Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid

Issues by topic area (View all)
Article topics (View all)
Biographies	(watch)	{{rfc|bio}}
Economy, trade, and companies	(watch)	{{rfc|econ}}
History and geography	(watch)	{{rfc|hist}}
Language and linguistics	(watch)	{{rfc|lang}}
Maths, science, and technology	(watch)	{{rfc|sci}}
Media, the arts, and architecture	(watch)	{{rfc|media}}
Politics, government, and law	(watch)	{{rfc|pol}}
Religion and philosophy	(watch)	{{rfc|reli}}
Society, sports, and culture	(watch)	{{rfc|soc}}
Project-wide topics (View all)
Wikipedia style and naming	(watch)	{{rfc|style}}
Wikipedia policies and guidelines	(watch)	{{rfc|policy}}
WikiProjects and collaborations	(watch)	{{rfc|proj}}
Wikipedia technical issues and templates	(watch)	{{rfc|tech}}
Wikipedia proposals	(watch)	{{rfc|prop}}
Unsorted
Unsorted RfCs	(watch)	{{rfc}}

For discussion around the Allegations of apartheid articles.

Archives
/Archive1	/Archive2

Should Wikipedia have articles on "Allegations of apartheid"?

Only if the allegations are notable and well sourced, and fit the common sense definition of analogy.--Cerejota 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved below. Anyway, I don't think allegations of apartheid articeles should exist at all for the simple reason that thay are all attacks against a country and clear POV forks. But if we allow the attack against some, we should allow it against all.--Sefringle^Talk 05:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cerejota. It's unfortunate when any state or religion is accused of apartheid-like behavior, and in my view it's usually not an app ropriate analogy, but it seems to me that there are some real-world memes concerning apartheid allegations and then there are some manufactured-for-Wikipedia grasping-at-straws-to-create-a-false-equivalence allegations. Only the former are notable and worthy of articles. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Prehaps such allegations belong on other articles with more neutral names? Wikipedia doesn't have to (and often doesn't) do what is the most common name for something is, often for POV reasons.--Sefringle^Talk 06:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We can not put all the apartheid articles in the same box. First we had Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Apologists for the Israeli government tried to get the article deleted many times but they failed, because the subject is notable (Jimmy Carter even wrote a book with this title). So having failed to get Allegations of Israeli apartheid deleted they set about creating a series of articles on allegations of apartheid in Brazil, France, Cuba etc. These editors had not shown any previous interest in affairs in these countries, and created these new articles to prove a WP:POINT -- as bargaining chips. They tell us that they will agree to delete these articles if we agree to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid. It has not occurred to these individuals that in this way they will antagonize many editors who have up till now had no experience of Zionism and of the tactics of its advocates. This blindness to the unintended effects of ones own actions is something of a trend amongst Zionists.

There is no way a consensus will be reached to delete these articles, as the pro-Israel editors seem to have locked themselves into this suicidal course and are determined to go all the way. And they will attack anyone who tries to save them from their folly.

I say let these articles stay. An interested reader can see the history, find out who created these articles and examine their contributions and in this way discover much about their ideology and how this ideology manifests itself in their dealings with others. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring your personal attacks aimed at all zionists on wikipedia, I will respond to the legitimate part of your comment. You clearly don't understand why we created other apartheid articles. All allegations of apartheid articles are meant to antagonize people of that culture; the Israel one included. They are all POV forks. Their existance on wikipedia is proof that WP:NPOV does not apply to article titles or afd's. Since these articles cannot be balanced on their own, the only way to balance them is to create similar articles about other countries, thus making the attack page have less effect since country X isn't the only one being alleged of being an apartheid state. There is nothing encyclopediac about accusing somebody or some culture/country/religion of apartheid. It is all an attempt to push a POV. Anything legitimate belongs in an article like Criticism of Israel, or Human rights in Israel. --Sefringle^Talk 02:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Sefringle, Your comment says it All allegations of apartheid articles are meant to antagonize people of that culture. This is an admission that you created your article in order to antagonize French people. I say to all french people who are enraged at this article: Look who created it, check is contributions, discover his ideology and draw the necessary conclusions.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I did not create the article. As for your next comment, you are obviously trying to say all zionists are scum, and while you may not use that exact terminology, I have to take offense to your comment. I do not care what you think of us; most arabs and muslims share your view, and I've heard it a million times. Regardless, that is perfectly OK, because we feel the exact same way about all you anti zionists. We know the anti-zionists created that article to antagonize us and other Jews. I'd prefer keeping allegations of apartheid articles about only arab and muslim countries, the ones who have an anti-zionist majority, and whom are the ones attacked us whith allegations of apartheid, rather than uninvolved countries like france, because France for all practical purposes is, uninvolved. Reguardless, the French article is better than nothing; what is most important is the number of countries, not whom. The more countries that are accused of apartheid, the weaker each attack is, and the less merit each allegaion recieves. Reguardless, you have helped prove one thing to us: Wikipedia is not neutral, it is a battleground, and wikipedia "policies" do not apply to afd discussions; I really don't know why we even can calll these policies when they are ignored when it comes to afd's. They should be called guidelines, because that is all they are: they do not apply in some articles; more accurately, they apply when the public votes to make them apply, and they don't apply when the public disagrees with a policy at a particular time. Instead, when you disagree with the majority on the basis of policy, it is WP:POINT. IF any policy should be removed, it is that one. A basic summary of WP:POINT (or at least the usage of WP:POINT) is "screw the minority views, or any attempts to NPOV a popular view that is widely supported by the majority of wikipedians." We will give certian groups a free reign to soapbox on wikipedia, but if counter groups want to soapbox, or be treated fairly, it is WP:POINT. While we may say we support WP:NPOV, it is only at certian times, when you are on the loosing side; nobody really wants to compromise on topics like these. Everyone just wants to soapbox to prove a point. Anyway, I've had enough of this for a while, because and I'll be taking a long desprately needed wikibreak soon. I doubt anything will change, but whether they say so or not, their point is clear; policies only apply when you can gather the most supporters in favor of your POV. Obviously a compromise cannot be reached on this issue, as everyone is adement about their opinions, and nobody is willing to compromise. So instead, we accuse people of WP:POINT and we win by who we outvote. Who says wikipedia is not a democracy? The real question is who believes it? Wikipedia is the ultimate democracy over knowledge on the world. The POV of wikipedia is what the majority of the people of the world (or at least the people who edit wikipedia) agree is the truth. --Sefringle^Talk 00:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Sefringle, Thank you for being so honest and clear about your actions and their motivations. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A Consensus?

