information promptly added to the page as news reports it. I suggest RR just do as suggested above, though I'd like to hear Malik on this beforehand. A short hint in the lead, and either draft proposal A or C into the relevant subsection. It doesn't matter that the latter is wholly inadequate. We can then work on it there, and here, to make it faithful to the articles. Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What a poll has to do with science?. Nowhere conclusions are drown from a polls. For example the poll carried out by Palestinians in 2010 found that more East Jerusalem Palestinians would like to live under Israel, than under Palestinian rule. More so 40% of East Jerusalem Arab residents would prefer to loose their homes than to be left under Palestinian rule. So polls are never scientifically established facts, they have margin of error and in many cases are used for political manipulations.[17]--Tritomex (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the use of polls in wikipedia articles, please take the complaint elsewhere. They are all over hundreds of articles and their legitimacy for article construction has never been questioned. This is not a forum for such discussions.Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you try to keep your personal opinions off the talk page and instead apply the content rules to the reliably sourced information available. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

as i had written earlier - the views that the interviewer said about the respondants not understanding the questions must be included. i don't see that up above. Soosim (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Both the statement that respondents didn't understand the question and the breakdown which says that people think there is apartheid "in some areas" should be included. The things about living in the same building etc do not belong in this article since they don't mention apartheid. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that they did not understand the question, more that the pollsters said perhaps some of the interviewees may not have understood the term "apartheid". But of course they had the option to say "don't know" to that question, an option only 11% of the interviewees selected in that question. Dlv999 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is very interesting. Let me give you my opinion in return. There's no such thing as "apartheid in some areas". The information that the pollsters themselves thought people might not have understood the question is important, as is the somewhat misleading question they asked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I indicated above that I support including poll results for questions directly related to apartheid. But I think it would be OR to include questions about separate roads, Arabs voting, etc., unless RS use the word apartheid to describe those results.

In summarizing the poll results above ("Draft language"), I quoted directly from Haaretz. There is no "apartheid in some areas"; it is "apartheid in some ways". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agreed with what Soosim wrote above (and which you're writing here regarding certain questions). As for the latter statement, the original poll itself says "in certain fields" or "certain areas" or "certain topics," depending how you want to translate it. But the question did not say "in some ways." --Jethro B 00:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at the graphic, where the question is translated properly as "in some ways". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

My point still stands with "some ways". Since how the question was framed has been criticized in RS the text should note this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Lost in translation, perhaps? It can't be disputed what the poll question says. They can only literally say one thing, their literal interpretations aren't open to interpretation. There are numerous cases of "lost in translation" throughoug reliable media, even newspapers like The New York Times have a section where they post errors they made, and here we have the primary source directly contradicting what a secondary source said the primary source asked. --Jethro B 04:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

We're not going to solve that here without another RS that gives a different translation, so there's no point arguing over it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

@ NMMNG, it's not my opinion, read the source: it states that the pollsters said, "perhaps the term "apartheid" was not clear enough to some interviewees". You are giving me your opinion Vs what is said in the cited source. Also the read the SMH report of this question: "When specifically questioned on whether there is apartheid in Israel, 58 per cent said there was – of those, 39 per cent said apartheid existed "in some respects" and 19 per cent said it existed "in many respects." - Which makes sense, to my mind at least. I think you are latching on to an awkward translation and making something out of nothing, in any case unless you have a source it is just your opinion as you freely admit. Dlv999 (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If they didn't understand a term used in a question, they didn't understand the question. But ok, it should say they didn't understand the term. It should also show what exact wording was used, since we have that information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Providing misleading information's delegitimatize the entire poll and the use of non scientific tools(as the insertion of linguistically foreign political terminology) discredit entire poll and its findings. As far as I see the results as presented by Guardian are in fact constructed manipulations by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy. Also the overall public nowhere on world is politically educated, so the usage of linguistically foreign political terms, without detailed explanation, can not bring any neutral or relevant results. Polls can be neutral or biased, scientific or non scientific. In this case there are many evidence that the combination of bias and non scientific can be applied here, even in the formulations of the questions(we can not check the results)--Tritomex (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Your mistake here is that you think some people wouldn't use a poll they know is biased or non-scientific. You're new here. You'll learn. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that there are other opinions on this issue. Here is the articlkle from CAMERA-Committee for accuracy in Middle East reporting that states "Unsurprisingly, Levy’s article was full of omissions and distortions. He apparently ignored the data that did not suit him and emphasized those that were in accord with his own well-known anti-Israel world view. At times, he completely reversed the survey’s findings. The sensational headline represents, at best, Levy’s interpretation of the survey and does not represent objective, factual reporting. " Goldflam further explaines manipulations with both the results and with the question itself. Beyond Levy’s ignoring of the survey’s nuance, with his blanket assertion that Israel "practices apartheid against Arabs," are the problems inherent in the survey question itself – which Levy similarly ignores. What is "apartheid in some areas" or "apartheid in many areas"? The term "apartheid," contrary to its superficial use in the survey, and contrary to the concept of "discrimination" has a very clear and precise meaning: According to the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it refers to "an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."There is no such thing as "some" apartheid. There is either apartheid or no apartheid. Apartheid is not simply discrimination – the sort that exists in almost every country around the world including Israel, which is precisely why the term was created specifically to describe South Africa’s regime."[18] In fact average people nowhere on earth have political education and the usage of foreign political terminology is always avoided in polls which are intended to be neutral. Considering the results ,Goldflam accuse Levy with serious manipulations and with direct misquoting of the results "Does the overall picture obtained from these results support Levy’s characterization of most Israeli Jews favoring discrimination against Israeli-Arabs? On the contrary. Most people reading these results would perceive just the opposite, that a majority of Israelis do not support discrimination against Arabs."

So the question is now, should Wikipedia quote an article which was described by other articles as misquoted and manipulative, present it as "absolute fact" without balancing this in order to achieve NPOV with the opinion from other sources like CAMERA. Or should this newspaper article which present entire nation as racist be avoided due to very serious allegations against the main editor of this source--Tritomex (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please desist from blogging. Talk is pointless about what may be the case. Thje procedure is to survey sources, agree on RS, and then write the results, confirming or tweaking by collegial discussion. So far the tendency has been to avoid even looking at Malik's version or editing it towards improvement. We simply require a comprehensive survey of the poll results and commentary as reflected in RS. If no one else does it in the meantime, I will present a systematic synthesis of all the available source tomorrow, periodized and thematized, with each point tightly linked to its source, and will post it for comment, trimming. Something has to go into the article, and endless, often filibustering or opinionizing talk is not the purpose for which we come to edit this encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Beware of WP:SYNTHESIS. There is no need for each and every media outlet that reported on it to go in, as the vast majority of those are foreign outlets that simply reported what Haaretz said. Thus, using the Haaretz article which they used is sufficient to get what they reported. The Times of Israel, on the other hand, as an Israeli media outlet has more resources and was able to add additional information about the poll, not in an op-ed but in a reliable article. Thus, such a reference is distinguished from the others. If there is another reference that doesn't do either but something else or adds something else, then that can be used as well. But just because various outlets picked up on the story, doesn't mean that the factual contents of the story change from one article to the other. --Jethro B 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro, what on earth are you talking about? There is nothing in Nishidani's comment relevant to to WP:SYNTHESIS. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. Particularly: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Thus, as Nishidani points out, we survey the sources, agree on RS, then write the material. Per WP:NPOV, the weighting we give each viewpoint is based on its prominence in RS. That is why we survey all sources. I would have thought this would be uncontroversial stuff, yet you are disputing it. Your labeling of non-Israeli sources as "foreign outlets" is odd. This is not an Israeli website. We survey all English language sources, we do not divide them into Israeli and "foreign" sources. Also I think your speculation about ToI having more resources than the other sources is off the mark. Dlv999 (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as Dlv999 says, we're required by policy to make sure that the information we present to readers is weighted in a way that reflects its relative prominence in reliable sources. If we don't, readers may be misled and believe for example that the information from Haaretz and the Times of Israel has been given equal prominence by other reliable sources, which is clearly not the case here. The fact that, as you say, "the vast majority of those are foreign outlets that simply reported what Haaretz said" is very significant for us because that is exactly the kind of metric required to decide, in an objective way, how much weight to assign to a piece of information in order to comply with NPOV. The information in an AP or Reuters report for example will almost always have far more weight than information from a single local outlet (if editors had time to do a systematic survey of all RS for every piece of information everytime) because the likes of AP and Reuters have so many subscribers. Consequently their reports are published by thousands of outlets, giving the information they publish prominence in reliable sources, and prominence in RS is a determining factor for us. So, I think your "The Times of Israel, on the other hand" argument is inconsistent with core policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between just taking what another media outlet said and reporting it without doing any reporting yourself, and actually doing some more reporting. A lot of the media outlets cited here that allegedly can make a misleading fact into an uncontroversial fact are simply parroting what Haaretz wrote. And for foreign media outlets, it may not be worth the time to do some investigative reporting into the poll and harder to double check the results, which is certainly easier for local media outlets. There are two types of reports that we have here - those who took what Haaretz said simply, and those that did something else. And I'm talking about the ones in English, the fact that they're Israeli doesn't disqualify them, and they are in English the ones I brought (hence, accessible internatinoally)... A look at the media outlets that actually did further investigation and further reporting shows that they are quite critical of what Haaretz wrote. A look at some other polls shows very different results. A look at even some of what Levy wrote shows there is a lot of misleading in this poll, which makes it tough to use as evidence. Then there's the clarification they just wrote today, which I posted below. Neutrality requires that we don't be misleading and that we think logically, not based on what we like or don't like. --Jethro B 15:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The method we use to weight viewpoints in articles per our WP:NPOV policy is to assess how prevalent those viewpoints are in RS and then use that to determine how much weight we give those viewpoints in our articles. You have given us your own personal opinion several times now. Unfortunately it is not relevant to any Wikipedia policy and is not going to determine how the article is weighted, which will be down to consensus based on Wikipedia policy and the RS evidence. Dlv999 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani You wrote down the procedure par excellence. You only forget to mention that the opinion of others regarding the subject have to be included in order to avoid POV and CAMERA is not a blog but a highly specialized institution with a defined aim to promote journalistic accuracy.--Tritomex (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please reread what I said. I forgot to mention nothing (2) familiarize yourself with RS/N on Camera's status as a source. Good night Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

As I'm aware, CAMERA can be included with attribution if necessary. I think it's fine and easiest to just stick with Haaretz and Times of Israel, and any other reliable sources that add something different. --Jethro B 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, CAMERA is not a reliable source, and unless a reliable source makes note of their view they cannot be used. And somebody making both this comment and the above is rather odd. nableezy - 06:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

and here is some more information, in case you missed it: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-gideon-levy-and-the-israel-apartheid-canard/ --Soosim

*Ben-Dror Yemini, 'Haaretz, Gideon Levy, and the Israel apartheid canard,' at The Times of Israel, 26 October, 2012. (Ben-Dror Yemini is a senior journalist with the Hebrew daily Maariv who lectures about the anti-Israel lie industry)

No, Soosim. That's dreadful crap, hardly better than what you get from I/P editors on talk pages. I'm not, according to context and quality, opposed to the use of blogs, but cite Yemeni and you'd only have thrown back at you the response by

Jonathan Zausmer 'Israel and Apartheid. Don't shoot the messenger,' at the same newspaper, The Times of Israel, 26 October, 2012. (Yemini ‘he writes as an “enlisted” journalist dabbling in hasbara for a regime that is leading the country into a danger zone of neo-apartheid that is very real indeed’). Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it crap? OR is it just you don't like what Yemeni wrote (did you read it?), and thus rush to label him some hasbarist, because you disagree. Do you know who Yemeni is? He's one of Israel's most respected journalists and is a senior journalist at Maariv, a major Israeli publication. Part of what he wrote is exactly what I've been explaining here, for example, "The real reason that most Israelis oppose the annexation of the territories, however, is, most likely, that they would like to avoid a bi-national state or the risk of an apartheid one." Yemeni also uses the full poll to compare what Levy wrote and the actual results - just showing how much more misleading it is to use this Dialog poll as put in Haaretz.

