| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Israel and the Apartheid Analogy |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | 08:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Tempered ( talk) |
| Mediator(s) | Asinthior ( talk) 14:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
The dispute is on the Talk page of Israel and the Apartheid Analogy in relation to the proposed addition of some text to the article, the text to go in at section 10.2 of the article, entitled "Differences in motivations." See the Talk page discussion in the Section 1.2 of the Talk Page, entitled "Version 2: Harrison paragraph."
Who is involved?
- User:Tempered, who is filing this request
- User:Ryan Paddy,
- User:Dailycare
Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
Tempered ( talk) 08:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Happy to have this issue mediated, although Tempered's summary of my position is totally warped and his overall account shouldn't be taken as an accurate summation of the discussion to date. It's this kind of ongoing re-interpretation of both my words and various sources that has led me to pretty much give up on discussing sources with Tempered. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 21:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I also agree to this mediation. -- Dailycare ( talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the dispute?
The dispute is about how to formulate the description of a source that is to be cited in the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article, so as to indicate its relevance and contribution to the sub-section 10.2: Differences in motivations. Some description has been accepted by all parties, but they differ in what that would be. The chief debate has been about a proposed formulation written by Tempered. Ryan Paddy and Dailycare do not accept it. The source in question is a book by the British philosopher Bernard Harrison, entitled The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion. In this book, Harrison analyzes left-liberal anti-Israel discourse in Britain, and argues in considerable detail that it is logically and morally incoherent and even self-refuting. He devotes a major portion of a chapter to the issue of the "apartheid analogy," and claims it does not apply to Israel. He also uses this as another of the many examples in his book of the double standards and delegitimizing agenda that animates, he says, the left liberal anti-Israel advocates. His book is chiefly about the motivations behind this sort of partisan discourse. It does not lie in antisemitism per se, he says, but in other motivations which nevertheless resonate with antisemitism and give it renewed legitimacy in mainstream discourse.
The dispute on the Talk page has chiefly been between Ryan Paddy and Tempered. Ryan Paddy thinks that the description of Harrisonis contribution in Tempered's text should not refer to the "left liberal" critics as such, at all: that is "very regrettable." He has also objected to the discussion of motivations in general, although in the course of a long-drawn-out dispute he has come around to granting that there might be some reference to it, but very brief, and he does not say so far what that should be. In his view, the contribution should chiefly describe Harrison's "nuanced" discussion of discrimination against Arab citizens in Israel, and why Harrison thinks that, while it is a problem, it is not equivalent to apartheid as such. That is the chief relevant point in Harrison's book, in Ryan Paddy's opinion. Tempered included brief references to the nuanced view of discrimination in his description, but holds that the whole point of describing Harrison's book in 10.2 "Differences in motivations" is to present Harrison's analysis of motivations behind specifically left liberal anti-Israel "apartheid" discourse. Tempered also believes that Harrison's analysis or refutation of specific "apartheid" claims can be cited in the main article in the sections where those specific claims are made (he has already inserted such a citation in the main article in a paragraph dealing with land ownership), and that extended description of his analysis of specific apartheid issues in 10.2 is inappropriate. It would also, in his opinion, enlarge the description of Harrison's contribution to such a degree that the whole description would transgress "due weight" WP:WEIGHT and would have to be dropped from the article. At present, Tempered's description of Harrison's contribution is at 182 words, already fairly long but considerably condensed and shortened from its first versions. Including analysis of specific apartheid accusations would swell the description beyond that of other cited sources.
What would you like to change about this?
I would like to bring this interminable debate to a conclusion, and am seeking neutral third party advice.
How do you think we can help?
The question is whether the proposed contribution to the article text as written by Tempered is acceptable according to Wikipedia criteria and is suitable for inclusion in 10.2: Differences in motivations. Ryan Paddy and Dailycare challenge this. Tempered defends it. We have arrived at stalemate and need some outside advice.
Mediator notes
- As a first step, I will read the whole article to get an idea of the weight given to different viewpoints. Asinthior ( talk) 15:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will now proceed to read the discussion page of the article. Asinthior ( talk) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've read the subsection of the discussion page for the article in dispute. As the Mediation Cabal did not have an immediate response, I feel the debate have moved to a new topic. I would ask all concerned parties to make a very short statement trying to define as narrowly as possible what is the topic of the dispute and what would be the expected outcome. Please do this in the discussion section of this page. Asinthior ( talk) 14:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- As the user who filed the case hasn't been back to WP in a month I'm closing the case. If the dispute comes back, contact me at my talkpage. Asinthior ( talk) 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
The disagreement is over how to describe the Harrison source (Bernard Harrison, The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion (Philosophy and the Global Context), 2006). Tempered suggested Harrison as a source with the perspective that the "Israeli apartheid" label is part of a campaign to delegitimise Israel. I agreed that the source was reliable and the content relevant to that subject. This was my suggestion:
Philosopher Bernard Harrison describes the apartheid label as "hyperbolic". He states that while there are reasonable grounds to criticize Israel for the establishment of settlements in the West Bank, or for the treatment of Christians and Muslim Arabs in Israel as "second class citizens", the apartheid comparison is a politically-motivated exaggeration of the situation in Israel intended to undermine its moral basis for existence.