Template:Allegations of apartheid Allmost all of the users that voted "keep" did so with the proviso that they could accept a deletion if all article in the series were deleted (I will not make pithy comments on their... hrm, anyway). To wit:

Beit Or, Urthogie, Sefringle, Carlossuarez46, Humus sapiens, Jayjg, IronDuke, ≈ jossi ≈, -tickle me, Taprobanus, Amoruso, ابو علي (Abu Ali), 6SJ7, altmany, Tewfik, Shuki, <<-armon->>.

Though I first voted DELETE, I think it would be an error to do so. They would only metastase to new nooks and crannies like Apartheid allegations against France or suchlike.

I think RENAME and REDIRECT is the way to root them out. This would also require some heavy copyediting of their tone, such as deleting "apartheid" where it is gratuitous, that is in almost all instances. A retitling would encourage editors to at least have a try to make them neutral, whereas the current one are just baits for disinformation wars.

I made some dummies to illustrate:

• Segregation by country (now:Allegations of apartheid) The mother article, that actually contains some informative and helpful entries already (as you note, I've also made a "segregation by country" template to replace the apartheid allegations one).

• Segregation in Brazil (now:Allegations of Brazilian apartheid) I found an article that contains some interesting material. Merging those two has a clear potential for a decent article.

• Segregation in China (now:Allegations of Chinese apartheid)

• The content of Allegations of French apartheid should be split up between French rule in Algeria#Hegemony of the Colons, Social situation in the French suburbs, and 2005 civil unrest in France. The current article would become a redirect to Segregation by country#France

• Allegations of Jordanian apartheid should also be rolled back into the main article. The bulk of it now is: the Iraqi refugee situation, an extra-ordinary crisis, and the banning of the sale of property to foreigners, which is not exactly hard-core segregation.

• Segregation in Saudi Arabia (now:Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid)

• Allegations of American apartheid should be merged into Racial segregation in the United States#Comparaisons with apartheid

• Tourist segregation (now:Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba) This is my favourite, now it's also about how Krazy Kim the Nork treats visiting imperialist lackey-dogs. Maybe there should also be a section about the limey ghettoes in Costa del Sol and Costa Brava?

• Allegations of Israeli apartheid should be moved to Segregation in the West Bank and Discrimination in Israel (suggestion from User:Urthogie)

• I thought of this, that maybe it should be split into Segregation in Israel and Segregation in the Occupied Territories, its current structure lends itself quite nicely to it, but I didn't dare propose it... so I'm glad you do! (:--Victor falk 15:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do leave some comments--Victor falk 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I find this to be an excellent suggestion. Congratulations. Rama 14:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I find this to be an interesting, but misguided suggestion. If you want to make a big change to all these articles, we can start a discussion on that. Right now we're discussing only "France apartheid."--Urthogie 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Which does not even exist as a myth. Rama 15:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that we start a big discussion about all of these articles on someone's talk page. like User:Urthogie/allegations--Urthogie 15:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think Victor's proposal is the place to start. It strikes exactly the right sort of balance between a comprehensive solution and a case-by-case approach. An element of comprehensiveness is necessary when organized and relentless editors present one WP:ALLORNOTHING ultimatum after another, and use a spurious infobox/"navigation template" to consolidate and enforce their demands.--G-Dett 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• My (almost final) comment. I strongly oppose using the word "apartheid" as an article's title in any context other than South Africa. All the cited sources have been apparently chosen for containing the apartheid metaphor. I always assume good faith, so I'll put this one on the editors' lack of understanding of the word, their limited knowledge of France, and their limited experience of serious academic writing. You'll find many more good sources using metaphors such as segregation, ghettoization, etc, all of which are appropriate for the subjects here discussed. Secondly, a perfunctory glance suggests all of these articles need more balanced writing and more good (and on topic) sources. I'll be glad to help, drop me a note any time. Furthermore, references from any Saudi paper or website cannot be considered reputable or independent, I think that doesn't need explaining. Conclusion. I am not inherently opposed to the existence of any of these articles. The titles, however, are extremely misleading and if left, would result in continuous and absolutely needless edit wars/AfDs, and I have a feeling we've all had enough of this, haven't we? Finally, kudos to those who have refrained from personal attacks. Here's to more fruitful and honest debate in the future. --Targeman 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. Victor's proposal is excellent.--Targeman 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I like consensus, and won't certainly oppose this one. And I do agree with Targeman that comparisons with South African appartheid are misguided. But: there is nonetheless such accusation towards Israel, and a genuine debate about them. So, there should be a section in [[Segregation in Israel] like Segregation_in_Israel#Comparisons_with_south_african_apartheid where the content of Allegations of Israeli apartheid should be merged and neutralized.Gedefr 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Here are dummy proposals forSegregation in Israel and Segregation in the Occupied Territories--Victor falk 15:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The second would have to be Segregation in the West Bank or something similar - there are no Israelis living in the Gaza Strip. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Procedural proposal: If we are going to have a "global" discussion of the "apartheid" articles we can use the page that was created about a year ago for that purpose, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. I think this entire discussion could just be moved there, perhaps after archiving the rather old discussions that are on that page now. Unless I am mistaken, the ArbComm specifically suggested that discussions on an overall solution take place on that page. I believe there are existing templates that can be placed on the articles involved, and/or their talk pages, to direct people to the centralized discussion. The dummy articles can then be linked-to from the centralized discussion page. This sort of systematic solution seems more appropriate than using someone's user-space. As for the proposal itself, I am not sure that "segregation" is the correct word in all cases, and there already are segregation articles for some countries, so there needs to be further discussion and coordination. In the meantime, I think all the AfD's, merge proposals (like for the U.S. article), etc. should be dropped so that we can have a meaningful centralized discussion without the distraction of articles disappearing and reappearing at random. 6SJ7 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think a comprehensive solution might help here; however, the solution will have to be truly comprehensive for it to be acceptable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, Jayjg , it'd be less creepy if you just stated what you mean clearly, like "it will have to address the issue of the article on Israel". For which I also find the term "apartheid" inappropriate, incidentally. But I am accustomed to people solving their problems, not exporting them to other realms. Rama 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that there is no substitute for AfD unless you believe that the other articles can be speedy deleted? Attempts to have an article deleted by voting keep on other otherwise blatantly POV articles like this one are futile because such deletions will end up at DRV as being out of process anyway. If this is truly going to work then we will need one mass AfD of all these articles once and for all. In order for that to happen you will need to be more specific Jayjg. I for one would love to see all of these "allegations...." articles and related POV pushing and political/religous manifests in disguise removed. Let's do this, Let's agree not to use Wikipedia as a battleground once and for all. The question is... are you ready to delete all of thse articles? MartinDK 17:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Response I agree that Victor's proposal is a good place to start. For my part, I would have no objection to merging some of the current content from Allegations of Israeli Apartheid into new articles entitled Segregration in Israel and Segregation in the West Bank, which could be supplemented with further information from other sources. (I could add that I do not believe the other proposed changes will be the subject of much controvery, one way or the other.)