Then there are other polls, as he brought, which are hardly right-wing, and show completely different results. Here is just one of those results - a 63 page comprehensive report. Much more thorough than the one in Haaretz, which created so much controversy and even Levy admited there were some errors with it (not understand the questions for one).

Personally, I don't think we need to use opinion pieces if we actually include this poll. I think it'd constitute WP:UNDUE weight. But these are good for discussion on the talk page, and showing how misleading the Dialog poll really is, and how we can't necessarily take its results as accurate. You want to put in polls? Go ahead. Use any number of the reliable, comprehensive reports that we have, not the controversial misleading ones.

Now who is this Jonathan Zausmer you describe? He describes himself as part of a coalition that is "dedicated to the upholding of the liberal spirit of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, who seek to actively oppose ultra-nationalist and anti-democratic forces." And when the Times of Israel linked to it on the bottom of Yemeni's piece, they wrote to click here to see a rebuttal by "blogger" Zausmer.

Interestingly, Haaretz published a clarification today, pushed towards the bottom of their paper, but still a clarification. The clarification writes, "The original headline for this piece, 'Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,' did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll. The question to which most respondents answered in the negative did not relate to the current situation, but to a hypothetical situation in the future: 'If Israel annexes territories in Judea and Samaria, should 2.5 million Palestinians be given the right to vote for the Knesset?'" Interesting, considering there was a revert over "attempting to cover up the positive support for apartheid." Don't want to believe Arutz Sheva? I didn't even know it from there. I have a picture of the clarification I'm happy to upload and show you. --Jethro B 15:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No blogging, dear. Desist. I said both Yemeni and Zausner were not sources. Zausner, not me, said Yemeni was a hasbarist. In my draft, the clarification was added first thing this morning. It's just that I eat huge amounts of food one Sunday, and the Formula1 race, and other things, slowed my work down.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "blogging." If I wanted to blog, I'd get a wordpress blog and publish it to a different audience. I'm really happy for Zausner, but it's irrelevant to me what he thinks of a senior editor at one of Israel's widest and most respectable publications. You're very into having a misleading inaccurate poll in this article? Maybe we should start with comprehensive accurate reports, like the one given above, that don't have such controversy and aren't misleading. --Jethro B 18:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"CAMERA" isn't reliable so what they think of anything is completely irrelevant. Times of Israel is RS and their take on the poll, published according to their editorial policy does deserve to be represented. As discussed above, however, since the Haaretz material is more widespread in reliable sources it should have more weight. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not about being "widespread." It's about just taking a report and copying it, or doing further reporting. If a few outlets publish something misleading, that doesn't mean we can give the misleading information more weight, and mislead our own readers. That's part of the reason the poll has been so heavily criticized. We know what the poll questions said and what the results were from the poll itself, we know what the people in charge of the poll have said, we know that a part of this discussion is to insert material regarding some hypothetical scenario. And we also know what other polls say. --Jethro B 18:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro. You don't seem to be getting this into your head. WP:NPOV is a core policy of the encyclopedia. You cannot argue your way around it. We represent viewpoints according to their prevalence in RS. If a viewpoint is widespread, then it will be given significant weight in the article. If a viewpoint is not widespread it will be given less weight in the article. If a viewpoint does not appear in RS it will not appear in the article. What you are doing is giving us your own personal opinion (per your own reasoning) about views that have been published in RS. Your personal opinion on these views is irrelevant to the article. Please try to remember our task is to objectively represent viewpoints that have appeared in RS in proportion to their prevalence in RS, not advocate our own interpretation of what the facts are. Dlv999 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just red from Haaretz "CLARIFICATION: The original headline for this piece, 'Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,' did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll."

Also there is an article from Arutz Sheva [19] "After falsely accusing Israelis of supporting apartheid against Arabs, radical leftist paper publishes tiny clarification-Ultra-leftist newspaper Haaretz, which is partially owned by a German publishing family with a Nazi past, has published a "clarification" to an article it ran as its main front page story, in which it accused Israelis of supporting an apartheid regime against Arabs.....Goldlfam writes: "Does the overall picture obtained from these results support Levy’s characterization of most Israeli Jews favoring discrimination against Israeli-Arabs? On the contrary. Most people reading these results would perceive just the opposite, that a majority of Israelis do not support discrimination against Arabs."" As Israel National News is RS, this opinion has to be added to the article due to WP:NPOV. --Tritomex (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the full clarification Haaretz put on the article:

CLARIFICATION: The original headline for this piece, 'Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,' did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll. The question to which most respondents answered in the negative did not relate to the current situation, but to a hypothetical situation in the future: 'If Israel annexes territories in Judea and Samaria, should 2.5 million...

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(and continues) "Palestinians be given the right to vote for the Knesset?'" (and that's the full statement). Zero^talk 12:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The headline may have changed, but not the content. The article still begins: "Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank. A majority also explicitly favors discrimination against the state's Arab citizens, a survey shows." RolandR (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This raises question of WP:DUE as in addition to Levy conceeding the question's misleading nature, the results are also dependent on a hypothetical variable and cannot be considered particularly applicable, especially when we have other polls such as the 63 page comprehensive report. The proposal in inaccurate, the poll was inaccurate; surely we have higher quality material? Ankh.Morpork 19:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, this poll has received extensive coverage in RS, so there's no question it must be included. That's all that WP:DUE is about. --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And after that "extensive coverage", the original source issued a clarification. Why do you think that was; because everyone was reporting the findings accurately? Ankh.Morpork 20:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Although Haaretz named the admittance of its inaccurate edition-clarification, from the text provided we can see that it is in fact admittance of serous manipulation.'Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,' did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll. The admittance of non accurate reporting which is equal with misleading reporting fully delegitimize this source. Also the admittance of non accurate reporting can not be clarified, it can only be admitted, as in this case. Something which is auto-labeled as non accurate by the author of the source cant be added to Wikipedia as RS. --Tritomex (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

again, i strongly feel it is ok to use only those questions which mentioned the word apartheid, and then make it clear that gidon levy and haaretz felt it wasn't quite right. (using the real quotes, of course). Soosim (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

[20] Haaretz publicly admitted that not just the title but in fact the whole reading of the polls by Gideon Levy was poor with other words fraud. The article is titled Errors that traveled round the world So it is clear now that the focus of our edition should be this word-error as this is the term used by the author of claim to attribute its claims, after certain verification .--Tritomex (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece, written by a person identified as the "Senior Research Associate at the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre"; ie, a paid propagandist for the state of Israel. Haaretz is a reliable source, and a front page article by Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy cannot be discounted because a propagandist has been given the right to reply. RolandR (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are some serious accusations. Do you have anything that backs this up? And is that any reason to exclude the opinion of someone that Haaretz felt to publish? I mean, after all, it's well-known and clear that Gideon Levy has far-leftist views, and his columns could easily be considered propaganda (whether factual propaganda or not), so I guess we shouldn't bother with him, right? Of course not.

To repeat, in the original article Gideon Levy made numerous statements showing how dubious and inaccurate the results were of this misleading poll. A few days later, after already picked up by some other outlets shown above, Haaretz published a clarification, showing that their title was inaccurate, and that the poll results didn't actually show Israelis wanted to create an apartheid regime, as it was a hypothetical scenario they opposed. We can't turn the clock around, but what those outlets picked up was before this clarification. Even Gideon Levy, a few days after some outlets already picked it up, published another piece, explaining there were some errors with what he wrote (he defended this by saying there were "time constraints"). So while we can't turn back time, we do see that the version that some outlets picked up was misleading, inaccurate, and incorrect, and before the whole clarification came about. The most comprehensive reports, analysis, and op-eds that we've seen regarding this has been centered in the area where the resources for this information is most likely - in the local outlets themselves, which publish internationally, and which do not contain the same glaring errors as picked up by some other outlets, and now shown to be false. --Jethro B 18:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the points mentioned above, namely 1) most of the respondents said Israel practices apartheid, 2) most said Palestinians should be denied the vote if the WB were annexed and 3) 30% said Israeli Arabs ought to be denied the vote, these can be sourced at least from the Independent, Guardian and Telegraph sources. (The Telegraph doesn't have the last one, but does say most support preferential treatment to Jews in Israel). As far as I can see these can go in the article now simply on the force of these three sources, with the criticism of the poll being handled as a separate manner when it's settled which criticism sources are reliable and which are opinion pieces. Point 2) is in-line with the new headline of the Haaretz piece too. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No it can't, since as Malik and Soosim said above, this article is about claims of apartheid, and so we can only use questions specifically about apartheid. And the two qusetions that were about them were misleading and yielded inaccurate results. --Jethro B 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A question to Malik. Could you quickly review the sourcing for the page, and see if the impression I at least have that we are placing exceptionally restrictive conditions on what can be used from the Levy report ('specifically about apartheid') that have not been applied to the most of the sources for the rest of the article, many of which do not specifically address the technical issue of 'apartheid' or not, but document the elements of 'discrimination' which, if touched on by Levy, must not be utilized according to some editors? Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's impossible to "quickly review" the sources that make up the article's 300 footnotes, but isn't it OR to apply the term apartheid to an "element of discrimination" if the source doesn't use the word apartheid? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Malik. Yes, that was a tall order. I was told by Jayjg years ago that WP:OR occurs, in articles with two topics joined by and, when both topics are not treated in close approximation in the source article or book. Positively, that works out, again following that guideline, to mean that in a book or article where 'apartheid' is mentioned, and 'discrimination' or 'separation', occurs in contextual association, that one can refer to everything dealing with the latter two, while discussing apartheid. I don't think this rule has been widely followed in sourcing, but if that interpretation is correct, then the Levy article cannot be selectively winnowed to deal only with those parts that specifically mention 'apartheid'. Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is two sources that criticize poll results they should be included to comply with WP:NPOV [21],[22]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro, no, since all three sources disclose the three points in connection with "apartheid". The Guardian's article title is "Israeli poll finds majority would be in favour of 'apartheid' policies" (this was amended after the original one), The Independent says "The new Israeli apartheid: Poll reveals widespread Jewish support for policy of discrimination against Arab minority" and the Telegraphs says "A majority of Israeli Jews (...) would support an "apartheid" system in the West Bank if it were ever annexed". We edit based on what our sources say, there is no need and no basis for making this more complicated than that. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• A follow-on piece to his original article by Gideon Levy: Haaretz - Errors and omissions excepted, 29 October 2012.
• A companion piece to the original article: Haaretz - Apartheid without shame or guilt, 23 October 2012.
• Article on the poll from The Independent: Catrina Stewart - The new Israeli apartheid: Poll reveals widespread Jewish support for policy of discrimination against Arab minority, 23 October 2012.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Haaretz poll is a fake. Read why. On the other hand, several polls conducted in the Palestinian territories show a majority of Palestinians having genocidal intentions and favoring discrimination against Jews.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Posting links to an activist organization like honest reporting in an attempt to discredit a Reliable Source is not adding anything to this discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

here is a new article (not opinion piece) from an RS about the whole thing. doesn't bode well. but as i said many times, just put in two sentences. one about the apartheid question responses, and one about how the author and others felt it wasn't quite understood. http://www.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-changes-tack-on-major-story-that-alleged-widespread-apartheid-attitudes-in-israel/ Soosim (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz acknowledged mistake

This mess is spreading to other articles -> Talk:Haaretz#Poll. Can editors please help keep it under control and make sure everyone participates in discussions rather than edit warring in their preferred text here or anywhere else. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion there is about Haaretz acknowledged mistake, which was censored by you from the article there. It is not substantially connected to this article in any way.--AsiBakshish (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Blood On The Hands Of This Article

