Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:31, 14 November 2013

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Repository of Sources

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Israeli apartheid. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Israeli apartheid at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Discrimination High‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 3, 2006 Articles for deletion No consensus June 17, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 15, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept August 11, 2006 Articles for deletion No consensus April 4, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept April 24, 2007 Articles for deletion No consensus June 26, 2007 Articles for deletion Speedily kept September 4, 2007 Articles for deletion No consensus June 11, 2008 Articles for deletion No consensus August 21, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Haviv Rettig Gur (16/05/2010). "Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Misplaced Pages". The Jerusalem Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

The main discussion area for this series of articles was at: WP:APARTHEID

I wanted to correct the English of "is likely to gain further legitimacy in upcoming years" to 'is likely to gain further legitimacy in coming years' but the article is semiprotected. Could someone do it for me, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.160.221 (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Original Research in the lead

There is a large amount of original research in the lead citing sources whose relation to the topic is not made by the source itself, but by opinion of editors involved in the article. I made a start removing the worst cases but was reverted by another editor, presumably because he/she has no awareness of the core policies and standards by which we write the encyclopedia. See WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH: "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Dlv999 (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The reliable reference you want to remove is about discrimination against Palestinians in Arab countries, one of the reasons to reject the "Israeli apartheid" analogy. With your invented criteria, you should also delete a lot of pro-Palestinian sources that inform about certain facts but don't mention the "apartheid" term in any place. For example, this one:

The human rights NGO B'Tselem has indicated that such policies have isolated some Palestinian communities.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A better citation for B'tselem position would be their publication on Israel's discriminatory road policy: "Forbidden Roads Israel’s Discriminatory Road Regime" See pg 3: "The regime, based on the principle of separation through discrimination, bears striking similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa until 1994." I would fully support using the better B'tselem source for their view on the issue, but I don't see what this has to do with deleting the OR from the lead. Dlv999 (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Forbidden Checkpoints and Roads at B'Tselem

Analysis by Adam and Moodley WP:UNDUE Section

This has been discussed before and there was an agreement that this section should be changed to reflect the breadth of scholarship on the topic and not just one single academic publication. As it stands devoting over a page (in my browser at least) to one single piece of scholarship is WP:UNDUE, unless we are going to have a page length section for every significant piece of scholarship that has been published on the topic (which of course would be untenable). I have tagged the section with the aim of moving this section towards a broad review of academic coverage rather than a detailed and lengthy exposition of one single academic publication that discussed the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Cutting back on the weight given to this piece would be a welcome way to shorten the article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't read this, and thus repeated the point below in a, now, repetitive section. Yes. The simplest way to fix this is to reposition it down the page for the time being, once the overall synthesis of the topic has been laid out. It certainly needs trimming.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

OR or not

I have moved this to the talk page :

Some critics consider the analogy defamatory and reflecting a double standard when applied to Israel and not neighboring Arab countries, whose policies towards their own Palestinian minority have been described as discriminatory.

Whether it is in the source and it should be moved inside the article (not in the lead) whether it is not and it must simply be removed. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"controversial"

This has been attempted to forced into the first sentence of the article for some time, and, funny thing is, I dont see one word about the change on the talk page. That isnt how things are done here, the people trying to make the change need to gain consensus for the change, not line up and one at a time try to revert it back in. For the record, I oppose that adjective in the introduction. As Im sure many would oppose opening lines like Zionism is a controversial form of nationalism or New antisemitism is a controversial concept or ... nableezy - 19:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be there in the opening, for the simple reason that if it wasn't controversial, you wouldn't have so much criticism of it in the article. Right now it just opens with "is a comparison" which gives a false impression that the allegations are facts. Yuvn86 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If that is the impression you get, then I'm afraid that is a case of confirmation bias. This article is here to describe the apartheid analogy neutrally, not to characterize it as controversial, nor to cement it as factual. We discuss the analogy, who makes it and why, and then who criticizes it and why. Nothing more. Tarc (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yuvn86, the same reasoning would apply to Zionism too, as Nableezy argues above. The lead describes the analogy, and also opinions critical of it. This is how things work around here. --Dailycare (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This perennial maneuver has come up yet again, today by "SimpleC". I forgot about the old 1RR, so self-reverted. Consensus is abundantly clear on this, though. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not debating whether or not the word controversial, is controversial, but rather I just added what the source clearly states...which is that the "apartheid analogy is a controversial analogy...since 1985" It's not me making a judgement call, it's what the source said. But let's be real people...it is a controversial analogy...regardless of your position on it. For those who don't want to go through the scholarly article, I posted the paragraphs where it clearly cites the analogy as controversial in more than 2 places SimplesC (talk)