I would also propose that we create a page entitled Israeli Apartheid Analogy (or something similar), to address occasions and contexts in which Israeli policies have been explictly compared with the experience of apartheid in South Africa. Would this be reasonable? CJCurrie 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that approach. "Israeli apartheid analogy" is no different than allegations of Israeli apartheid.--Urthogie 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a much more appropriate title. More to the point, it deals with an analogy that's been been raised in a variety of contexts, and is entirely encyclopedic. CJCurrie 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a priori very cautious with any article on a propaganda term (and if the introduction of "apartheid" in the context of the Middle East is not gross propaganda, I don't know what is). The fact that the term is used could be addressed somewhere, but this is a footnote in another article. I can't dream of a reason for having an article name with "Israel" and "Apartheid" -- unless the Knesset votes a law named "apartheid", which I daresay is unlikely to happen. Rama 17:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The analogy itself may or may not be gross propaganda, but the fact remains that it has been raised by diverse sources. It's hardly propagandistic or unencyclopedic to have an article about the term's usage. CJCurrie 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Segregation_in_Israel#Comparisons_with_south_african_apartheid as per the suggestion of Gedefr 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC) --Victor falk 17:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot think of a propaganda term so important that it'd warrant its own article, and "apartheid" related to Israel is certainly not on the top of the list. Furthermore,

• having the matter clearly identified and stated in a neutral way is a manner for Wikipedia to appropriate the subject without swallowing the rotten rhetorics with it (For instance we have 2003 invasion of Iraq, not "Operation Iraqi Freedom", in spite of the documents by the US Army beating the term over and over).
• addressing the issue in the framework of a larger self-sustaining article is a way to refrain the debate from slipping, something to which is seems prone. Rama 18:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the issue isn't just "segregation," but a variety of others which unfortunately very specifically involve the comparison to Sourth African apartheid. Largely it is a debate about rhetoric, but a highly prominent one nonetheless. That's to say, it's not a debate between "separate but equal" and the opposite, but something completely different. Of course, the same is true in France; "segregation" may be one way of discussing the issue, but doesn't seem to be the natural way that an article on France generally would. Considering Israel, however, I simply have a hard time seeing how the apartheid debate can avoid an article of its own, considering the huge amount of material. Still, the question does remain finding an agreeable name for that article, though I'm also not sure that can be resolved here. Mackan79 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Rama's position on all this, though simply substituting "segregation" for "apartheid" suffers the same problems and would be most unhelpful. What seems logical to me is a merge of all encyclopaedic information to "Human rights in X", with any forking only per policy as applied in the rest of the encyclopaedia. Perhaps maintaining something along the lines of the Allegations of apartheid entry for discussion of the term would be a good middle ground. Tewfik^Talk 19:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

abitrary break

Rama wrote "I cannot think of a propaganda term so important that it'd warrant its own article, and and "apartheid" related to Israel is certainly not on the top of the list". With respect to your first point, take a look at Zionism and racism allegations and And you are lynching Negroes. (Those are off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.) With respect to your second point, based on what I hear and read the charge that Israel is an apartheid state seems to be second only to the charge that Zionism is racism in terms of its "popularity". So yes, it is so important that it would warrant its own article, just as Blood libel against Jews, Zionist Occupation Government, Rootless cosmopolitan, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Jewish Bolshevism, The Cause of World Unrest, and The International Jew, (many of which are far more obscure than accusations that Israel is an apartheid state). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

@Tewfik: That's too comprehensive. Wikipedia is not Amnesty International. And segregation is not a slur like apartheid is.

@Mackan: There will never be an agreeable name for all. Some will always wish it'd be called zionist apartheid pigs or baby-killing suicide towelheads. What's important is that the name neutral enough to be agreeable to the world at large.