This page is for article discussion, not for general criticism of the topic itself. New editors are reminded that having an article on a topic does not equate to advocacy for said topic. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is simply disconnected from the reality in the Middle East. It completely ignores security challenges in Israel and in neighboring states. Not only there are almost purely Jewish cities in Israel. There are numerous purely Arab cities in Israel, in PA and in neighboring countries. And there are Arab countries completely free of Jews, which have been cleansed from Jews. This separation is on several places good for the security of both Jews and Arabs. There are also purely Arab buses, because Arabs like it and are ready to fight for their purity. They even killed several thousand Jews, some of them in public buses, you know? By supporting the claim, that Israel is an apartheid state (when there is no similar claim about apartheid in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Palestinian Authority, Hamas ruled Gaza Strip, Cyprus, Turkey, Iraq etc.), the article is trying to challenge these security barriers, which literally save peoples lives. This article is not only slanderous and deeply inaccurate, it also has literally blood on its hands. Its contributors are accomplices to murder. --AsiBakshish (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Could some administrator look at this. It's hard enough working on the sources carefully without having to cope with disruptive blather.Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC) There's nothing really wrong here. It should be hatted for WP:SOAP, otherwise that's about it. --Jethro B 22:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Nishidani, what I am trying to say, is, that you have responsibility for these public statements, which will ultimately have an impact on the security of both Jews and Arabs. When contributors simply copy paste here this parallel (which has clear political agenda to diminish security barriers) with complete ignorance regarding the security and the facts on the ground, they are endangering lives of both Jews and Arabs. Is this what we want? You can say: But we followed the rules! Ok, but does that strip you the responsibility you have for this article and its consequences?--AsiBakshish (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC) So, human lives are now publicly irrelevant on Wikipedia? And the same applies for the facts on the ground? --AsiBakshish (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Jethro mate, considering you spend so much time at ANI agitating for harsh sanctions against editors you disagree with for soapboxing fringe theories, it's very amusing to see you so relaxed about this particular editor's soapboxing of fringe theories, ranting and raving and accusing other editors of being "accomplices to murder". Dlv999 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Dlv mate, your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Ankh.Morpork 23:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC) So, "nothing really wrong" with accusing fellow editors of being "accomplices to murder". But, I've overstepped the mark with my comment? Dlv999 (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC) I got "At least you cannot gas me" at [23]. This sort of behavior is unacceptable. I would block this user forthwith if I came across him/her in a part of Wikipedia I'm not involved in. Jethro, Div's suggestion that you are not being consistent is one you should take to heart. Zerotalk 23:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Comments not pertaining to article content can be addressed to editors on their talk page. Ankh.Morpork 23:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Dlv99, I've suggested this discussion be hatted above. As someone heavily involved here, I can not do so myself, per WP:HATTING. So that is why I am "relaxed" over here. I advocated for a strong punishment on an editor who made repeated blatant anti-Semitic conspiracy theories over months/years on various talkpages, hardly comparable here. This is a terrible lack of WP:AGF, and I'm quite horrified. Did I not jump to respond that this should be hatted right above? Of course. --Jethro B 23:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC) I know human live has no place in Five Pillars Of Wikipedia. But I at least thought, this value is somehow shared by the users here. I understand, the word accomplice was not appropriate, since accomplice is doing the deed knowingly.--AsiBakshish (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is about accusations against Israel

Same reason as the section above. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At the very beginning of this article, State of Israel is being accused: "The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era. Israel has also been accused of committing the crime of apartheid." Yet, the same or worse accusations may be easily drawn against most ME countries and certainly against PA. Moreover the accusation is based on a very narrowly selected group of documents, making it detracted from the situation on the ground and even reverting causal chain of events, as if accused security establishments were cause and not the result. The accusation is not even named accusation, the word compared has been used instead. If the article was about a living person, it would have to be deleted. But, as it stands now, living state may be accused here as anyone wishes.--AsiBakshish (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Again, this is blogging, and has nothing to do with concrete issues of editing this page, and therefore should be hatted and the editor reminded (or remaindered) not to be distractive and disruptive. Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC) The article itself looks like blog and is based on blogs from the very start. Only country contributors keep singling out this way and keep accusing of apartheid is Israel (not for example Sudan or South Korea). The informational value of the accusations in the article and the assertions it was build on are baseless. They have no connections to the reality.--46.116.189.27 (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is describing accusation without calling it accusation

To compare any state to apartheid is sort of accusation, not a mere description as it appears in the article. --AsiBakshish (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedic incoherence?

While there is no similar article about most African countries, North Korea, China, Palestinian Autonomy, Hamas ruled Gaza Strip, how does it come just Israel has been singled out to discuss this kind of accusations? Is this behavior at the very least coherent enough for an encyclopedia? --AsiBakshish (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please keep this to one discussion? We are aware that you are not happy with the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state, but it is not us that is making this accusation. Our articles are created because of notability. Israel being compared to apartheid South Africa is a notable subject. Other states are not notable for this topic (and, in the case of states like North Korea, I'm not even sure that's true). – Richard BB 10:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As I think, these are two different issues, I have opened two threads. What is wrong with that? I think, any encyclopedia should be coherent. Apartheid, as it was defined in South Africa, had no minorities in parliament, no minorities between the doctors in the hospital and so on, no minorities between the judges. This problem is actually visible from the selection of the sources, from which the accusation is drawn. These sources have little or no connection with the reality. You may argue, that any word may be redefined by notable speakers. That is true. But will be the language, which is being now "redefined" even by this very article, anymore useful then the previous one? --AsiBakshish (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In answer to the first question, there are no articles on such because "apartheid"-like systems in other countries do not actually exist, or the criticism that those countries' human rights issues are apartheid-like do not exist. Many people have spoken out about the situation with Israel though and compared it to South African apartheid, which is why this article exists; reliable sources discussing a topic makes it notable, so we as an encyclopedia create an article about the notable topic. Over the years in the Wikipedia, pro-Israeli editors have tried to force the creation of such articles to make a point about the fact that they do not like this one. One example off the top of my head was Allegations of Jordanian apartheid. The editors who usually pushed that stuff back then were eventually blocked form editing for persistent disruption. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, what you are actually saying, is that if enough notable people would say, that the World Is Flat, it would constitute a necessity to make an article World and Flatness Analogy? The notable speakers here are at the very start: Uri Davis and Gideon Shimoni. AsiBakshish (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't deal with nonsensical analogies, sorry. There are many reliable sources to show that people have made allegations that Israel's situation is analogous to apartheid. There are no reliable sources that discuss Jordinian/Bahraini/Saudia Arabian/North Korean/Chinese situations as being analogous to apartheid. That's really all there is to it. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

But that practically speaking means, there is no demand for coherence and indeed no demand for truth. --AsiBakshish (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, yet Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories exists, because the crazy theories about his Kenyan birth and forged birth certificates has been the subject of much discussion in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't regard the above as good example for the effect I wanted to describe, since these theories are described as conspiracy theories in the name of Wikipedia. Hence, the Wikipedia states there, that it does regard these theories rather unproven or untrue. In this article it is different. AsiBakshish (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is substantial support in good quality sources for Israel being an apartheid society. Those who wish to criticize Israel compare Israel to an apartheid society. But that is different from identifying Israel as an example of apartheid in a present day, politically sophisticated state. That is merely a comparison. Do most good quality reliable sources consider that comparison to be an apt comparison? I don't think so. One can always find some sources to support almost any view. To that extent this article attains notability. But it should be made clear in this article that the notion of Israel being an example of an apartheid social system is a distinctly minority view that is not generally found expressed by good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The existence of the article does not condone or condemn the analogy; it simply notes notable people and organizations who have made the analogy and who have opposed it. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that sources can be found that liken the comparison of the Israeli social system to apartheid to little more than an antisemitic canard. [24] [25]. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand the above-mentioned approach would be unacceptable for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, since the president Barack Obama is a living person. Merely putting there different views into one article without stating where Wikipedia stands would be a personal attack on him. Hence we call it conspiracy theories, which makes the article consistent with the article Barack Obama born in Hawaii. But in this article, although Israel is not a living person, the stage was given to the accusers of Israel from the very start without even calling their propositions as theories, seems to me at the very least inconsistent with the article Israel. (Not to mention that some of these notable speakers at the basis of this article, are not exactly cool heads. [[26]]) AsiBakshish (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You would have a point if the article were called Israel, the apartheid state. But it isn't. The current title reflects the subject matter of the article; that notable people have made an analogy of Israel's treatment of Palestinians to how South Africa once treated blacks. The veracity of the analogy is not relevant, only that the analogy exists, and exists in reliable sources. Is there anything to be gained by discussing this further? Tarc (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, it is. At the case of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories the lack of veracity is important, because it is the root cause for calling it conspiracy theories. But this article is not called Conspiracy theories about apartheid in Israel, not even Theories about apartheid in Israel and not Israel and apartheid theories but Israel and the apartheid analogy, which for people, who know Israel, is exactly so wise as The Earth and the flatness analogy. AsiBakshish (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This has been argued before. Please review the Talk page archives. And the article's title is a compromise as well. You can find that in the archives as well.

Finally, if you believe this article's existence violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, please nominate it for deletion. It's only been nominated and kept nine times in the past. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The comparison to birther and flat earth conspiracies is poor. In those cases there is a near universal consensus among experts, and those in disagreement can clearly be described as holding "fringe" beliefs. The experts who discuss the apartheid analogy/accusation are much more evenly divided between those who agree with it, those who disagree with it, and those who think it has some merit but is not the most accurate or useful way to describe the Israeli/Palestinian situation. That's why the title of this article is not definite about the status of the discourse as either fringe or mainstream. While the structure and semantics of the article and the title are something of a compromise and aren't perfect, they do reflect the state of the sources relatively well. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Flat Earth is not a conspiracy, unless little children are seen here as conspirators and Israel is not an apartheid, unless we consider some very narrowly selected sources more real then the reality on the ground. I am not going to nominate Flat Earth and not even this article for deletion. But as it stands now, it should remain disputed unless it is very clear from the article, that the article distances itself from the analogy as in the case of the birther movement and Flat Earth. The theories about apartheid in Israel are fringe theories. There are even incentives for employment of Arabs in Israel. [27] And by the way, if you state, the article has been nominated for deletion nine times, it most probably means, it was disputed even then. --AsiBakshish (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just dropping in here briefly. If the chairman of the ANC, Israel's attorney general, Israeli cabinet ministers and most Israeli citizens say that Israel practices apartheid, how does it become a fringe theory? WP:FRINGE has some definitions of fringe theories as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and this doesn't meet them. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Most Israeli citizens don't know the term apartheid has something to do with South Africa. As for Baleka Mbete and other politicians, including the former AG of Israel, they have their political reasons to say, what they say, they use this comparison as a means of justification of their political agenda, as do the birthers and as did Desmond Tutu, when he said, ANC government is worse then apartheid. --AsiBakshish (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It was also kept nine times. What exactly do you want to have happen with this article? You want it deleted. You can try, but that aint gonna happen. You want to ignore that Israel's policies in the occupied territories has been compared to Apartheid, or that it has been accused of committing the crime of apartheid? That aint gonna happen either. nableezy - 19:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As I stated earlier. Even Flat Earth should not be deleted. But as it stands now, the article is disputed. And this dispute probably won't settle tomorrow. It is clear even from this discussion. Even Flat Earth has been disputed theory for quite a long time. AsiBakshish (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not; but meanwhile, a week after my original edits were removed, the stonewalling and filibustering have ensured that ther4e is still no mention in the article of this significant report. RolandR (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, RS have criticized the original report, Haaretz has posted a correction and Gidon Levy has responded to the criticism. If you'd like to propose new text taking all this stuff into account, feel free to do so. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz issued a correction for the title. And the poll still exists, and is still relevant, and should be included. nableezy - 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

With the relevant criticism, the opposition to which is what's stopping the text being put in the article, apropos filibustering. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

and the fact that the questions were formed by high ranking members of Israel's foreign policy elite, and defended by one of Israel's foremost statisticians, in the face of the hysteria Levy's article aroused.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The questions were formed by a group of left wing activists and funded by the former spokesperson for Peace Now, and were criticized by possibly the leading pollster in Israel, not to mention that Levy himself admitted he got some stuff wrong. Also, all except one foreign publication that reported on this specifically note they got all their information about the poll from Haaretz. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the sources instead of mouthing cliches about 'left-wing activists'. The questionnaire was written by a group of including former director general of the Foreign Ministry and Israel ambassador to Turkey Alon Liel, former ambassador to South Africa Ilan Baruch, former chief of education in the IDF Mordechai Bar-On, and human rights lawyer Michael Sfard. Camil Fuchs is one of Israel's foremost statisticians, and ran the poll and found nothing wrong with the questionnaire.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I've read the sources. Have you? Other than Haaretz, which sources are basing their reporting on the actual poll results rather than on an article by Gideon Levy who has already admitted his reporting contained "a few mistakes"? I know who these people are. Having held positions in the Israeli government or IDF does not preclude being an activist, as they indeed are. Mina Tzemach, who has at least the same level of credentials as Fuchs if not better, has criticized the poll. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok.I'll take your word for it that you've read the sources (which I compiled). I therefore infer that having read them all, you seized on the phrase 'left-wing activists' which is the POV of political sources outraged by the results, and taken this to be appropriate to the neutral voice of wiki. Why do we have to keep reminded people who have been here for years that, whatever one's personal passions, the articles we write must neutrally convey the substance of reportage, and avoid getting swept up in the ideological spinning that all sides are tempted to engage in? The hostile reviews are from 'right-wing activists,' but in the I/P area, almost invariably the expression 'activist' refers to anyone who is critical of a status quo, or a government line, and by default, must be 'left wing'. It's like saying Gandhi was a 'left-winger'. Had newspapers been available in biblical times, everyone from Isaiah to JC would have reported to be 'left-wing activists'. Yawn.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the idea I think it's appropriate to the neutral voice of the encyclopedia.