"The comparison of South Africa with the Israel/Palestine situation was not new when Locke and Stewart published Bantustan Gaza in 1985. A controversial analogy even then, it was as apt to stop argument as to promote deliberation. It has been no less controversial over the last decade during a time when the barrier in the West Bank was dubbed “apartheid wall,” and Desmond Tutu was disinvited as a university speaker because of statements connecting Israeli policy and apartheid."

"The application of analogy that might initially be seen as incongruous, or certainly understood as controversial, is carefully structured in the film to seem apt and justified, not hypothetical, exaggerated, or inappropriate."

• You could find a variety of sources that say just about anything is controversial, and just as many that say it is overblown and not a controversy at all. How people spell "yoghur" is controversial. This is a biased, one-sided point-of-view that does not belong in the lead of this article. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead describes the controversy. Zionism is controversial, but you dont see anybody rushing to put that up. nableezy - 14:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I won't fall for the strawman arguments. The source clearly cites it as controversial. That's what it states. It's very clear. You can argue with it, you can disagree with it. But I'm just accurately quoting the source. If this upsets you, bring up a source stating that the analogy is NOT controversial SimplesC (talk)

"Israel and the apartheid analogy is a comparison between Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era is a simple statement of fact that per WP:LEADCITE shouldn't even be cited anyways, so just remove it. All it does is say what the controversy is, it doesn't need to say it is a good analogy or say it is a controversial analogy, it just states a fact. Leave it to the body of the article to further explain the analogy, who makes it, who rejects it, and why. An encyclopedia article exists to report on a topic, not judge it. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Why the prominence (Undue weight etc) of Adam and Moodley

The positioning, and exposition of the contents, of this 2005 book is very odd. It does not figure highly in the specific technical literature on the analogy, and consists of, in our paraphrase, a meta-analysis, rather indifferent to details, of the ostensible POVs of those who use the analogy. Thus it is showcased to prove a point, i.e. that the analogy is political.

Logically, having set forth the historical development of the analogy, one would move to a thematic analysis of the points drawn between the two systems (87% of South Africa's land was reserved for whites/93% of the land in Israel (and not the OPT) is for Jewish use, etc.)

That done, one would then go to the challenges and debates over the descriptive adequacy or not of each of these points. The ID system differs, the race marking of SA differs from the religious-denominational one in Israel; Palestinians vote in Israel for national elections, Bantustan denizens didn't, etc.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Dennis Prager a reliable source?

I was told to ask this here before I use him as a source. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A professional noise maker. Obviously not reliable. Zero 12:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think a professional radio talk show host, syndicated columnist, author, and public speaker is a much more correct and proper description of him. Does anyone else have an opinion here? If he's not allowed in the article, then I'll go over its sources and remove other citations of similar "professional noise makers". Yambaram (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Dennis Prager is a reliable source for his own ultra-right views (which have been described by the Anti-Defamation League as "intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American"), and for nothing else. The fact that he holds particular, presumably unfavourable, views on this analogy is unlikely to be relevant or worth adding to this article. And a threat to engage in tit-for-tat disruptive editing in other articles is not going to win the argument for you, but could lead to a ban from editing. RolandR (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

He is reliable source regarding his own views, if properly attributed. He is also a public figure and it is irrelevant what individual editors thinks about his political views. I dont know on what policy based arguments, his views regarding the subject of this article are not allowed in. His view is certainly more relevant than a view of one activist named Michael Tarazi (which btw I dont know how got to this article)--Tritomex (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

After reading the entire article I am shocked in what status of POV pushing it is written. It lacks basic elements of standard neutrality more closely resembling a political pamphlet than a Misplaced Pages article.--Tritomex (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS. If Prager's views were important, they would be published by a third party. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are published by Political journals and by the world biggest and most prominent Jewish organization among others. His other views unrelated to subject are cited, criticized or supported by numerous publications, journals, blogs and books.--Tritomex (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

RonaldR, accusing me of making threats shows lack of understanding of what I said, because my intention is simply making sure the article is as neutral and balanced as possible. To MalikS, Tritomex just answered your response. Thanks for pointing out these facts Tritomex, now it's all solved Yambaram (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