@Malik: Thank for you for your zionism and racism allegations! I think it would be natural for apartheid to be part of those more general ones!.... --Victor falk 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, I agree with Victor's point about WP not being Amnesty International, but my objection to Human Rights in Israel-Palestine is slightly different. What would happen, for example, to the Adam and Moodley material? That has been regarded as one of the most valuable sources in the article, and one of the only ones respected by partisans of both sides. Their book isn't about Human Rights, except quite indirectly. Their book is about a broad historical, ethical, and pragmatic comparison between South African apartheid and the Israeli occupation, and an application of "lessons learned" from the successful South African peace process. It is a book that takes for granted, as its very foundations, an extensive preexisting discourse likening the I-P conflict to the South African one. And that's really the tip of the iceberg. A lot of material has as its central subject not human rights per se, but rather this contentious issue: the validity and/or usefulness of the South African model for thinking about Israel-Palestine. There is a lot of work of this kind, in which the comparison is examined from every possible angle ranging from the experience of apartheid to the historical roots of the conflict to the efficacy of international sanctions to the appropriateness of a South Africa-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the I-P conflict. And this work in turn generates more controversy among pundits, activists, etc.; it generates boycott proposals and divestment campaigns and articles like Ian Buruma's "Do not treat Israel like apartheid South Africa" and Joel Pollack's "The Trouble With the Apartheid Analogy." This work, that is, along with the preexisting discourse/meme/debate/whatever that it builds on, as well as the further controversy it generates, together constitute a coherent subject which does not fit comfortably into the Human Rights in X paradigm.

Urthogie, I see your signpost inviting us to discuss over at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid, but I do not even agree with the framing assumptions of the question you've posed there. It begs the question. It assumes that the articles grouped together without consensus in the "Allegations of Apartheid" template are equally legitimate, and form a natural family, rather than representing a species of hoax, whereby a heavy cargo of counterfeit goods has been loaded onto a ship in order to sink its legitimate freight. This is one of the core elements of the dispute at hand. If you'll rephrase your opening question/discussion rubric so as not to foreclose that important aspect of the debate, I'll be happy to post there.--G-Dett 20:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree with most of what G-Dett has said here, I can agree that what is now on the "centralized discussion" page is not what I had in mind when I suggested taking the discussion there. What I thought would happen is to move this discussion there and let it continue and see where it goes. I am not sure of the best way to do that, since a cut-and-paste move would wipe out the edit history. Since this is not an article, I don't know if that matters so much. I also don't know if this talk page can be renamed without also renaming the AfD page, which obviously shouldn't happen. I do know that continuing a global discussion of the apartheid issue on the talk page of the AfD for the France article is not a good idea. 6SJ7 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, almost all the points you cite to counter my argument are backing it. The only article titles that you cite which are true propaganda terms are Jewish Bolshevism, Rootless cosmopolitan and Zionist Occupation Government.

All the others are neutral and factual titles which describe the general subject, Zionism and racism allegations being a canonical example. Your other citations are either titles of books or other works (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Cause of World Unrest, The International Jew) or abstract concepts (Blood libel against Jews, Zionism and racism allegations).

Also, you will kindly notice that, the lead image of Jewish Bolshevism, showing a caricature of Trotsky, has absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism, which beautifully illustrate my point that giving in to propaganda by aknowleging a term as a legitimate stand-alone concept induces people into deforming things. Rama 08:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with all of this. It think the solution of a main page Allegations of apartheid and sub-pages was a great one, and has created some great content. What we are doing here, in fact, is eliminating content that would have nowhere else to go. Adam and Moodley in the Israel article, kaput. Le Monde Diplomatique in the France article, Kaput. Tobias Hecht in the Brazil article, kaput.

If something this entire year+ episode shows is that the information is out there. Just because a bunch of Francophile editors are upset that they can't find any other way to get rid of the article than to create an Unholy Francophile-Ultra-Zionist(the UFUZ™) alliance :D, doesn't mean we go around auto-magically POV renaming this baby.

Fact is that notoriety of Allegations of apartheid for a number of countries has been proven. All of the sudden we can't just turn around a deny it. It would be historical revisionism of the worse kind.--Cerejota 12:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Noboby denies that diverse countries have been accused of apartheid.--Victor falk 13:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• The point of the article on Irsael is to say Israel is the only country in the world that has apartheid. The point of the slew of articles about the other countries is no it is not, look here, here, here and her.--Victor falk 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is wikipedia the place for that kind of articles?--Victor falk 13:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Urthogie's debate topic – Should Wikipedia have articles on "Allegations of apartheid"? – clearly begs the question. It assumes that if you think the Israel-Palestine article is well-sourced and notable and should stay, then you have to agree to keep the seven original-research junk articles that have been artificially chained to it. This was the point of Jay and Urthogie's hoax. The original article by itself is solid enough in its foundations to survive six (6) AfDs. The deletionists then had a brainstorm. A sturdily built ship doesn't sink. A sturdily built ship chained to a chunk of concrete eight times its size does sink.

If Urthogie's trick question at the top of the page works, and editors simply assume that because all eight articles have the word "apartheid" in their titles, then all eight articles must have been written with the same respect for WP's core policies, then this "centralized discussion" will have been worthless.

Here is the most succinct – in fact the only – argument put forth by Jay or Urthogie or anyone in support of the assumption outlined in the previous paragraph:

There is an apartheid "meme" or "analogy" or "epithet" that is in common used in regards to all sorts of things, and it's no more nor less valid in any one situation than in any other.

This is sophistry. The question before us as editors is not whether the analogy is "valid" in this or that case. The question is whether use of the analogy has become a notable subject in itself. Here the distinction between primary and secondary sources becomes crucial. For articles about the use of the analogy to be legitimate, they need to cite secondary sources that discuss the analogy and demonstrate its notability. If you cite only primary sources that merely use the analogy, and its notability is implied only by you the Wikipedian, the result is an original research essay. Like the "French apartheid" article.