We must indeed neutrally convey the substance of reportage, which in this case includes one source (Haaretz) reporting on the poll, several sources reporting on what Haaretz said (without seeing the poll), and several sources criticizing what Haaretz said (at least one of which that actually saw the poll). Feel free to suggest text that takes all that into account. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That statement is not true, and you know that it is not true because I pointed out that it was false the last time you stated it. Repeating statements that you know to be false is not going to convince people to support your position. Dlv999 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

SMH doesn't attribute its reporting to Haaretz but it's pretty clear from the text that's where it got its information. For example, it repeats the "74 per cent in favour of segregated roads in the West Bank" error. So I'll be generous and let's say you have a source and a half that actually saw the poll. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion is that some editors think they know better than what RS has reported on the issue and that they can somehow be the arbiter of truth, discounting some RS while endorsing others. This is totally contrary to the core principle of NPOV. According to a translation of the press release of the actual pollsters posted by NGO monitor "74% support separation of Israelis and Palestinians on roads in the Occupied territories (A third of them consider this situation to be good, the rest regard it as inevitable). 17% call for an end to separation", so it is far more likely that SMH got the details from the press release that was supplied with the poll data rather than your own theories about unattributed plagiarism (for which you have zero evidence). In any case this is interpretation of the data and we should not be doing it, only reporting the interpretations that have been made by third party RS. Now if ToI thinks that the interpretation made by Haaretz and SMH among others is wrong, then that is a point of view we can include in the article. But your own line of argumentation does not seem to be consistent with WP:NPOV: Objectively reporting views published RS giving weight in proportion to the coverage the views have received in RS (not based on which arguments individual editors find more persuasive, or which individual editors think are correct. Dlv999 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Apropos WP:OR, what secondary source do you get your breakdown analysis from? (It's pretty clear from the text' etc)Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the Globe and Mail saying "Other major newspapers, including The Globe and Mail, The Guardian, The Independent and the Sydney Morning Herald carried stories citing the Haaretz poll and interpretation". Good enough? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

AsiBakshish, I think we've now cut to the precise concern you have with the article in Wikipedia terms: you believe the Israeli apartheid analogy is a fringe theory and should be presented as such in the article and its title. That's a reasonable debate to have here, especially because Wikipedia has clear definitions of what is and isn't fringe. I believe we've had this discussion in the past, but that doesn't preclude having it again. Here are the relevant parts of WP:FRINGE:

1. "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative for identifying the mainstream view, with the two caveats that not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and that the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight."
2. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."
3. "when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear."

The first two points enable us to identify whether the Israeli apartheid analogy is a fringe theory by Wikipedia standards. Regarding point 1, there are many academics who specialise in Israeli-Palestinian relations, in the politics of apartheid and closely related political and legal fields. Therefore we shouldn't have any problem identifying scholarly opinions from scholars whose expertise is in an appropriate field. The criterion in point 2 can be determined from these sources, i.e. if qualifying sources overwhelmingly deny a resemblance between Israeli practice and apartheid, then the Israeli apartheid analogy is a fringe theory. Regarding point three, even if the Israeli apartheid analogy isn't precisely fringe but is a minority viewpoint among scholars, the article should still reflect that it is a minority view. Do you agree that these are the relevant criteria for how the article should present the significance of the Israeli apartheid analogy in a manner in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Paddy—This article and its title have less to do with the concept of that which is fringe and more to do with that which is comparison. We should not be attempting to write articles whose subject matter and title are comparisons. The entire article is in fact original research. It is a little funny that this page has a template reading: "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting." Of course there is going to statement and restatement of arguments because this is not a cogent article but rather a comparison between two countries at two different points in history. What is circumscribed by the article's title is an area for discussion. There are in fact no truly reliable sources because comparisons are by nature highly opinionated. Prior-held political positions are obviously going to determine the stances that any source takes in the comparison posed in the title. This is not a valid area for an encyclopedia article. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion on its validity is a distinct minority, unfortunately, so the traction you are going to get on that is precisely zilch. While this whole tit-for-tat has been fun...we haven't had one of these for a year or so, I'd say...this really isn't leading anywhere at all. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think it is patently obvious that the term "analogy" is virtually identical to the term "comparison". The notion of writing an article on the topic of comparison is quite frankly ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia. It isn't a discussion area. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you're starting into yet another subject. Please create another section for it if you think it's worth pursuing, rather than derailing this one. I wouldn't bother though, because your objection has no basis in Wikipedia policy so it's unlikely to go anywhere. That's the reason I've suggested focusing on whether the Israel apartheid analogy is a fringe viewpoint, because that is something we can actually determine and act on. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Paddy—you say "That's the reason I've suggested focusing on whether the Israel apartheid analogy is a fringe viewpoint, because that is something we can actually determine and act on."[28] This isn't a "viewpoint."[29] This is an opinion. Opinions are expressed in context (in encyclopedias). In the Israel article it can be noted that some hold the opinion, however farfetched, that Israel is an example of an apartheid social order. Yes, some make the comparison between Israel and the past South African social order. Perhaps there are other articles that can serve as a context for the opinion expressed in the title. But there is no context for the title of this article. This article's title makes the comparison without any context. You can't use an article to demonize a state. If you are going to tell me that counterarguments are also found in this article, I will have to say that it does not matter because all such arguments are at a disadvantage because they are defensive in the overall article which is making an unfavorable comparison. I trust you will tell me if there is anything unclear in this post. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A viewpoint and an opinion are much the same thing. Same goes for analogy and comparison. This viewpoint/opinion regarding this analogy/comparison is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article (because it features in numerous reliable sources), as demonstrated by the article being kept each time deletion has been suggested, so merging it into another article isn't an option. There is no loss of context from the use of the current title on a stand-alone article, the title clearly identifies that the article is about an analogy. There are various reasonable concerns that could be raised about the article like the one I suggested about whether the opinion/viewpoint it presents is WP:FRINGE and should be presented as such, or that the title doesn't adequately cover the accusations of illegal apartheid described in the article. But there's no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines for suggesting that an analogy/comparison that is an opinion/viewpoint cannot have its own article provided it is sufficiently notable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The apartheid analogy is frequently raised in many sources, Israeli and other, in order to compare Israel's policies with, and distinguish them from, the separatist policies we associated with South Africa. No one in Israel or elsewhere disputes the meticulously documented facts attesting to a separatist policy in areas annexed to or under Israel's military control. Since separatism is systematically applied (housing permits, water supply, use of resources, travel permits, etc.etc.etc.) to the territories where Israel's policies fall under international law as an occupying power, the extensive literature frequently compares Israel's policies to those of South Africa, finding parallels and differences. It's not a matter of documenting whether 'Israel (the state) is an example of an apartheid order' (nonsensical). The article surveys Israel and Israel's policies in the foreign territory it occupies and where specific policies that are not applied in Israel are applied, policies which, by a wide consensus, admit separate development, or rather development of Jewish colonies, and restriction on Palestinian development, is the norm. The decision-makers have often gone on the record as saying bantustanization is a strong option, and bantustanization is how the occupational policy works.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani—Yes, we have articles, probably many articles, in which the subject you are referring to, can be discussed in context. The Crime of apartheid is one such article, as is the Israel article, and I'm sure there would be others. But the point that you are not addressing in your post above is that articles are on topics. A comparison is hardly a topic. The comparison of Israel at present to South Africa in the past is not a topic. It is an undefined area for discussion, and the outcome of that discussion is predetermined by the contrived absence of any context. This is not a legitimate use of an encyclopedia. Articles in encyclopedias should not set as their scope the comparing of one political state in the present point in time to another political state at a past point in time. This article is merely a device for a negative comparison. There can't be a neutral point of view in an article that compares present day Israel to an already deprecated social order in another country in another point in time, that all people agree was deeply flawed, to put it mildly. There is no context in which the comparison is being made. There are essentially two general areas of context for the subject matter that you are referring to. One is the subject of "Israel" and the other is the subject of "apartheid". Any article relating to those two general topic areas should provide a legitimate context for exploring the subject that you are referring to. Context matters here. You can't extract for the sole topic of an article the comparison that you legitimately wish to explore, but you can and you certainly should avail yourself of articles that provide context for that comparison. Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A comparison Of current Israeli practices to past South African practices is indeed a notable topic, as evidenced by the notable people quoted in notable sources who have discussed it. It is not in the Wikipedia's "voice", if you will, that the comparison is being made. An encyclopedia (linked for your convenience) is not a publisher of original material, but a compendium of what is "out there" in the world. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop.:::(1) Where is the policy that says we cannot have articles involving comparisons? (2) Where are the guidelines defining topics as exclusive of comparisons? (3) your argument that this should be a section of some other article would, in practice, create a havoc of POV and WP:undue issues, and edit-warring. It can't be a relegated to a section of Israel, because what most resembles apartheid practice is not in Israel, but in territories beyond Israel, and therefore not relevant to that article, and would certainly violate WP:Undue. (4) Present-past analogies. Actually 'apartheid' or separatist development, though developed in South Africa and abolished there, is a political model that enters the literature on state analysis, and that is how, to cite one example, Israeli theorists like Oren Liftachel deploy it in their theoretical work on ethnocracies. He for one uses several states as illustrating the apartheid model, and shows that ethnocracies which impose an apartheid-type model of development are not uncommon, from Burma to Sri Lanka to Estonia. Like all theories of state, going back to 'feudalism' itself which once was a clear cut issue, and now is fuzzed by complexities, these words are fluid in denotation, but heuristically useful. In this case we are dealing with a subset of the category, nationalism. It's only my opinion, though based on a professional interest in the subject of nationalism, that some term like 'ethnocracy' will replace 'apartheid' because the latter is too closely bound to the SA model. The literature on Israel however (and infra-Israeli debates) have the SA model constantly in mind. It was part of Sharon's programme of creating bantustans, as he explicitly told Massimo d'Alema, just before the latter was elected prime minister of Italy. I.e., he like many forward planners on the Israeli majoritarian right, has (had) that historic example in mind.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

AsiBakshish, it doesn't make any difference why you feel those people have said what they said. The deciding factor is that they said it, and reliable sources have reported that they said it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not object the very existence of this article, as I do not object Flat Earth and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. However I do object the current state of the article, which may make the impression, the article endorses or at very least does not object to the analogy. The article, as it stands now, from the very beginning does not represent fairly the situation on the ground. The state, that actively creates incentives for Arab employment, should not be described as an analogy to apartheid from the very start of the article. --AsiBakshish (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't compare this to flat-Earth theories. That Israel practices apartheid is a widely held view, not a fringe theory. The numerous sources in this article, by the way, are an excellent way to learn just how widely this view is held (including by Israel's former prime minister), and also that the view isn't universally held. Israel's prime minister said it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare—the "numerous sources in this article"[30] are in fact not an "excellent way to learn … that the view [that Israel is an apartheid state] isn't universally held".[31] On the contrary the article is just a litany of so-called "analogies" of Israel to South Africa that fails to shed light on what transpires in the geographic areas referred to. Missing is the entire context necessitating that Israel take extreme steps to protect its citizenry. Missing are the extenuating circumstances differentiating Israel from South Africa. This merely pounds away at a misleading "analogy" without benefit of a context that could provide educational value, hence it is largely misleading. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that the apartheid label is objected to on the grounds that "restrictions are only imposed on [Gaza and the West Bank] by Israel for reasons of security", in the lead and in the body. As an aside, there's no need for all these diff links in your comments, they make your comments hard to read. Can we save diffs for when they're needed, such as in complaints about editor behaviour? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

melanie phillips

marokwitz and malik feel that the following is not related to the article (and i do, of course). she specifically refers to tutu's comparison of israel and apartheid south africa. how does that not fit here? help me understand it.