Tempered felt that this unduly emphasised Harrison's acceptance of some criticism of Israel. He made a series of suggested texts, ending with this one:
Analytical philosopher Bernard Harrison says that a "deconstruction" of left-liberal anti-Israel accusations shows that they are logically and morally inconsistent. He states that, reflecting a delegitimizing and demonizing agenda, accusers often refuse to accept contextual explanations when they favor Israel. Thus critics exaggerate valid specific criticisms of discrimination in Israel into a sweeping "apartheid" conclusion contradicting the legally institutionalized and practiced non-racial equalities also found in Israel's liberal democracy. Such critics also ignore the context Israel faces of being surrounded by militant enemies with whom the Arab minority in Israel are closely tied by kinship and sympathies.[21a: Harrison, p. 133.] In this context, and compared with similar conflicts in recent history, he says Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens is all things considered "not only a shining but a virtually unique instance of racial and religious tolerance and forgiveness."[21b: Harrison, p. 134] Such unfair criticisms, he says, are not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism itself, but result from the collapse of left liberal ideology in the last generation into simplistic moral postures, in which "capitalist" liberal democracies per se are dubious and bad, and non-Western "resistance" to them legitimate and good. He says that this generates a necessarily unself-critical "climate of belief" that demonizes the only Western liberal democracy in the Middle East, the Jewish state of Israel, and which accepts or is oblivious to even stridently antisemitic views. This, he argues, gives such attitudes renewed currency in mainstream discourse.
I feel that this proposed text is unduly long, not encyclopedic in tone, and has lost the focus on delegitimisation in order to make a long discursion about the failings of critics of Israel in general. In Tempered's original draft, he had failed to mention delegitimisation at all, giving me the impression that he has lost sight of the point of this exercise. I don't think either of us will agree to each other's text, but there may be a compromise text somewhere between them that would be mutually agreeable. I had given up on trying to find this with Tempered on the talk page because I didn't have any sense of progress, but I'm willing to give it another try with a mediator to play referee. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 19:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting this statement. Let's now wait for the other parties involved to do the same so that I can "start mediating". I would also like to ask whether you or any other of the parties involved in the dispute, would also like to discuss whether the Harrison paragraph should be moved to another or new section. I read at the discussion page of the article that this seemed to be the most recent controversy. Depending on how all parties involved feel we can focus on the Harrison paragraph itself or also discuss its place in the article. Let me know what you all think about this point too. Asinthior ( talk) 20:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Harrison content would now fit best in the "Delegitimization of Israel as a motivation for the apartheid analogy" section. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 21:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's my opinion, but it seems very clear-cut to me. Tempered wanted to expand the coverage of the delegitimisation argument in the article, and Harrison was one of several sources suggested for this purpose. The article now has a section specifically about the the delegitimisation argument, where some of Tempered's other suggested sources appear. That section has been created specifically to contain material like that from Harrison. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 23:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Very well, let's wait for Tempered and DailyCare to stop by. There can't be any mediation unless there are at least to parties involved. As Tempered requested this mediation I stopped by his user page to see what was he up to. He hasn't done any edits in a while, so I guess he or she is taking a time off. Let's wait until he comes back to start. For the moment let's just wait. Asinthior ( talk) 13:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Summarizing my position here, I've on the talkpage of the article in question endorsed Ryan's version of the text and I continue to do so. The reason is that I have a few issues with Tempered's version, namely 1) Undue weight: this text is longer than what's devoted to persons more relevantly connected with the apartheid-and-Israel theme, and 2) NPOV since this text fails to convey that Harrison doesn't merely criticise people who make the analogy but also says that there are grounds to criticise Israel's actions. Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 20:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for stopping by. I reduced the indentation of your reply so that it's easier for me to follow. You have made your point clear. I have to ask one more question, as it seems there was an additional topic in debate. How do you feel about moving the Harrison paragraph to either an existing section or a new section? As you can read above, Ryan Paddy thinks it should now go on "Delegitimization of Israel as a motivation for the apartheid analogy". How do you feel about that?