The question of whether the analogy is offensive or incendiary is totally beside the point. The only question is whether it's notable, and the only way to demonstrate its notability is through secondary sources. To illustrate the point, let's say we accept Jay's position that "Israeli apartheid" is a mere epithet. OK, let's look at a word everyone agrees is an epithet. Let's consider "nigger." Of course we have an article called Nigger, because the significance – historical, cultural, political, psychological – of that epithet in American history is huge. How do we know this? The secondary sources. Books like Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word. Prominent public debates about whether Huckleberry Finn should be taught in elementary schools. And so on. Now let's say someone opposes the existence of the article Nigger, but can't convince enough people to share his position in five or six deletion discussions, so he takes a different tack. He creates Jungle Bunny, Slanty-eyes, Jewball, etc. There are no secondary sources describing the use of such epithets, so instead of finding proper sources he fires up Google and finds every instance where the epithet is used in a primary source. Then he creates a narrative of his own about the history of the epithet, and weaves it around the quotations. Then he creates a template that groups these together with Nigger. Then when anyone nominates Slanty-eyes for deletion on grounds that's it's non-notable and original research, he says "if Slanty-eyes goes, Nigger has to go. No playing favorites." And creates a "centralized discussion" page asking, "Should Wikipedia have articles on racial epithets?"

The answer to this leading question is, "if and only if the use of the epithet is a notable topic in itself, as demonstrated by reliable secondary sources."

That is exactly the situation we have here. The secondary-source material on "Israeli apartheid" is voluminous. The comparison is such a controversy in and of itself that there are articles talking about "Israel and the A-word." Kinda like "the N-word." Not so with "French apartheid." There are no secondary sources; it is not a recognized topic outside of Wikipedia. There are controversies around France's colonial history, its current problems with assimilation and secularism, and of course the headscarf issue, and in the course of discussing such controversies some scattered voices have found occasion to use the word "apartheid," but the South Africa comparison has never become a topic in its own right. So you can't have a Wikipedia article on it. It's that simple.

One last note. If the Israel-Palestine article were sourced in the manner of the France article – that is, if every RS that used the word "apartheid" in connection with Israel were introduced and quoted at length – the article would have not 115+ sources but thousands if not tens of thousands of sources, and it would be the longest article on Wikipedia. Though the article in its current form does cite primary sources here and there that use the term if the figures involved are highly notable (as in Desmond Tutu – Idi Amin – Jimmy Carter level of notability), the basic foundations of the article are its secondary sources.

Thanks for reading. Hopefully this will dispel the fog of past sophistries and discourage future ones.--G-Dett 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't bother reading past "Jay and Urthogie's hoax". Please review WP:CIVIL. If you can come up with arguments that don't involved ad hominems I might read them. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet you seemed to have read the closer, hmmm. You can lead a horse to water...ah, it's not worth it, you probably stopped at "horse".--G-Dett 03:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually, I would gladly write an article of the allegation series titled Allegations of Polish apartheid, and I'm not even a Zionist, rather a Catholic, though I didn't see inside of church since years. What about it? There are pretty good basics to do that - the current president of Poland - Lech Kaczyński's discrimination of gays and lesbians (well documented) would be the topic; denouncing exclusively handful of Polish priests as former SB (Urząd Bezpieczeństwa) agents, while protecting 2 million others including himself, would be the next issue. The third one would be his refusing to pay ex-snitches the special annuity recompensation which is about ten times higher than the average pension, including someone named Morel until recently. I would love to do that, but better be ready then to expect the invasion of body snatchers from Polish Wiki, the brats who descend of that 2 million. An average Polish family cannot afford internet yet, but those brats can and they have nothing else to do but spit. You don't want me to do that, do you? greg park avenue 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For all I know, Greg, your plan to make an allegation of Polish apartheid, or to write an essay about a handful of existing allegations, is a marvelous one. Pitch it to Harpers, or Index on Censorship, or whatever. But if you plan to write a Wikipedia article, put your moral arguments and investigative-journalist instincts aside and find some secondary sources who have treated the allegations as a notable topic. I know next to nothing about Polish body snatchers, but a great deal indeed about Wikibrats, and the best way to forfend an article from their onslaught is to write it in compliance with policy. Allegations of Israeli apartheid survived six deletion attempts, for example, while neither Allegations of French apartheid nor Allegations of Jordanian apartheid looks likely to survive even one.--G-Dett 19:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy. I love this phrase Wikibrats. Maybe an article titled like that would be more proper? Allegations of French apartheid is not my kind of town but I repeat after Al Pacino in Godfather Part II about the determined Cuban rebels - they may win. greg park avenue 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So you were wrong, G-Dett, the article survived. You were also wrong suggesting that this was one of a chain of superficial junk articles created only to intimidiate the Israeli-Palestine article. If that suggestion was true they would create the Allegations of apartheid in Serbia in first place, but no one did that. Simply because Europe is conveniently silent about what happened in South Bosnia and there are not any allegations of apartheid in Serbia, or at least not so many as these regarding France. We are not here to decide if there is or was any apartheid in Serbia or France, just to acknowledge if such allegations exist or don't exist, right? greg park avenue 15:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would refer you to Sefringle's comments cited here, where he says explictly that the people responsible for the apartheid articles (he is one of them) are doing it "to antagonize people". It's reprehensible behaviour but I suppose we should thank him for being so honest about the rationale. -- ChrisO 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we got one guy who admits to being politically motivated but all the rest of his comment is a speculation. Anyway, who says that Israel is a center of the world? greg park avenue 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that he says we. He's speaking for the whole group. As for Israel not being the centre of the world, do you want to tell him that? ;-) -- ChrisO 17:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not in the mood to restart another Wikiintifada. The keyword is "allegation" and there was huge media coverage regarding France, almost nothing on Serbia, so I voted to keep it weak, as simple as that. If the keyword was "apartheid" I would vote for deletion in France but not in Serbia. It probably needs a little more explanation - France takes Moslem immigrants in and gets the broadside for that. Serbia chased them out, while their leader, someone named Milosevic I guess, got only a slap on the wrist by the European Tribunal in the Hague for that. greg park avenue 18:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris, your wikilawyering is getting ridiculous and it isn't helping the discussion. Nobody speaks for any other editor. 6SJ7 19:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Greg, the point is that to be legitimate and clear the bar of WP:NOR, the article would need evidence that the allegation/comparison/meme/whatever of "French apartheid" is itself a notable topic. Plainly there is no such evidence. Right now it appears that the only source anywhere in the world that discusses the subject of allegations of French apartheid is the Wikipedia article. You can have an article that's "sourced" and nevertheless original research, if the sources are primary sources that the Wikipedian is quoting them to illustrate a phenomenon only he, the Wikipedian, has taken any note of. The point might become clearer if we use a non-incendiary example. If I create an article called Talking animals in English literature and gather together and discuss the serpent in Milton's Paradise Lost, the primly irrational beasts in Alice in Wonderland (of whom I'm reminded by various wikibrats around here), Saki's insulting and nonchalant Tobermory (my hero), and Cornelius Medvei's Mr. Thundermug (a bit sappy really). All sourced, all good sources – hey, mostly great sources. But...um, er...ahem, Talking animals in English literature isn't a topic. I just made it up and found some examples. I can do that if I'm writing a dissertation; I can't do that if I'm editing Wikipedia. Now, can I write British fantasy literature, and include Carroll, Saki, et al? Yes, I sure can. There are books on that, articles on that...eureka, it's a topic. Copy?--G-Dett 19:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are many articles in Wikipedia not unlike Talking animals in English literature, and such an article would be vastly superior to any of the "Allegations of" articles, if well-sourced, and would easily pass an AfD. What wouldn't fly would be an article entitled Insinuations that Talking animals in English literature exist, which is more nearly analogous to the apartheid articles. IronDuke 22:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, can you point me to some articles that, in the manner of Talking animals in English literature and Allegations of French apartheid, have topics not recognized or discussed as topics by anyone in the world outside of Wikipedia? I'm sure there are innocuous little oddities here and there, but such articles live by the grace of collective indifference, no? As soon as someone points out they have non-notable subjects and no secondary sources they get the ax, right? What on earth does WP:NOR forbid if not the construction of novel narratives around fragments of primary-source material?--G-Dett 23:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I think the term apartheid is save, even if it existed on Wikipedia pages only. It applies exclusively to the government, and this way it doesn't offend nobody. Please, be aware that the professional accusers for ethnic tensions like Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton always allege that the government is responsible for the alleged dicrimination, segregation, rasism or whatever (NYC mayor, police comissioner or justice dept), never the ethnic groups themselves. So we are save too, using this word and not the other one I think. Now, the "Talking animals ..." should be merged with "Ed the talking horse" or such - an old TV series (probably British) I loved as a kid. greg park avenue 15:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Greg, "save" is not an adjective, and your observations about what's offensive or not and why have nothing to do with anything, but I like your idea about Ed the Talking Horse. Meanwhile I've found this.