British journalist Melanie Phillips has criticized Desmond Tutu for comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa, in article which appeared in The Guardian in 2002, where Tutu stated that people are scared to say the "Jewish lobby" in the U.S. is powerful. "So what?" he asked. "The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust." Phillips wrote of Tutu's article: "I never thought that I would see brazenly printed in a reputable British newspaper not only a repetition of the lie of Jewish power but the comparison of that power with Hitler, Stalin and other tyrants. I never thought I would see such a thing issuing from a Christian archbishop."

thanks. Soosim (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here Dershowitz calls Phillips' views "extremist", which is quite amazing, coming from him. --Dailycare (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:COATRACK. The paragraph is an attack on Tutu that has nothing to do with Israel or the apartheid analogy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Marokwitz (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How can you defend Tutu, when at the same time, you are assaulting entire nation? Melanie Philips just described, what Tutu did. That does not constitute an attack on him.--AsiBakshish (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well considering her allies worked for the actual apartheid regime and is strongly racist against blacks, then of course its not surprise she would attack him.Cara22 (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The poll should be in the lead as Public Opinion

It would seem that in light of the degree of controversy which this analogy has generated, that public opinion should be included as a sort of intermediate category reflecting the middle ground between proponents and opponents.

Questioning the methodology of polls and the like is valid, but should be taken up in the main body of the article. On the other hand, I think that this article needs a specific section on pubic opinion, as that should serve to provide some median reference with respect to society in Israel that helps readers navigate between the more rigidly defined positions put forth by proponents and opponents.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It seems to me that you didn't followed a last discussion.Per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE we should summarize the article so the opinion poll maximum should be give half sentence not more.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, sorry about that. The sudden onslaught of editing related issues I've encountered has raised the pressure level, and though I am thoroughly engaged by the process, I have real-life pressures and deadlines to meet.

If you have the wherewithal to carry out the edit to make it more concise, by all means, please do.

Also, I left a comment on the talk page of the editor that reverted my edit, so you might want to check that. I was not happy about his hollow dismissive comment regarding it being "completely WP:OR".--Ubikwit (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Hi, we should steer clear from anything that might increase the "pressure level" for any editors. In terms of the lead, I think that this poll is one of the more widely covered aspects of the apartheid label as applied to Israel so mentioning in the lead is OK, but this could be kept in proportion to other stuff. Suggestion: add the bold-face text to the lead as in "Some commentators extend the analogy, or accusation, to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class. According to one poll, most Israelis consider the analogy valid." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The respondents weren't asked about the analogy in particular. "According to one poll, most Israelis believe that apartheid exists in Israel." would be more in line with the wording of the poll. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Several problems:

• Isn't this article ostensibly about an "analogy"? Where's the analogy here? In fact, where does the poll itself or any reporting of it include the word "analogy"?
• The pollsters themselves said many respondents probably didn't understand the term in their somewhat convoluted presentation of the question. That should be included if this is included.
• Am I the only one who thinks the lead of an encyclopedia article including the words "according to one poll" is ridiculous? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The use of the term "apartheid" in the poll was obviously in response to the usage of the analogy, and represents an attempt to gauge public opinion with respect to the analogy. Comments on the polling itself should be included under a newly created section on "Public opinion", and be placed following the block of text on the quote itself. --Ubikwit (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree; most of the sources and viewpoints we have in this article in fact deal with whether or no Israel is committing apartheid or not. The "analogy" title is there since there has been no consensus to rename the article. I'm OK with Ryan's suggestion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So this article is basically a COATRACK for anything that contains both the words "Israel" and "apartheid"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan and Dailycare. I have been discussing this on Marokwitz (talk) Talk page to some extent, as follows.

Since there was controversy about including it in the lead, however, I was thinking that creating a new section for public opinion would be useful, as the current list of Support and Criticism are a little unwieldy and the content difficult to navigate, and mentioning it in the lead in conjunction with the creation of the corresponding new section. To create such a new category though, it would be necessary to go through those lists and separate notable public figures and scholars from people whose statements belong more to the sphere of the public discussion among layman, so to speak. That is a cumbersome task that I'm not capable of taking on, not at present, at any rate.

Again though, since that was the first such poll, apparently, and it contained a number of sort of loaded questions aiming for maximum impact, I would be surprised if others didn't follow, so the potential to reorganize the various entities on the two lists might be something to consider for the future.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

There is a question as to whether there would be enough material to qualify as public opinion. Would, for example, the positions taken by civil society organizations on the analogy be regarded as "public opinion"? What gauges for public opinion are there other than polls?--Ubikwit (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Re. COATRACK, I don't believe this article "fails to give a truthful impression of the subject" since the analogy is described in quite some detail. A coatrack-like problem would arise regarding specifically the poll if the poll was covered exclusively in terms of criticism of the poll in Israel. Anyway, the title can also be read as analogy to RSA policies, which is implied by use of the Afrikaans-language term apartheid, so the finding seems IMO to easily fall within the scope of this article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Should the recent poll be in the lead?

Straw poll, in attempt to establish consensus. Should the recent poll be in the lead?

• No. This would give undue weight to a recent poll , therefore I belive it should not be included in the lead per WP:UNDUE, WP:LEAD and WP:RECENT. Well-publicized recent events should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable - new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. The suggested coverage of the recent poll in the lead definitely does not reflect its weight in the article itself, or the importance of this poll (which has significant flaws even according to its main proponent, Gideon Levy) in historical perspective. Specifically, the retracted aspects of the original article have zero historical significance since they represent a mere misinterpretation of the statistical data. Inclusion would mislead many readers to believe that most Israelis support the "apartheid analogy", which is not true according to the actual poll result. Furthermore, the inclusion in the lead verges on absurd (in the context of an encyclopedia) in light of the fact that most Israelis have a very minimal knowledge of what apartheid was, and are not capable of judging such analogy. Marokwitz (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have spent a couple of days already building a consensus that it should be, and your move is a little late, coming as it does after you unilaterally removed it in the face of a prior consensus that saw it included. If someone else doesn't carry out the edit soon along the lines of the "public opinion" discussion above, I will do it myself. As per that discussion, any issues an editor has with the poll (or others) can be addressed in the "Public opinion" section of the main body of the article.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Please read WP:TALKEDABOUTIT. Marokwitz (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where did you spend "a couple of days" and where is the consensus you feel you built? Neither assertion seems to be supported by this talk page. Your first post here was less than 24 hours ago and there's obviously no consensus to put this stuff in the lead. Also, please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction, it has indeed been only 1 day since the pubilc opinion post and edit, confused the time frame with work on other related topics.

There are several points of contention raised by Marokowitz anew here, which should have been raised much earlier if they were relevant, particularly before labeling my edit "completely WP:OR" when I had simply restored a pre-existing passage about which much discussion had already occurred and prefaced it as relevant "public opinion".

Now that editor is trying to characterize the poll itself as a "well-publicized recent event" as opposed to a simple survey carried out by the news media to gauge public opinion about the ongoing use of the Israel Apartheid analogy. Furthermore, the main editor that had been dealing with the topic before I entered the picture is gone for a month due to a self-imposed editing ban for an accidental reversion, and the losers of that debate are trying to take advantage of the temporary absence of that editor and take a "straw poll". It a somewhat sophomoric attempt at POV pushing by trying to stack the numbers in a false vote.

I do not recognize the validity of this proposed strawman poll, and will carry out the edit soon. If this irrational behavior on the part of the pro-Israel faction persists, we can bring it up in a dispute. I don't have time to waste with such ploys.

And NMMNG then states that "there's obviously no consensus to put this stuff in the lead", which ignores the previous work between Ryan Paddy, Dailycare, RolandR, Nishidani and Shrike, and any I've overlooked in the cursory glance through the related discussions.

I agree that the description of the poll itself could be kept to a minimum in the lead, all that needs to be conveyed is that is would appear to represent the first poll that broaches the topic of the analogy of Israel to Apartheid, and it should be prefaced with a sentences that sets it off as public opinion, in contrast to the proponents and opponents.

Detailed description, history of the retractions, etc., are all topical matter that should be under the relevant section in the main body of the article, and seeing that there doesn't appear to be such a section, I have proposed the creation of a "Public opinion" section. --Ubikwit (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ignoring your silly accusations for the moment, could you please show me where in the discussion above about the text it says that's going into the lead? Ryan, Shrike and myself certainly didn't understand that's where it's supposed to go. Perhaps you should take more than a cursory glance at the previous discussion before declaring a consensus that obviously wasn't there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to get some work done in the real world, so I'll have to simply offer one previous comment by Ryan for you consideration: "The respondents weren't asked about the analogy in particular. "According to one poll, most Israelis believe that apartheid exists in Israel." would be more in line with the wording of the poll. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)".--Ubikwit (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

No - should not be in the lead. (if in the future this poll, or others, become more substantial, without the controversy surrounding the architects of the poll and the building of the questions, then maybe. for now, no. Soosim (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• We're discussing the issue on a substantive level immediately above, I don't see the point in this "straw poll". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Israeli public's acceptance of apartheid should only be mentioned in the lead if multiple studies support it. A single poll is insufficient. Hcobb (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

One poll is a start, especially since it is the first of its kind. Furthermore, the lead is cluttered and somewhat confusion, making it appear like there are two separate camps, when in fact the analogy has been made by an extremely wide selection of notable individuals in diverse contexts. Moreover, the paragraph starting with opponents ends with "demonize Israel". In my view, there are not two camps, but a substantial number of notable individuals with high degree of name recognition that have used the analogy over the course of many years with respect to various aspects of the situation in the Middle East and modernity in general, and a significantly smaller number of somewhat more obscure individuals and organizations that have reacted against the use of that analogy. And then there are the famous Israeli politicians that have warned that Israel may become an apartheid state, which are included following the "criticism" section, in a manner that makes the significance of those utterances somewhat obscure. In fact, I would suggest that since they have actually used the analogy, their comments should rather be integrated under the "support" section.

Basically, this article has organizational issues, for one thing, and needs to be restructured in a manner that reflects the overall state of affairs and currency of the use of this analogy in the public discourse surrounding the issues at hand regarding the Palestinians and the Jewish state of Israel. One instance, for example, can be seen in including the comments of F.W. de Klerk, who seems to criticize all encompassing comparisons (by extension, analogies in general?), but goes on to describe specific parallels between apartheid South Africa and the Israel-Palestine issue in terms of concrete aspects common to both scenarios. I'm not sure that the presentation of that information under the heading of "critical" is accurate. According to the quoted passage, de Klerk said:

Why did the old vision of so many separate states in South Africa fail? Because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves. Why will it fail, if it fails in Israel and Palestine? Because Palestine is maybe not offered an attractive enough geographical area to say 'this is the country of Palestine'"

The analogy has in fact served an important purpose simply by eliciting such comments from a former statesman who is an authority on the issue of apartheid. Some people would seem to be confusing the form of the analogy with its substance, that is to say, the content related to apartheid against which Israel is being subjected to criticism with respect to the disposition of the Palestinians.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

There is nothing as "Yisraela Goldblum Fund" but only "Yisraela Fund"

The "Yisraela Fund" was established by her husband Amiram Goldblum together with her brother (Simon Weinstein) following her death at the end of 2006. "Signing Anew" and New Israel Fund declared the "Yisraela Golbdlum Prize" which was given only twice. The 2012 poll by Dialog company was commissioned by a group of Peace activist and paid by the "Yisraela Fund", with no involvement of "Signing Anew" or the NIF in the process Rastiniak (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak

Who conducted the poll

The poll was reviewed, performed and analyzed by one of the prime pollsters of Israel, the Dialog company. The "Yisraela Fund" (a family fund of Amiram Goldblum, with Yisraela's brother, their children and many family friends) paid the pollsters, while the poll was commissioned by a group of prominent Peace activists in Israel. In the talk page of Amiram Goldblum it has already been confirmed by WP editors that there is no such thing as "Yisraela Goldblum Fund" and certainly no poll of that fund. Rastiniak (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak

Breaking the impasse.