RonaldR is reverting me and Tritomex for some reason. Tritomex has just proven that Prager has been used by third party sources, while pointing at another similar speaker who is used for citation. Nothing but complete WP:COI can prevent using him as a source for something he said. If the actual content isn't relevant here then I'll simply add it to the proper article. Yambaram (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Real Clear Politics link is to an opinion piece written by Mr. Prager, it is not coverage of his position on Israel. The WJC is certainly notable itself, but the video is just one of a large gallery of similar ones, there's no commentary or discussion to assert notability. Absent reliable sources that note Mr. Prager as an expert in the subject area, his views are really not relevant to this article. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There are hundreds of fanatics around with similar status to Denis Prager. They offer nothing except their own opinions. The fact that people who share their opinions like to quote them doesn't mean we have to. Zero 12:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on what source you call Denis Prager a fanatic? Tritomex (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't be calling any living people "fanatics", actually. Let's all dial it down a notch. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are no double standards on this issue, how this claim "Jamal Dajani of Link TV has asked "How long can Israelis live in this denial and pretend that apartheid-like conditions do not exist?" sourced with Jamal Dajani himself, got into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs)

Jamal Dajani is an award-winning journalist and producer, with years of work and involvement in Middle East news and affairs. His credentials to speak as an expert in the field are unquestionable. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Dajani is an award wining producer and a journalist of the Arab talk radio in San Francisco and a Palestinian political activist, Prager is a syndicated talk show host, a Jewish political activist a founder of Prager University who majored in Middle Eastern Studies and graduated History at Brooklyn College He also has years of work and involvement in Middle East news and affairs. Prager views on Israels apartheid analogy are btw covered by secondary sources like Jewish press --Tritomex (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Jewish press link is a blog, one that mentions Mr. Prager in a single sentence. His interest in Israel and the Middle East is personal, more of a hobby, rather than recognized by any 3rd party for his input or expertise; as opposed to Mr. Dajani, who has. As for the "Prager University", it is unfortunately a bit less grandiose than its name implies. All it is is a series of videos, hosted by Youtube and others, of his speeches and personal opinions. There is no coursework, no classes, and no accreditation despite the claims on his website (as an aside, all the material is currently offline and unavailable). I don't want anyone to have the mistaken notion that Mr. Prager is the president or provost of an actual institution of learning. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We have in WP:SPS established policy for deciding whether someone is notable in his own right. If he has published in reliable third-party sources concerning the subject, then he is and a Google Scholar search would seem to indicate Prager hasn't. --Dailycare (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia of Judaism By Sara E. Karesh, Mitchell M. Hurvitz Dennis Prager is a "well respected author and talk show host and a leading American socially conservative spoksman" The Encyclopedia devotes two whole pages to his work. His work is mentioned by numerus authors like in Radio After the Golden Age: The Evolution of American Broadcasting Since 1960 by Jim Cox P:122 His works on Jewish and Israeli questions are cited by numerous authors like The Case for Jewish Peoplehood by Erica Brown, ‎Misha Galperin philosophical literature like 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions By Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio, Barry L. Beyerstein and The Power of Character Michael S. Josephson, ‎Wes Hanson P: 276 He is coauthor of Jewish religious literature Readings on Conversion to Judaism By Lawrence J. Epstein P:6, considered by many as expert on Middle Eastern wars "War and Words: Horror and Heroism in the Literature of Warfare" War and Words: Horror and Heroism in the Literature of Warfare His views are offen cited even by his opponents "Punishment and the Moral Emotions: Essays in Law, Morality, and Religion" By Jeffrie G. Murphy and so on and so on. Based on this there is absolutely no justification to censor an author who has been widely cited by dozens of other authors.--Tritomex (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Tritmox, that research you just did on him is absolutely outstanding and well done. We know we're right and so do they, but this argument is pointless and I intentionally dropped it in the beginning, it just isn't worth our time. I'm surprised myself by how notable and reliable Prager turns out to be, undoubtedly more than at least half of the people used for citation in this article. Tarc and Zero, you either didn't watch that video or you didn't listen to what was said in it if you call it an "opinion piece" by a fanatic. Where in that video did he even say his opinion? It's all flat facts! Fanatic? wow, where should I even start... Don't worry guys, I'll not bother you and Prager will be used elsewhere, your article won't be touched... PeaceYambaram (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources citing each other in circular fashion does not establish notability, unfortunately. I would advise caution in adding this person as a source to any article but his own, as it may be viewed as disruptive activity. Rejection of this person as an opinion-holder on Middle East issues is not limited to this article alone. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Yam but this is now case of principal policy regarding Misplaced Pages guidelines and neutral editing. Tarc, Based on what policy based arguments and evidences you are claiming that this sources and authors are not reliable? After I showed more than enough evidences that Prager is widely cited I think this is now case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and as per WP:NPOV has to be marked.--Tritomex (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Tritomex. I'll ask my question again: Where in that video did he share his opinion? Everything he said was verifiable facts, it's really that simple. Now, Zero and Tarc, why don't YOU give me a source that says Prager is "fanatic"? Can you even provide a source that says anything close to such accusation about him? Tarc, are you aware of the fact that dozens of "opinion holders" are cited in this article? It may be a little embarrassing for you to try answering these questions, but this is the reality and a perfect example of WP:BIAS. Yambaram (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Prager is cited by non-reliable sources, or by some reliable sources fleetingly; as I said, a circle of non-RS calling each other notable doesn't actually confer notability as we recognize it in this project. As for "fanatic", you will note above that I asked Zero to not use such language, as it runs afoul of our WP:BLP policy, which provides protection to living people from attack in article-space and in talk-space. So I cannot really give a source for a claim which I do not condone or believe in. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You cant continue to call dozens of authors and books unreliable without any evidence. This is is against Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines. As it was said, there is a WP:SPS based policy that an author notability is established in regard of his published works and citations from reliable third-party sources. It is out of question if Prager and his work is cited or not by reliable sources. Also, as I have said this claims of unreliability for dozens of authors and books without providing any evidence at all, is violation of Misplaced Pages policy. It is also not upon us to like/dislike Prager views. He is a widely cited public figure and an author and there is no policy based argument to exclude him.--Tritomex (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, it's obvious you're trying to get around here, and it's even more obvious that Prager is a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. It doesn't matter if it was you or Zero who called him by that name, because both of you seem to openly talk about him as if he really is fanatic. Also, there's no such thing as "fleetingly" citing him, you just made it up. If he's cited by reliable sources, as Tritomex proved above, and because of who he is as Tritomex said also, there's no shade of doubt he's a good reliable source. I mean, on the same hand it would be a little ironic if I opposed using Norman Finkelstein for citation on Misplaced Pages. Yambaram (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That may be obvious to you, and you are entitled to your opinion; I'm sorry that you're becoming so agitated about this, but I and others simply disagree....though it is really rather bad form to keep throwing the "fanatic" label into the mix when I have explicitly rejected it. As for Mr. Finklestein, if you have a case to make for his removal then by all means begin a new section below this one. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if he would not be cited by dozens of authors and books how the view of an author who has regular columns in newspaper such as Los Angeles Times Washington Examiner National Review Online, Jewish World Review Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is censored from this article?This maybe should go to WP:RS noticeboard.--Tritomex (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, so are there any cases of reliable third-party sources publishing Prager's work in the relevant field? The field is not psychology. For example, has be published in respected academic journals that relate to international law? --Dailycare (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, this discussion about whether Prager is a reliable source or not is beside the point. Nobody is suggesting that Prager's comments be construed as a statement of fact or as an academically-based analysis of the issue, but rather an undisguised expression of opinion. And no one argues that Prager is not a reliable source for his own point of view.

The question, then, is not whether Prager is reliable. The questions are: (a) Has Prager expressed an opinion that isn't already amply covered in the article? and (b) Is Prager himself such a notable commentator that his words are, in themselves, worthy of quotation? My own answers to these questions are: (a) No, nothing in Prager's comments say anything that isn't already said in the article. (b) I don't think Prager is that notable a commentator that his words are in themselves worthy of quotation. On the other hand, he does speak as a representative of the American religious right. One representative of that group, Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, is already cited, and I would suggest that Prager is a more prominent spokesman for this group than Adlerstein. So I would suggest replacing Adlerstein's comments with Prager's.