Sorry, stranger, ought to be "safe" of course. I wasn't lucky enough to study at Harvard. I only could afford to take the course in ESL (NYANA - New York Association for New Americans) at Cooper Union School on Cooper Union Square (corner of E 8th St/Park Ave South) in New York City. greg park avenue 15:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is there such a thing as "wikistonewalling"? I haven't been for long on wikipedia, but something tells me this is an epic example.--Victor falk 22:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes and yes.--G-Dett 22:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I can point you to such an article. Exploding whale. It's featured, and by your argument, it shouldn't exist because its a synthesis of all the sources covering various exploding whales.--Urthogie 00:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Face the facts

The french apartheid article survived AFD. The brazil apartheid article survived AFD. Lord knows the israel apartheid article survived AFD. Complaining about why this all happened doesn't change the fact that AFD isn't a vote, and a third-party administrator chose to consider all of these "no consensus."

The basic fact here, that everyone is eminently aware of, is that these articles are either staying together or falling together. Which will it be?

It's apparent that all of these articles are based on verified, reliable, on-topic sources. The question before us is not whether they adhere to Wikipedia's policies (which is not a reason for AFD in the first place), but rather, whether they are encyclopedic-- whether we should even choose to cover them.

It comes down to this: Is Wikipedia a place for entire articles to be devoted to whether countries are comparable to South Africa under white, racist, fascistic right-wing rule? Or should all of these references that have been gathered on the "apartheid allegation" pages be merged to articles such as Discrimination in Israel and Human rights in China? It's up to all of you. Thanks, --Urthogie 23:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's analyse your reasoning here a bit. Your argument is essentially based on an assertion of illegitimacy. You and the other editors who've pushed this line have consistently argued that the Israeli apartheid analogy isn't legitimate, therefore it isn't encyclopedic. But this is completely mistaken. Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder; I'm sure religious conservatives would have problems on moral grounds with Wikipedia's highly detailed articles on sexual practices, and a number of people have criticised the hundreds of Wikipedia articles on Pokémon because they see it as frivolous and a waste of space. Others disagree. That's why legitimacy (as judged by arbitrary political, moral or some other personally determined criteria) has never been a criterion for inclusion, because people's opinions are so diverse. That's also the rationale behind WP:NOTCENSORED. We take a default position of potentially allowing all topics to be discussed, if they are sufficiently notable. There are no taboo topics.

Notability is a completely different question, and it's one which is amenable to an objective test, namely the one set out in Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." You may dislike or disagree with the topic on personal moral or political grounds, maybe regarding it as unfit for discussion, but if it meets the notability criteria then it's suitable for encyclopic coverage.

"Israeli apartheid" is a topic that has received a huge amount of coverage from a very wide range of sources; you might dislike the topic, you might reject the legitimacy of the comparison (as do I, for the record), but there's absolutely no doubt that it meets the standards set out in Wikipedia:Notability. The repeated attempts to delete the Israel article have failed because those pushing for its deletion have failed to recognise - or perhaps just ignored - the notability issue.