Talk pages are for addressing concrete issues in the article, not for discussing the article's pros and cons.

RR made a lead synthesis. Malik provided an expansion. Both are missing, and while everyone wants to talk about how this should be done, no one raises a finger to actually work on emending both. I've been ill. That's my excuse. In the meantime, the proper thing is to stop talking and filibustering, restore both a snippy version of the lead, and include Malik's provisory section expansion, on the working principle that anything is better than nothing (which explains 95% of wikipedia). Once it's in the text, I'm sure everything editors want in or out will be handled by editing and to-article discussion. As it stands, the removal assumed a consensus on an ultimate text which, to gather from the blather here, will not emerge. Given the fact that this is a news item with over 30 RS mentioning it, I suggest the proper thing to do is to revert, restore RR's original edit with Malik's expansion (and tweaky additions if they have been made in the meantime). Otherwise Malik's revert will, despite his undisputably fair and reasonable intentions - all sides trust his judgement's commitment to wiki and NPOV implicitly - leave the article without a reference to the hullaballoo for the foreseeable future, and amount to censorship.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't restore that text since stuff has happened since, including but not limited to Haaretz correcting its headline and Gidon Levy addressing criticism of his reporting of the poll. Instead of accusing everyone of filibustering and censorship, suggest some text that takes into account all the information we have. Saying we need something in the article even if it's an NPOV violation otherwise it's censorship is just silly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If that 'you' is the impersonal 'you' fine. If not please don't personalize this. I was requesting input from all editors on what is an impasse, which, forseeably, unless editors are more cooperative, will result in the suppression of a valid item of news and the controversy it aroused.

The point is, we had a provisory lead and a provisory section. The way out of the suspensive blather is to propose a section summary of the 30 articles, and a lead synthesis, along the lines. We are here to solve editorial problems, not to kibitz negatively on every measure suggested to overcome them. A good start would be to make positive suggestions for both. It requires, unfortunately, some work by oneself, rather than, commenting on what other people do. But that's what good editors do, and that is way encyclopedias are written.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So go ahead and do it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal:

In a widely published 2012 poll, 58% of Israelis said Israel practiced apartheid against the Palestinians. 30% said Israeli Arabs should be denied the vote in Israel, and a majority said West Bank Palestinians should be denied the vote in case Israel annexed the West Bank (most respondents opposed annexing the West Bank). (SOURCES: 1 2 3) Critics of the poll said some questions were problematically formulated. (SOURCE: 1).

I think this covers the main points, including the criticism, and takes WP:WEIGHT into account. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• The poll was not "widely published". In fact, it wasn't published anywhere. Some of the results were published with interpretation in Haaretz, and later cited by other publications. See the source I provided above.
• Can we see a quote for "58% of Israelis said Israel practiced apartheid against the Palestinians"? That's your interpretation. The 58% should be broken down to its components as both the question and the interpretation of the results have been questioned by experts in the field.
• You forgot to mention that the people who carried out the poll said the term "apartheid" might not have been clear to respondents.
• Considering Haaretz changed their headline precisely because of this issue, putting the fact that most people opposed annexing in parenthesis as an afterthought is not exactly due weight.
• The criticism of the poll is not given due weight.
• There are more problems but we can start with these. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

2 I have about 40 articles with RS qualifications so far, and more are likely to come forth, meaning that the details of the poll, the haartez reportage, and subsequent controversy are extensive and complex. I have written a complete section for them. The lead, if covering most angles, would run something like this.

In October 2012, Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy, using a September poll, reported that 58% of Jewish Israelis believes Israel practices apartheid against the Arabs. Taken up around the world, this reading was vigorously contested as based on a flawed poll and a distortion of the evidence. Subsequently, Haaretz altered the wording of the headline, adding a clarification, and Levy, while apologising for errors and omissions, stood by his article, affirming that ‘Most Israelis do support apartheid, but only if the occupied territories are annexed; and most Israelis oppose such annexation.’

(ec)It should say "cited" rather than "circulated". "Widely" is editorializing. If you're going to quote Levy affirming his position, you should note that the question was specifically asking about voting rights and not apartheid. Also, to balance Fuchs' opinion about his own poll, we should quote Dr. Mina Tzemach (PhD from Yale in in Social Psychology and mathematical models in psychology, has been doing polls for a living since the 1970s and is arguably the leading pollster in Israel).

Is this supposed to be for the body or the lead? If it's for the lead we first need to develop a section for the body and then summarize that, not the other way around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

'Widely' was not 'editorializing'. It's in several sources, Elhanan Miller for example (used here) 'Cited' is no improvement, since it is ambiguous. But I've adjusted wording and eliminated Fuchs (whom sources back also as, like Tzemach, Israel's leading pollster), makes it better and shorter. The lead cannot go into the details of the poll, which your suggestions argues for, per WP:LEDE. If you don't like it as a lead, take it as an editable beginning for the relevant section, and if approved by others, we can put it in as a basis for expansion. Either that, or offer your own lead/section version. Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly object to using Ben White's opinion piece. Otherwise this seems ok, assuming we have a section that this actually summarizes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, where's the ToI piece with the Mina Tzemach quote? Did I miss it or is it not included? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I took out Fuchs as per lead suggestion, to respond to your point that (a) if Fuchs, then (b) Tzemach. Ben White (I've linked him) is neither here nor there on the point cited (about the circulation), since many sources say that. I've taken it out because this is my lead proposal. Shany Mor is objectionable on the same grounds. When you are employed directly by a group representing a government's positive image abroad (several sources describe this), your news value is zero, except as an opinion or paid up POV. But if you take this as a section sketch, then both qualify, like several other op-eds published in reliable mainstream news venues. So our differences are zilch. All we need is further iput from several other participants here. Nishidani (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You can remove Mor as well if you like, but again, I strongly oppose using Ben White's opinion piece. In the lead or in the body. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

References

NMMNG, for example Times of Israel (cited in my proposal above) says "widely quoted". Concerning 58%, The Guardian source, also cited in my proposal above, says "58% believe Israel already practises apartheid against Palestinians". The Telegraph source, also cited in my proposal above, says "58 per cent of those surveyed said Israel already practices a system of apartheid against Palestinians", and the Independent source, also cited in my proposal above, says "A new poll has revealed that a majority of Israeli Jews believe that the Jewish State practises "apartheid" against Palestinians". The proposal is only a few lines long, and the criticism can't be given weight that would approach weight given to the actual poll data since criticism has less prevalence in sources. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You can have a thousand sources reporting that Haaretz reported something, it's still just Haaretz reporting something. So the fact that Haaretz reported it is well supported. What's in the poll is only supported by Haaretz. And obviously, sources published before the criticism was published won't be reporting on the criticism. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an approach. First of all, decide on how to present the basic facts about the poll, then decide on how to present the commentary. The basic facts are things such as who commissioned the poll, what its stated intention was, who compiled the questions, who carried it out, when it was carried out, what the questions were and what the responses were.     ←   ZScarpia   15:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

nice. good. but it must say that the actual pollsters said the question/s weren't understood. not some anonymous critics. Soosim (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Distortion. Camil Fuchs replied to the press that in examining the questionnaire he and his team of experts found no need to change it. Mina Tzemach disagrees. As often, experts in these things disagree. We document both.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean distortion? It was in the original Haaretz article. By the way, Fuchs is a mathematician. Tzemach is psychologist. She is probably more qualified to know if the questions were worded properly or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I expect people to learn to take care of the way they phrase their words when reporting what others wrote or said. Neither Soosim nor yourself do that here.

TextThe survey conductors say perhaps the term "apartheid" was not clear enough to some interviewees. However, the interviewees did not object strongly to describing Israel's character as "apartheid" already today, without annexing the territories. Only 31 percent objected to calling Israel an "apartheid state" and said "there's no apartheid at all." (GL Haaretz 23.10.12)

Soosim.the actual pollsters said the question/s weren't understood.'

NMMGG. What do you mean distortion? It was in the original Haaretz article.

Not reading precisely accounts for 99% of page comments and factitious controversies. As to Fuchs and Camil, they are both experts, as I have stated repeatedly. Your private view that 'She is probably more qualified to know' is irrelevant. Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there's some confusion about what people mean by pollsters going on? We have different sets of people who could be called such: the set of people who constructed the poll, the people who conducted the questioning, those who analysed the results, outside people involved in polling who commented.     ←   ZScarpia   20:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That is an important fact, but, I think, not really a basic one. It really relates to reaction or commentary, as does what Gideon Levy and the critics of the poll wrote.     ←   ZScarpia   17:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the biggest problem in dealing with the basic facts is how to describe the questions and responses. Listing them in full would be accurate but long-winded. Summarising them would give a more compact article, but lead to arguments about neutrality.     ←   ZScarpia   17:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

was this included above? don't remember: that the Deputy Communication Director for the New Israel Fund (which helped pay for the poll) wrote "claiming the poll demonstrates support for “apartheid” is spin at its worst. It's a bit like talking to a terminal cancer patient who stops treatment to begin hospice care and then announcing that he or she wants to die. A more likely interpretation would be that the cancer patient wants to live, but would be willing to accept death if that were the only option." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/23/that-poll-s-apartheid-problem.html Soosim (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would classify the interpretation that the funders of the poll had put on the results of the poll as commentary and therefore something to discuss after sorting out the basic facts (which are, hopefully, things we can all agree on).     ←   ZScarpia   19:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, please get your facts straight. New Israel Fund did not fund the poll. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

More precisely, Haaretz reported the NIF funded it, then then NIF denied that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, untrue. The Times of Israel wrote that New Israel Fund was involved. Period. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

again, true. and untrue. very very murky and complicated. The original English version in Haaretz stated, “The survey was commissioned by the New Israel Fund’s Yisraela Goldblum Fund.” (Mention of the NIF was removed in a revised version.) The Hebrew version made no mention of the NIF; instead, the text noted that the Israela Goldblum Fund was “established in 2007 as part of the framework of the non-profit ‘Signing Anew’.” “‘Signing Anew’ is an independent organization…not affiliated with the NIF…NIF clarifies that it was not behind the survey published this morning in Haaretz, and that it is not connected to it in any way.” In addition, NIF’s Deputy Communication Director Noam Shelef penned an op-ed on the Open Zion blog (That Poll's Apartheid Problem, October 23, 2012), calling Levy’s column a “misrepresentation of the data.”

The relationship between NIF, Signing Anew, and this controversy is more complex than acknowledged in the statement,

NIF was the initiator of and continues to fund “Signing Anew” (an Israeli political NGO), including authorizing grants in the amount of $100,000 in 2011, $300,343 in 2010, and $465,282 in 2009.

Signing Anew is included on NIF’s Financial Statements with the notation that “NIF and Signing Anew have related Board members and staff such that NIF has oversight of Signing Anew.” Amiram Goldblum, founder of the Israela Goldblum Fund which paid for the poll, is a member of NIF’s International Council. The questions used in this poll were formulated by individuals closely connected to NIF and its grantees. One, Michael Sfard, is legal counsel for a number of NIF grantees, including Yesh Din, Breaking the Silence, Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement, and Human Rights Defenders Fund. Another, Alon Liel (a former Israeli MFA official and ambassador to South Africa) is married to NIF’s Executive Director in Israel, Rachel Liel. Mordechai Bar-On and Ilan Baruch, who are also named as involved in constructing the poll language, are also members of NIF’s International Council. Soosim (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz definitely said it originally. Maybe they changed it since then. I'm not really sure we need to go into all this detail though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about this poll and I don't think more than a few sentences overall are needed to cover it. Just mention the main points, that's it. If I gather NMMNG's point correctly, he feels that Haaretz published the poll would be one of these main points. While I don't see this is the case, I don't see a problem mentioning it as it only adds a few words. The second point of NMMNG's, relating to the times sources are published, I don't see any support for it in WP:WEIGHT. Weight is determined by prevalence in sources overall, not only sources published after a certain point in time. So here is my new suggestion:

Proposal:

In a 2012 poll initially published in the Israeli daily Haaretz and widely reported thereafter, 58% of Israelis said Israel practiced apartheid against the Palestinians. 30% said Israeli Arabs should be denied the vote in Israel, and a majority said West Bank Palestinians should be denied the vote in case Israel annexed the West Bank (most respondents opposed annexing the West Bank). (SOURCES: 1 2 3) Critics of the poll said some questions were problematically formulated. (SOURCE: 1).