On the other hand, it is important that any citation of Prager specify his political inclinations, in order to give proper weight to his opinions. Note that Adlerstein's political affiliations are not mentioned, giving the false impression that he is speaking objectively. Ravpapa (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that this question is solely related to intl law. I guess 90% of those quoted in this article have no expertise in intl law. We have a section devoted to public and media figures who are not necessarily experts of International law. I agree that Prager's comments do not say anything that isn't already said, in fact rarely anyone on both sides says anything that is not being said. However, Prager is widely cited author, (among others as shown above regarding Middle Eastern conflicts as well,) a public figure and described by encyclopedic sources as leading "American socially conservative spokesman" and his views on subject, with proper attribution certainly hase importance. Yitzchok Adlerstein is one of the leading Ortodox Haredi rabbis, representing another part of the society, barely related to Prager's. Adlerstein's views although may have some importance regarding Haredi Jewish position on issue, certainly have no such credentials as Prager's views.--Tritomex (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps we could add a sentence like, "Dennis Prager, a prominent and controversial commentator whose views are representative of the American religious right wing, has also expressed his opposition to the analogy." That pretty much covers it, no?

Also, in light of what you write, we should also qualify Adlerstein's quote. Something like, "Rabbi Yitzhok Adlerstein, a spokesman of the American ultraorthodox Jewish community which is avidly supportive of Israel, has written " and so on. Ravpapa (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the best desecration of Prager as (per Jewish encyclopedia)is a leading American socially conservative spokesman or just American socially conservative author (of course if neutral sources claims that he is controversial too, I have nothing against adding this too.) It depends on sources.

The proper attribution of Yitzhok Adlerstein would be probably an American orthodox rabbi.--Tritomex (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If someone is covered in a reliable secondary source e.g. the BBC, s/he doesn't need to be an expert on international law since that situation wouldn't involve WP:SPS. This case does involve WP:SPS. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Worst article title on Misplaced Pages?

It's certainly up there. Isn't there something better? john k (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Racism in Israel? Or maybe Human rights in Israel? Oops, those names are already taken. Funny that there should be three articles covering pretty much the same thing. But then we have Arab salad and Israeli salad. We have Anti-Israel lobby in the United States, Opposition in the United States to the Israeli Occupation and Arab lobby in the United States. Why so many articles about the same topic? See my essay Tilt!. Ravpapa (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think my objection is necessarily the same as yours. Probably you're right that Racism in Israel or Human rights in Israel could deal with most of these issues. But if we're going to have an article on the specific idea of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians being akin to South African apartheid, surely it could have a better title than "Israel and the Apartheid analogy", which is just unbelievably awkward. john k (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering the article is about Israel and the apartheid analogy, I'd say it's the perfect article title. What were you expecting? — Richard BB 14:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the current title is okay although I wouldn't care if it were moved to something like "Israel's benevolent conservation of geographically separate and culturally distinct peoples" for a while to give people something new to complain about and demonstrate that nothing here actually matters. To respond to Ravpapa, as a matter of wiki-tradition, incorporating much of this material into articles with titles like Racism in Israel or Human rights in Israel would probably be opposed on the basis of the implicit neo-colonialist absorption of the oPt into Eretz Yisrael via the "in Israel" part of the titles. On the other hand, many wiping-Palestine-off-the-map hobbyists enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages so it might find favor. Sensible policy-minded editors who stick around are critically endangered in topic area so whatever the article is called, and whatever it contains, there's bound to be a substantial number of editors who object to it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The literature makes extensive use of the comparison, hence the title. I think it is fairly well established that the apartheid analogy does not work with Israel proper - in fact analytically it breaks down and disproves its utility as a heuristic tool there, but tends to begin to work as the intrinsic tendency of policy, settlement and development in colonization of the West Bank. That is why the title separates the two entities: 'Israel and the apartheid analogy' is perhaps clumsy, but the article should make clear that the analogy, while thrown at Israel, fails there, but comes to make sense as a policy dilemma for Israel in its occupational policies. 'The apartheid analogy to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories' or something like that would be perhaps better.Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Gideon. "Deconstructing Apartheid Accusations Against Israel", presented on September 2007Shimoni, Gideon
2. Rufin, Jean-Christophe. "Chantier sur la lutte contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme", presented on 19 October 2004. Cited in Matas, David Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, p. 54 and p. 243, footnotes 59 and 60.
3. "The poisonous myth of 'Israeli apartheid'". www.nationalpost.com. May 2009. Archived from the original on 29 February 2008. Retrieved 20 April 2008.
4. "חדשות nrg – (Israeli Arabs in the trap of self-deception)ערביי ישראל – במלכודת ההונאה העצמית". www.nrg.co.il. Retrieved 20 April 2008.
5. Please see references:

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Low-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• High-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press