"French apartheid" by comparison is not notable. Nobody of any significance is making systematic comparisons between France and apartheid South Africa, and the comparison is one that is simply not part of mainstream French political dialogue. The article only survived AfD because - to put it bluntly - the (pro-)Israeli clique gamed the system by block voting on bogus grounds.

The notability issue is why a simplistic "keep all / delete all" approach isn't viable. Each article has to be assessed on its own merits against Wikipedia:Notability. If it meets those criteria, it should stay; if it doesn't (and most of them don't), it should be deleted. If we take a "delete all" approach then we will be deleting some articles that meet the notability criteria; if we keep them all we will be retaining some articles that aren't encyclopedic. Neither approach is satisfactory, nor is it compatible with our general approach to the inclusion of articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes this quite clear. -- ChrisO 00:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In general I agree with your methodology and response. I specially agree with your criticism of "keep all / delete all", which if this where an AfD would fall under clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Editors need to know that any and all attempts to treat this set of pages as if they were a single set, not subject to individual scrutiny must know tha they are harming, not helping, the encyclopedia. You are both creating a dangerous precedent if successful, and harming quality and dangerously approaching being disruptive if not successful. If only a quarter of the effort put into setting up and creating "all or nothing" situations was put into increasing quality of the articles, we would have a hell of a balanced, quality series of pages.

However, I think you are incorrect on the French apartheid notability. The analogy, sometimes formulated as "urban apartheid" or <<apartheid urbain>> has been common currency in sociological discourse in French academia for almost twenty years, and in the late 1990s early 2000s increasingly became part of the discourse on immigration in France. Those who claim to be French citizens and ignorant of this it seems do not follow their press, or are being disingenuous. My french is not that good but I tend to follow the French press (I read Le Monde and l'Humanite almost daily - and of course Diplo when I get Atlantic Monthly) And since the 2005 riots there has been an explosion of use of the analogy in the mainstream press, and even in TV commentary.

It is indeed less notable than the analogy with Israel, but notability has no degrees when it comes to content: you have it or you don't. And once you have it, you have it - it doesn't expire. And the allegations against France have it.

The opposition to the French article is certainly motivated by a defense of France, rather than the quality and notability of the sourced material. While no one wants to see their country or nation insulted, this has no bearing upon notability. If we start censoring content because we do not want to insult countries, we would have to remove a whole lot of content that is of great encyclopedic value.--Cerejota 02:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to clarify something to ChrisO and anyone else who might misunderstand my position. My argument is not that the "Israel apartheid" allegation article shouldn't exist because it's not true. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. And the Israeli apartheid article (like the French and Brazillian ones) passes the notability and verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. Chris, if you actually payed attention to my argument, it was that, while we are *allowed* by wikipedia policies to keep the allegations articles, we are not *required* to. It is up to us, as the editors of Wikipedia, if this angle ought to be covered in the first place.--Urthogie 05:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, your argument is despicable. You have created, out of the blue, a completely imaginary subject for your article "Apartheid in France"; you have populated it with bogus, off-topic citations which have been exposed as such repeatedly, and can fool only those who want to be fooled. It was kept because you and your numerous little friends or ennemies have massively voted in favour of this Potemkine article, amounting to a no consensus.

And now you come twisting facts, claiming that the article was kept with a healthy keep and that is has merit on its own, which you perfectly know in untrue since you contest the merit of the same article on Israel, which is based on significantly more substancial (yet, in my opinion insufficient) evidences.

By all means, Urthogie, go and keep on making the articles on Israel an unsalvageable mess, but don't wander outside your realm. There are people doing actual, serious work out there. Rama 07:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

View from AFD review

As another editor who looked at the French allegation AFD with a view to closing it, these seem to be the important policy related considerations to me, for this debate:

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

• 1. Creating articles to make a point is a breach of WP:POINT. It is disruptive.
• 2. Notwithstanding this, if some of the created articles have validity (verifiable from reliable sources, not excluded by WP:NOT, etc) then the community view is that such articles should remain and be improved. It is perfectly possible for valid articles to originate as "making a point" and if so, then they should and often will survive. But POV and other cleanup will often be needed. See WP:ATA, as well as historic WP:DP.

Wikipedia:Words to avoid

• 3. Apartheid, like many other words, is a word with a very specific meaning. Words with specific meanings should only be used with care - they may be inherently POV in some contexts.
• 4. POV in the context of Wikipedia:Words to avoid means, that it tends to cast an specific opinion over the subject, pre-defining "Wikipedia's view" on it to the reader. That is what makes the choice POV, not whether it is accurate, in a dictionary, used by some people in the debate, etc. (We also don't use words like "cult" or "terrorist" in some places where they may be technically correct by some dictionary or some sources. Same reason.)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy

• 5. POV is not usually grounds for deletion if the subject meets inclusion criteria (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT etc).
• 6. The concept of French Algerians being in a situation, and that situation being discussed in terms of apartheid (and whether it is a form of apartheid or how it is/isn't apartheid) by several reliable sources, has been confirmed. So the concept is verifiable from reliable sources.
• 7. Articles on concepts and things that don't actually exist are still sometimes encyclopedic, if the concept itself is verifiable and notable. (Articles on hoaxes and disproven theories are simple examples.)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

• 8. It is sometimes mostly the title used for an article that forces the article to polarize into a POV war of "for/against", or "statement/criticism".
• 9. Where possible broader, more encyclopedic article titles that encourage neutrality should be used instead. For example, "Ethnic and social divisions in France", or "Social position of Algerian Muslims in France", or even Comparison of the position of Algerian Muslims in France with Apartheid. Such titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing, and take all the "sting" out of the point-pusher's intentions.