The criticism seems to have roughly 1/6 weight here, overall. --Dailycare (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I like Nishidani's version better.

Also, weight is given according to prevalence in secondary sources. A source reporting on Haaretz reporting on the poll is a tertiary source. Moreover, the most up to date information should be used and less weight should be given to sources that's couldn't have published something because it wasn't known at the time of their publication. Otherwise, for example, how much weight should be given to the thousands of sources that say the Sun revolves around the Earth? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:DUE in fact says "reliable sources", not specifically secondary sources. Further, The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph and The Times of Israel aren't tertiary sources, which are described in WP:TERTIARY as "encyclopedias and other compendia", whereas secondary sources are described as "at least one step removed from an event", which describes such articles very well. I'm not sure how many of the documents saying the Sun orbits the Earth would be RS for such claims, probably not very many. The Independent & co, however, are reliable in reporting what this poll found. --Dailycare (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Independent & co are not reliable in reporting what this poll found as they didn't see the poll. They're reliable in reporting what Haaretz said about the poll. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest noting the most common specific criticisms, because the criticism coverage is currently vague compared to the details about the results of the survey. I gather that one prominent criticism is that respondents' definitions of what apartheid is may have varied. I'd suggest moving "most respondents opposed annexing the West Bank" to its own sentence and adding it to the other details about criticism of the survey, and describing why sources say this result changes how the survey should be interpreted. Otherwise I think this is ready for the article, it appears to present a neutral point of view on the subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To make comparison between the Earth orbiting around the sun and apartheid claims against an entire nation based on poll interpretation which was auto confirmed as fraudulent by the originator of the fraud is not an objective approach. The key word is by Haaretz itself error [32]--Tritomex (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the proposal as modified after Ryan's suggestions, I added the Sydney Morning Herald as a source for the annexation figures:

In a 2012 poll initially published in the Israeli daily Haaretz and widely reported thereafter, 58% of Israelis said Israel practiced apartheid against the Palestinians. 30% said Israeli Arabs should be denied the vote in Israel, and a majority said West Bank Palestinians should be denied the vote in case Israel annexed the West Bank. 48% opposed such an annexation while 38% supported it. (SOURCES: 1 2 3 4) Critics of the poll suggested it was unclear what respondents understood with "apartheid", and that since a plurality or respondents opposed annexing the West Bank, it shouldn't be concluded that most Israelis support apartheid. (SOURCE: 1).

Concerning reliability, The Independent & co are reliable for reporting on the issue, even in case they're using Haaretz as a source (do you konw they didn't use other sources too?), and Haaretz is in turn reliable for reporting on a poll conducted in Israel. Frankly, "prevalence" as we discussed above relates specifically to how "widespread" something is. This story has literally spread, which is what the policy talks about. In this version the criticism may be getting a bit overweight, but maybe not quite too much yet. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail specifically said that the Independent & Co cite the Haaretz poll and its interpretation. They use stuff like "Haaretz said" and "Haaretz noted" and "According to Haazrtz" throughout. Prevalence does indeed relate to how "widespread" something is, and what's "widespread" here is that Haaretz reported something.

I have already said I'm fine with Nishidani's version. Yours is full of errors, stuff that's not relevant to this article without engaging in OR and omission of relevant criticism. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of points from the Times of Israel article that I'm curious about. One is the criticism that the wording of the question about whether Israel currently has apartheid is leading. The Times of Israel reports that it was a follow-up question asking "Based on the American author’s allegations that apartheid exists in Israel, which of the following opinions is closer to yours: there is no apartheid in Israel; there is apartheid in some issues; there is apartheid in many issues?" This really is a weird and potentially leading way to ask the question, it's pretty obvious why people cited in the report object to it. As they say in the article, why not just ask "In your opinion, does apartheid exist in Israel?" (and for that matter "In your opinion, does Israel practice apartheid in the West Bank?"). I think we should describe this criticism in the writeup. Secondly, the Times of Israel article states that the poll didn't ask if the respondents favour Israel annexing the whole West Bank, but only if they favour annexing the parts with Israeli settlements. Can this really be described as "a plurality or respondents opposed annexing the West Bank" or is that an over-simplification? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

the backtracks and distancing keep coming regarding this poll. i don't mind inculding info about it in the article, but the objections and questions about it must be included as well. Soosim (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to propose my own wording, however I have red again this talk page and I found an acceptable proposal, balanced, objective with all details that needs to be mentioned, from Nishidani. I support his proposed wording, let him go ahead with edition.--Tritomex (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone provide a diff to this Nishidani version? I don't see it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I found it hard to spot too, because people posted in the middle of it so the signature got orphaned. Search the talk page for "In October 2012" which is the opening sentence. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I seems that Nishidani didn't sign it when he posted it [33] (this version was later edited). I added the reflist tag later, then people posted below that, and here we are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

this one: In October 2012, Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy, using a September poll, reported that 58% of Jewish Israelis believes Israel practices apartheid against the Arabs.[5] Taken up around the world,[6][7][8][9][10][11] this reading was vigorously contested as based on a flawed poll and a distortion of the evidence.[12][13] Subsequently, Haaretz altered the wording of the headline, adding a clarification, and Levy, while apologising for errors and omissions, stood by his article, affirming that ‘Most Israelis do support apartheid, but only if the occupied territories are annexed; and most Israelis oppose such annexation.’[14]

and fine by me Soosim (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with this version, which omits, for instance, the significant finding that, irrespective of the status of the territories occupied in 1967, over 30% of those polled would deny the vote to Palestinian citizens of Israel. RolandR (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with it either, because I think your original version for the lead was fine, but has been orphaned or put on indefinite hold. How to offer a compromise? Write of the poll, and you get a huge sentence; write of Haaretz's report of the poll, and it is manageable. Focus on the apartheid issue and you are on topic. It has to be synthetic, brief. Once one adds more than the headline, you get edit-wars. Since it's contested here, yield ground so opposing editors might find it acceptable. That, rather than any other consideration, dictated my formulation. In the meantime we are getting nowhere. It's very easy to write two expansive paragraphs on the report and its critics. The problem is finding an acceptable lead. NMMGG, Tritomex, Soosim, found my version reasonable. Either one decides on something, or, if opposed, one offers an alternative. To oppose without a constructive alternative is, functionally, just keeping an indispensable source out of the article. My main interest is brevity and single focus on the one key item, as a lead. Even more laconically one could edit my proposal down to the following.

In October 2012, Haaretz's Gideon Levy reported that 58% of Jewish Israelis believes Israel practices apartheid against the Arabs.[5] This interpretation, widely aired, was strongly contested as based on a flawed poll and a distortion of the evidence.[12][13] Subsequently Haaretz reworded the headline; Levy, while apologising for errors and omissions, stood by the substance of his article, affirming that ‘Most Israelis do support apartheid, but only if the occupied territories are annexed; and most Israelis oppose such annexation.’[14]

I think there is something deeply flawed with an editorial process that cannot report within a day something that made news waves. It's two weeks, and the article's reference to this important poll is zilch, an extreme anomaly.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see it now. However, this version is mostly about the reaction to the poll, whereas the sources are mostly about the findings of the poll. I'll post a revised version of my proposal later today. --Dailycare (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a revised version:

In a 2012 poll initially published in the Israeli daily Haaretz and widely reported thereafter, 58% of Israelis said Israel practiced apartheid against the Palestinians. 30% said Israeli Arabs should be denied the vote in Israel, and a majority said West Bank Palestinians should be denied the vote in case Israel annexed the West Bank. 48% opposed such an annexation while 38% supported it. 59% said Jews should be given preference to Arabs in government jobs, and 49% wanted the state to treat Jews better than Arabs. (SOURCES: 1 2 3 4) Critics of the poll suggested it was unclear what respondents understood with "apartheid", and that since a plurality or respondents opposed annexing the West Bank, it shouldn't be concluded that most Israelis support apartheid. Some critics said a question in the poll on apartheid was complex and problematically formulated. (SOURCE: 1).

I included the criticism detail that Ryan suggested, and some more of the findings to precent the reception from receiving undue weight. Concerning NMMNG's OR point, e.g. the Guardian and Independent headlines tie the information into the apartheid concept, which brings it into the scope of this article. Further concerning weight, nothing prevents the international sources from picking up on the criticism of the poll the same way they picked up on the poll itself. That they by and large chose to not do so provides us just the signal we need to determine the relative weights. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Your wording implies the poll was reported on independently while not only do the sources make it clear they're reporting on what Haaretz reported, we have RS that specifically states that's the case.
• That the headline uses the word apartheid (which it got from the Haaretz piece it's reporting on and which Haaretz later corrected) doesn't mean every word in a piece is in the scope of this article. Including a question about denying the vote in Israel (just one example) here is OR.
• You omitted the correction Haaretz (again, that's the subject of the foreign reports, that Haaretz reported something) made.
• You are misstating the issue regarding the understanding of the word "apartheid" it was the pollsters that said people may have not understood it, not critics.
• Your opinion on why sources didn't pick up on the criticism is just your opinion. The fact is that we have newer information that most of the sources, which were published before it was available, don't include. Information that Haaretz acknowledged.
• Good luck finding consensus for this POV riddled suggestion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll address your points in the same order as you made them:

• The proposal says that Haaretz published initially, I don't frankly see the relevance of going out of the way to say where the other sources found their material. If you have a policy-based reason as to why it's important, we can discuss it. I haven't compared whether the other sources have material that isn't from the Haaretz piece, but again as I said I don't see what good use such a comparison would do.
• For example the Independent's headline says "The new Israeli apartheid: Poll reveals widespread Jewish support for policy of discrimination". The article then lists e.g. "33% object to Israeli Arabs having the right to vote". Restricting the right to vote based on ethnicity is discrimination.
• That Haaretz made a correction to its headline is hardly a key point about this poll. The key points are the findings and that there was some criticism. FWIW, the wording of the proposal is in-line with the new headlines in Haaretz and Guardian.
• The "apartheid" question was raised by the people who commissioned the poll (not the pollsters), to that extent they did criticise it which maked them to that extent "critics" of the poll. However, I don't see this as a major issue.
• Well it's not just my opinion, since it's a fact that most sources reported the findings of the poll. Why they did so isn't relevant for determining weight. The Guardian is still in print and has doubtless seen the criticism, since it changed the headline of its article, too.
• Thanks for wishing me luck, although I don't see the POV issue. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• The relevance is that there's a difference between several sources independently reporting on something, thus corroborating each others' findings, and a bunch of sources attributing the findings to one source.
• Restricting the right to vote based on ethnicity is indeed discrimination. Turning that into "apartheid" requires a source specifically saying so. Interesting that you'd bring up the Independent, that's one of the few (if not the only) source that didn't correct it's headline after the Haaretz correction.
• That Haaretz made a correction, both to the headline and in a piece published by Gideon Levy is a key point about the reporting of the poll, particularly since that's where the rest of the sources got their information.
• You don't see an issue with calling the people who commissioned the poll critics of the poll? Unfortunately I can't say I'm surprised at this point.
• Let's have a look at the Guardian, since you brought it up. After Haaretz issued a correction, so did the Guardian. That is one more indication that they got their material from Haaretz and not the poll itself. Not that we really need that at this point since we have a source specifically saying that's the case. Moreover, the change they made to their headline ("would support" rather than "support") makes it clear not only that they're using Haaretz for their interpretation, but that this refers to one specific question.
• I'm done here. I object to your proposed text for the reasons outlined above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

After so much attempt to reach consensus and after having seen a clearly comprised proposal of Nishdani we really do not deserve too go back to the beginnings. The proposal of Dailycare is an extreme example of POV, totally unacceptable, without any reasonable argumentation and against all reasonable arguments presented by No More Mr Nice Guy.--Tritomex (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, do you have any policy-based argument as to why it would make a difference one way or another, where the sources got their information originally? We already discussed WP:WEIGHT above, with dictionaries and all to determine the meaning of "prevalent". I have to say I'm inclining to agree with Nishidani in that the editing process isn't working as intended here. Editing doesn't come easier than describing what a poll found, which was published in newspapers all over the world. Unless we can conclude this discussion soon, we'll have to think of a way to invite broader participation. --Dailycare (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We discussed WEIGHT, and your argument wasn't accepted. Your tendency to dismiss other editors' policy interpretation as if I didn't exist is noted once again.

