` ::::::*The editors adding the POV tag (apart from yourself) seem happy with the existing title. It's true that you've been raising concerns about the neutrality of the title in talk and attempting constructive dialogue, and technically you could apply the POV-title tag. However, given that we're probably about to enter mediation regarding the title I'd urge that we try to reach a consensus there first.  ::::::*We're not prohibiting sources that don't mention apartheid, several such sources are used in the article. But such sources should be used in moderation, and care is required to ensure they provide context without being WP:OR. ::::::*I agree that we should be careful about describing sources' positions in relation to ``the analogy`` if they do not express their position as an analogy. I agree that if a source is describing a perceived breach of international law then we should not describe their position as an analogy. We should work to fix any passages that mischaracterise statements from sources in this way. Where I possibly differ from you is that I feel if a source is clearly making a comparison or analogy to apartheid in Africa, even if the source are not using the word ``analogy`` explicitly, then I don't feel it's misleading or OR to include them among ``proponents of the analogy``. If they're making a comparison/analogy, then it's not OR to describe it as such.  ::::::*I understand your position that you would like the term ``analogy`` purged from the article because you feel it's a term of propaganda. If you can provide substantial reliable sources demonstrating that it's a propaganda term, then those sources might be of use in the hopefully upcoming title mediation, and in future discussions about the use of the term in the article. However, if this is more of a personal opinion of yours then it's not something we can really take into account. Personally, I don't find the term ``analogy`` to be misleading so long as a comparison is being made to apartheid in Africa.   `