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Israel and the Apartheid Analogy |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | 08:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Tempered ( talk) |
| Mediator(s) | Asinthior ( talk) 14:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
The dispute is on the Talk page of Israel and the Apartheid Analogy in relation to the proposed addition of some text to the article, the text to go in at section 10.2 of the article, entitled "Differences in motivations." See the Talk page discussion in the Section 1.2 of the Talk Page, entitled "Version 2: Harrison paragraph."
Who is involved?
- User:Tempered, who is filing this request
- User:Ryan Paddy,
- User:Dailycare
Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
Tempered ( talk) 08:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Happy to have this issue mediated, although Tempered's summary of my position is totally warped and his overall account shouldn't be taken as an accurate summation of the discussion to date. It's this kind of ongoing re-interpretation of both my words and various sources that has led me to pretty much give up on discussing sources with Tempered. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 21:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I also agree to this mediation. -- Dailycare ( talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the dispute?
The dispute is about how to formulate the description of a source that is to be cited in the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article, so as to indicate its relevance and contribution to the sub-section 10.2: Differences in motivations. Some description has been accepted by all parties, but they differ in what that would be. The chief debate has been about a proposed formulation written by Tempered. Ryan Paddy and Dailycare do not accept it. The source in question is a book by the British philosopher Bernard Harrison, entitled The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion. In this book, Harrison analyzes left-liberal anti-Israel discourse in Britain, and argues in considerable detail that it is logically and morally incoherent and even self-refuting. He devotes a major portion of a chapter to the issue of the "apartheid analogy," and claims it does not apply to Israel. He also uses this as another of the many examples in his book of the double standards and delegitimizing agenda that animates, he says, the left liberal anti-Israel advocates. His book is chiefly about the motivations behind this sort of partisan discourse. It does not lie in antisemitism per se, he says, but in other motivations which nevertheless resonate with antisemitism and give it renewed legitimacy in mainstream discourse.
The dispute on the Talk page has chiefly been between Ryan Paddy and Tempered. Ryan Paddy thinks that the description of Harrisonis contribution in Tempered's text should not refer to the "left liberal" critics as such, at all: that is "very regrettable." He has also objected to the discussion of motivations in general, although in the course of a long-drawn-out dispute he has come around to granting that there might be some reference to it, but very brief, and he does not say so far what that should be. In his view, the contribution should chiefly describe Harrison's "nuanced" discussion of discrimination against Arab citizens in Israel, and why Harrison thinks that, while it is a problem, it is not equivalent to apartheid as such. That is the chief relevant point in Harrison's book, in Ryan Paddy's opinion. Tempered included brief references to the nuanced view of discrimination in his description, but holds that the whole point of describing Harrison's book in 10.2 "Differences in motivations" is to present Harrison's analysis of motivations behind specifically left liberal anti-Israel "apartheid" discourse. Tempered also believes that Harrison's analysis or refutation of specific "apartheid" claims can be cited in the main article in the sections where those specific claims are made (he has already inserted such a citation in the main article in a paragraph dealing with land ownership), and that extended description of his analysis of specific apartheid issues in 10.2 is inappropriate. It would also, in his opinion, enlarge the description of Harrison's contribution to such a degree that the whole description would transgress "due weight" WP:WEIGHT and would have to be dropped from the article. At present, Tempered's description of Harrison's contribution is at 182 words, already fairly long but considerably condensed and shortened from its first versions. Including analysis of specific apartheid accusations would swell the description beyond that of other cited sources.
What would you like to change about this?
I would like to bring this interminable debate to a conclusion, and am seeking neutral third party advice.
How do you think we can help?
The question is whether the proposed contribution to the article text as written by Tempered is acceptable according to Wikipedia criteria and is suitable for inclusion in 10.2: Differences in motivations. Ryan Paddy and Dailycare challenge this. Tempered defends it. We have arrived at stalemate and need some outside advice.
Mediator notes
- As a first step, I will read the whole article to get an idea of the weight given to different viewpoints. Asinthior ( talk) 15:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will now proceed to read the discussion page of the article. Asinthior ( talk) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've read the subsection of the discussion page for the article in dispute. As the Mediation Cabal did not have an immediate response, I feel the debate have moved to a new topic. I would ask all concerned parties to make a very short statement trying to define as narrowly as possible what is the topic of the dispute and what would be the expected outcome. Please do this in the discussion section of this page. Asinthior ( talk) 14:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- As the user who filed the case hasn't been back to WP in a month I'm closing the case. If the dispute comes back, contact me at my talkpage. Asinthior ( talk) 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
The disagreement is over how to describe the Harrison source (Bernard Harrison, The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion (Philosophy and the Global Context), 2006). Tempered suggested Harrison as a source with the perspective that the "Israeli apartheid" label is part of a campaign to delegitimise Israel. I agreed that the source was reliable and the content relevant to that subject. This was my suggestion:
Philosopher Bernard Harrison describes the apartheid label as "hyperbolic". He states that while there are reasonable grounds to criticize Israel for the establishment of settlements in the West Bank, or for the treatment of Christians and Muslim Arabs in Israel as "second class citizens", the apartheid comparison is a politically-motivated exaggeration of the situation in Israel intended to undermine its moral basis for existence.