Your suggested text not being excepted is not an indication of the editing process not working. I for one have agreed to two different proposed texts, one by Malik and one by Nishidani, both of whom I tend to disagree with more often than not. Who's stopping either of those texts being put in the article?

The normal way to solicit broader participation is an RfC. Feel free to start one with Nishidani's text and your text and let's see what happens. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I opened a thread on the weight issue on the NPOV noticeboard, here. --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I find the suggestions from both Dailycare and Nishidani pretty decent. Each has some issues, but it's a tricky thing to cover. Here's my attempt, largely amalgamating what I see as the best aspect of their two versions.

In October 2012, Haaretz's Gideon Levy reported that 58% of Jewish Israelis believe Israel practices apartheid against Arabs.1 This widely reported interpretation of a September poll of Jewish Israelis was contested by some Israeli academics and journalists on the basis that according to the pollsters it was unclear what respondents understood "apartheid" to mean and that the survey questions were poorly worded and potentially leading.23 Levy also reported that the majority of Jewish Israelis supported apartheid policies in the West Bank. He later retracted this interpretation but stood by the substance of his article, stating that ‘Most Israelis do support apartheid, but only if the occupied territories are annexed; and most Israelis oppose such annexation.’4

The articles by both Levy and his critics separate the question of whether Israel currently practices apartheid from support for apartheid in the West Bank if it was annexed, so I've followed that approach here to try to reduce confusion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The pollsters were the ones who said respondents might not have understood what "apartheid" means. That should be made clear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

They're not the only ones, the Mor reference I gave says it too. Nevertheless, I've reworded my suggested text above to include the point about the pollsters (which I gather is sourced from Levy?) and also added the criticism that the wording may have been leading with another reference. How is it now? Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Better. I'm not sure "pollsters" is the right term (too lazy to look up exactly what the source used), though. I know you picked it up from me, but we should probably be more precise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

getting closer. maybe a subsequent sentence about haaretz and others retracting their headlines? Soosim (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This version covers what what retracted in Haaretz. I think mentioning headlines is too fine a level of minutiae, before we got to that level of detail things like more of the percentages that were reported from the poll would probably be more significant based on coverage received in reliable sources. My understanding is that the idea here is to get coverage of the core facts in the article that can then be edited as normal. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I used "pollsters" because it was the term used in Nishidani's original version. I don't know whether it's the best term, but I think it's not inaccurate or biased so it could always be edited once we have some text in the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the criticism is unattributed, so I've edited the text above to say "by some Israeli academics and journalists". Don't want to end up with a WHO? tag on that line, and that seems to roughly describe the sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

With the proviso of Ryan's comment timestamped 06:52 I'm OK with his text. --Dailycare (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If people are okay with this text, then I'd be happy for Nishidani to make the edit to the article. I think most of the wording is theirs so I'd feel like an impostor having the edit attributed to me. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

From previous experience it would seem that Dailycare is saying he's OK with this language right now but he's going to challenge it in the future. Anyway, I think it might be a good idea to wait for the people who rejected the previous suggestions to comment. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It means that I'm OK with this text to represent the points it represents. Other points about this poll are relevant as well and can be edited in according to the normal process. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with this text, and do not agree that it is an acceptable substitute for my original edit of 19 October. I will continue to oppose any suggested text which does not note that, irrespective of the future status of the 1967-occupied territories, over 30% of those polled would deny the vote in Knesset elections to Palestinian citizens of Israel. RolandR (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be outside the scope of this article unless a source specifically made the connection, which I don't think most (if any) of the sources discussing this poll do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

But denying the right to vote to one section of the population, purely on the grounds of ethnic origin, would surely be the essence of apartheid. I can see no valid reason for excluding this from the article. RolandR (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to including anything, with two provisos. Firstly, we don't want the overall length of the coverage about this poll to outweigh its significance relative to everything else in the article. I would suggest that it's already approaching that kind of length, and wouldn't warrant more than an additional sentence or two (because unless a lot more coverage comes out about it, this poll could turn out to be just a momentary hot topic). Secondly, we should give priority to including sub-topics which can be demonstrated to be significant by meaningful coverage of those sub-topics in multiple sources. We can't choose what we think personally are the most important or interesting aspects of the situation. We have to go by what the RSs emphasis. The upshot is, if several RSs placed special prominence on the 30% statistic (and they related it to the subject of apartheid in Israel) then I agree we should include it. If not, then we should include the sub-topics they DID place emphasis on and relate to the apartheid label. That's the approach that's in keeping with WP:WEIGHT. So what is the coverage of the 30% result in the RSs? Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, at least these sources disclose the 30% point in connection with apartheid: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you give exact quotes? I looked at the first two sources, didn't see the connection and decided to stop wasting my time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian article says "A third want Arab citizens to be banned from voting in elections to the country's parliament." The article does contextualise this within the "apartheid" label, however it lists this statistic among several others without giving it special prominence. Prominence is given to whether Arabs in the West Bank should be allowed to vote if it is annexed. The Independent article mentions the statistic in the context of the apartheid label too but gives more prominence to the figure of 47 per cent who "would like to see [Israel's Arab citizens] stripped of their citizenship rights and placed under Palestinian Authority control." M&G emphasises support for segregated roads and the denial of vote if West Bank is annexed, but again only lists the 1/3 statistic in a list among others. Huffington Post gives prominence to the statistic about the belief that apartheid is already practised against Israel's Arabs. Asia News does lead with "Most want to take away voting rights from Israeli Arabs", although that seems to contradict the 1/3 figure given in other sources (and further down in the Asia News article) so it's unclear exactly what they're referring to. They also give prominence to separate roads and not giving the vote if annexation happens. IB Times emphasises the percentage who support not giving the vote to Arabs in the West Bank if annexation happens. They put the 1/3 figure in a list among others. Globe and Mail emphasises denial of the vote under annexation and separate living. They do also give a little prominence to the 1/3 figure, but like some others bundle it with the 47% who reportedly want Israel's Arab population transferred to the PA. (On a tangential note, it calls the pollsters "the survey firm Dialog" so perhaps we could use similar language). Overall, the impression I have is that the figure of 30% who want the vote taken away from Israeli Arabs is not one attributed special significance by most of these sources. Therefore I don't think it would be consistent with WP:WEIGHT to give that statistic special prominence in our writeup. The two statistics that are already in the suggested text are given special prominence in many of the sources. So, based on those sources, I'd that text had the weight about right. If we were to introduce a further statistic then my impression is that the separate roading figure might be the one with the next most weight in the sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I proposed the 30% figure as it tied into the denial-of-vote in the WB after possible annexation, but the roading is equally OK as far as I'm concerned. The wording might be e.g. "policies in the West Bank, such as denial of the vote to Arabs and segregated roads" (bold-faced text would be new). --Dailycare (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

But the point is, this 30% figure relates to denial of the right to vote to Palestinian citizens of Israel, living within the Green Line. It is not another element of "policies in the West Bank", and is not related to any hypothetical annexation of the West Bank. This is about the state of Israel itself. RolandR (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, but the sources don't link it to apartheid or "the apartheid analogy" which is the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, continuing to insist that black is white won't convince people, so it would be wiser to stop doing it. RolandR, what we're now agreeing is to get the main points in the article, and it looks like we're just about ready (finally). --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources do place it in the context of the apartheid label, I don't think the argument otherwise holds water (unless you take the statements out of context, which isn't reasonable). But they don't give it special prominence above several other figures from the poll, which I think is a real issue. Roland - do you agree the sources don't give this issue particular prominence? That has to be our guide in this per policy, we can't include things just because we personally think they're important Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That isn't the right question, Ryan. The sources do not give this issue prominence over other issues; but neither do they give other issues prominence over this. They seem, in my reading, to give both aspects equal prominence and importance, and so should we. RolandR (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Only in the sense of "apartheid" appearing in the headline and this stat appearing in the article itself. Otherwise most of them do not make the connection, and this is a pretty weak one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Roland, we're not now about to agree that the 30% figure won't ever be on the article, we're just about to agree on the main points to begin with. We can have a separate discussion about weight with regard to the other findings of the poll. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare has a good point. We're just agreeing on initial content, normal editing will then alter it as always. The sources definitely emphasise the two figures that we already have in the suggested text (the polling of belief that apartheid exists in Israel and of whether Arabs in the West Bank should be able to vote if Israel annexes it) more than others, along with the keys points of the controversy that the text now covers (issues with the survey questions and their interpretation, and the partial retraction). Therefore, this text appears to be the right starting point. The question of what additional figures or issues are sufficiently significant to be included per WP:WEIGHT can be addressed after we get coverage in the article of the aspects of this issue that are most prominent in the sources, which is all this suggested text is intended to do. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there more discussion to be had, or should we use this text as a starting point? Ryan Paddy (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK to start with this. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done the provisory lead edit. Personally I preferred a version of Roland's proposal, succinct and just a line or two. I've adopted Ryan Paddy's version (which modified mine), but have shortened it further by eliminating all flab (Israeli academics etc. -criticism came from all over the place) and pollsters admitting it might have been etc, because per Elhanan Miller, Fuchs said the questionnaire was perfectly regular, so the pollsters are variously reported, and that detail should go into the appropriate section, with much else. I think what we have is tilted, in highlighting criticism and retractions, to the other side, but am not going to make a problem over that. The real work is in the subsection, which hasn't been done.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 4December 2012 (UTC)

Marokwitz. All of the work above is premised on lead language. This whole humongous thread arose from a refusal to accept Roland's snippet sentence to the lead. I said from the outset that we needed as brief a formulation as possible for that lead. Roland was rolled over, I made a synthesize conceding more importance to flaws and retractions than was necessary, several editors expressed approval. I was asked on my page to make the edit, and proceeded to do so, noting here that it was the lead edit as requested. So, to wander into the page, ignore both the huge negotiation, its premise and my summary above, in order to remove this from the lead flies in the face of collegial practices on wikipedia. I would have reverted, as a right, but have reduced an earlier draft even more drastically- Either this, or the consensual edit I made earlier today is what the lead requires. The relevant section wasn't written simply because no one could agree on the lead for two months. If you wish to be helpful, look at the bibliography and fill out that section. Otherwise all this looks like a programmatic refusal, lasting two months, to allow any mention of that poll, which explicitly dealt with the subject of this article, in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed it from the lead per UNDUE, LEAD and RECENT. Three sentences in the body of an article this size do not merit three sentences in the lead. Not to mention this got some attention a month and a half ago, and since then very close to zilch. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree at least in this form it doesn't deserve a whole paragraph in LEAD this certainly a POV push

I was imagining the text we formulated being for the body, not the lead. That text would give the poll too much emphasis for the lead, I don't think it's yet shown to significant enough by sources to warrant more than a sentence there. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

These reasons were part of the impetus for prefacing the block of text with remarks identifying them with Public Opinion. I think that there should be a prefacing statement along those lines, followed by a more concise summary of the recent poll, and accompanied by the creation of a "Public opinion" section in the main body of the text to insert the block related to the quote and other comments.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Seems like someone should try and help and distinguish between the rights of Israelis and those of the territories. It is always made to sound like "Israeli Palestinians" would mean all of the Palestinians living in the area, but it doesnt. I think many many would mistake this when someone says Palestinians can vote or hold office.But things are completely different depending on where you live and if you are a settler or Palestinian. There are different sets of rules.So if someone could discuss more about the different rights of those living in the state of isreal, and those that live in the territories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.236.237 (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)