Tempered felt that this unduly emphasised Harrison's acceptance of some criticism of Israel. He made a series of suggested texts, ending with this one:
Analytical philosopher Bernard Harrison says that a "deconstruction" of left-liberal anti-Israel accusations shows that they are logically and morally inconsistent. He states that, reflecting a delegitimizing and demonizing agenda, accusers often refuse to accept contextual explanations when they favor Israel. Thus critics exaggerate valid specific criticisms of discrimination in Israel into a sweeping "apartheid" conclusion contradicting the legally institutionalized and practiced non-racial equalities also found in Israel's liberal democracy. Such critics also ignore the context Israel faces of being surrounded by militant enemies with whom the Arab minority in Israel are closely tied by kinship and sympathies.[21a: Harrison, p. 133.] In this context, and compared with similar conflicts in recent history, he says Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens is all things considered "not only a shining but a virtually unique instance of racial and religious tolerance and forgiveness."[21b: Harrison, p. 134] Such unfair criticisms, he says, are not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism itself, but result from the collapse of left liberal ideology in the last generation into simplistic moral postures, in which "capitalist" liberal democracies per se are dubious and bad, and non-Western "resistance" to them legitimate and good. He says that this generates a necessarily unself-critical "climate of belief" that demonizes the only Western liberal democracy in the Middle East, the Jewish state of Israel, and which accepts or is oblivious to even stridently antisemitic views. This, he argues, gives such attitudes renewed currency in mainstream discourse.
I feel that this proposed text is unduly long, not encyclopedic in tone, and has lost the focus on delegitimisation in order to make a long discursion about the failings of critics of Israel in general. In Tempered's original draft, he had failed to mention delegitimisation at all, giving me the impression that he has lost sight of the point of this exercise. I don't think either of us will agree to each other's text, but there may be a compromise text somewhere between them that would be mutually agreeable. I had given up on trying to find this with Tempered on the talk page because I didn't have any sense of progress, but I'm willing to give it another try with a mediator to play referee. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 19:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting this statement. Let's now wait for the other parties involved to do the same so that I can "start mediating". I would also like to ask whether you or any other of the parties involved in the dispute, would also like to discuss whether the Harrison paragraph should be moved to another or new section. I read at the discussion page of the article that this seemed to be the most recent controversy. Depending on how all parties involved feel we can focus on the Harrison paragraph itself or also discuss its place in the article. Let me know what you all think about this point too. Asinthior ( talk) 20:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Harrison content would now fit best in the "Delegitimization of Israel as a motivation for the apartheid analogy" section. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 21:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's my opinion, but it seems very clear-cut to me. Tempered wanted to expand the coverage of the delegitimisation argument in the article, and Harrison was one of several sources suggested for this purpose. The article now has a section specifically about the the delegitimisation argument, where some of Tempered's other suggested sources appear. That section has been created specifically to contain material like that from Harrison. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 23:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Very well, let's wait for Tempered and DailyCare to stop by. There can't be any mediation unless there are at least to parties involved. As Tempered requested this mediation I stopped by his user page to see what was he up to. He hasn't done any edits in a while, so I guess he or she is taking a time off. Let's wait until he comes back to start. For the moment let's just wait. Asinthior ( talk) 13:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Summarizing my position here, I've on the talkpage of the article in question endorsed Ryan's version of the text and I continue to do so. The reason is that I have a few issues with Tempered's version, namely 1) Undue weight: this text is longer than what's devoted to persons more relevantly connected with the apartheid-and-Israel theme, and 2) NPOV since this text fails to convey that Harrison doesn't merely criticise people who make the analogy but also says that there are grounds to criticise Israel's actions. Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 20:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for stopping by. I reduced the indentation of your reply so that it's easier for me to follow. You have made your point clear. I have to ask one more question, as it seems there was an additional topic in debate. How do you feel about moving the Harrison paragraph to either an existing section or a new section? As you can read above, Ryan Paddy thinks it should now go on "Delegitimization of Israel as a motivation for the apartheid analogy". How do you feel about that?