It's also possible that grounds for deletion are not well understood. "It's POV", "Its a slur", "It was created to make a point", all fail, when the concept the article is covering is clearly referenced by reliable sources of a wide range of authors. Even though (as one contributor analyzed) these cites do not show apartheid exists in France (or only a soft form) the point is, the concept exists, and the concept is notable and verifiable.

This is the logic of WP:V: the item may or may not exist, but the concept does, the concept verifiably exists and is covered by reliable independent sources and so on. An article about that concept is valid. It may well summarize that the concept is not well grounded, or not used the same way as in South Africa. It may well need to be rewritten as a discussion rather than a list of points. But none of these views would change that the article on the concept is still valid. The article is capable of cleanup and improvement, and being made neutral (see above), and ironically, that would deprive any point-pushers of a weapon in their armory far more than a complaint will. Improved, the article would quickly be dropped by any point-maker.

So as an uninvolved editor who was also looking at closing that debate, I'd have gone further than "no consensus". I'd have viewed the balance of policy related points as supporting "keep but cleanup". But first and foremost, that title needs to change. That title is what's holding everyone in this heated debate. If there is a vote on title change to a neutral title of the kind above, I am happy to support it.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In this particular instance, the article is about a concept which has little or no echo whatsoever. A superficial examination of the sources show this quite well: virtually all of them use the term "apartheid" as a stretched, provocative hyperbole, and not as an accurate comparison. Else, by this same criteria of "hey we can find web pages that contain the two words on Google", I can't wait to see Allegations that New Orleans is Atlantis.

Wikipedia does also have policies not to give undue importance to excessively minor points of view, and this one certainly is. Rama 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I support changing the title and totally rewording the article. But there is some point where we have to assess the dadaist attitude of changing the title of an article, completely rewriting it, and claiming that the article was not deleted. That's a knife without a handle which lacks a blade. Rama 09:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. If only most discussions in wikipedia were as thorough!

I must admit that your opinion intrigues me and I have toyed around with the idea before in my mind.

But I always get locked up when I arrive at the obvious conclusion of title change (which you reached). And that problem is expressed in how to change titles without losing meaning.

That is because the articles deal not with the general, but the specific, and not with facts, but with an idea.

I think hard, and I cannot come up with better titles than "Allegations of X apartheid". For one, the word "apartheid" itself is the root of controversy, but that is exactly what the pages are about.

They are not about human rights, civil rights (a more correct approach to apartheid, which is law matter), or the segregationist laws in given countries.

(This is why I opposed "Segregation" as an alternative - "Segregation in X country" is a different page, with potential overlap but different content, than "Allegations of X apartheid". I do support the creation of "Segregation in X country" if there is material to do so, just not as substitute for "Allegations of X apartheid".)

These pages are about notable debates, and in the case of Allegations of apartheid notable uses, of the analogy to refer to specific countries.

The best articles in the bunch (Brazil, Israel, Saudi Arabia), could not possibly have other titles without becoming other articles, which is a de facto deletion/merge of the encyclopedic content. If that is the consensus we reach, so be it. However, it would be POV forking, and a de facto deletion/merge, and that is bad precedent.

Titles are the way we use to classify information, to allow browsing, and to generate search keywords.

This is in fact why there is a controversy: editors don't want their countries to show up in google searches.

So changing the titles in fact buries the information behind what amounts to weasel-wording just to satisfy the political/national sensibilities of a large group of editors.

I didn't come here to have my sensibilities catered to, but to build an encyclopedia. A paper-less one with the possibility of growing so large it has millions, if not billions, of articles.

I suggest editors enraged by having their sensibilities questioned, to take a deep breath and realize that the time they spend bickering over titles might perhaps be spent in sourcing counter-material, our perhaps even joining non-wiki projects that advance their positions by other means:

This is not a soapbox!!!

Thanks!--Cerejota 09:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In encyclopedic terms, the "allegations" are a subset of a social discussion. Ie, in a broader context, they are viewed as:

• an aspect of the position of certain people in a society, or
• an aspect of the social landscape of a society, or
• an aspect of the historical origins of a dispute, or
• a comparison or two or more topics,

or some other suitable (encyclopedic) topic. These are encyclopedic ways to study and contextualize this question. The topic title, far from being a euphemism, is the main tool we use to ensure the topic is contextualized appropriately. If you look at it in those terms (ie the bigger context) you'll find a suitable and far more useful topic title is easy to choose. It might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or it might cover broader material too which helps ensure a neutral view (think "allegations that drugs are evil" -> "societal views on drugs") FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

abitrary break

Rama: right of the bat, you are wrong in notability for at least Brazil, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Pretty much everyone who studies the middle-east at the academic level has written the word apartheid more than once, be it to rebuke or to support allegations. It dominates discourse at points, and serious academics of all sides have gotten into bitter debates over it. Saudi and Israel allegations are the most visible, most notable of them all and it is impossible to seriously study either country without coming upon the use of the analogy. It is a fact of the discourse.

Brazil is less clear because the debate is mostly in Portuguese and mostly internal, but it is highly notable in the country, and to a certain extent dominates discourse on racial relations in the media and government circles. To give an idea on notability, think what would propel a figure like Cristovam Buarque (so notable, he has a wikipedia page with photo!) to use the analogy here: [1] Yes, he doesn't say Brazil is there yet, but ask yourself, why bring the analogy to the table? A developing answer is here: Allegations of Brazilian apartheid... it used by many who research Brazil.

I think this is an inherent problem on attempting a centralized discussion: notability varies, and so do actual contents. We cannot possibly decide on all content because each case is unique, and by trying to do so, we are basically ignoring everything we are supposed to be doing here. It would be a sad day...:( --Cerejota 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you are hereby acknowledging that the French article in particular is based on nothing, or if you are linking the others to it. In any case, I was commenting only on the article regarding France, a country of which I have some understanding and speak the language. And I stand by my appreciation that Allegations of French apartheid‎ is bollocks. Rama 11:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rama - undue weight (WP:WEIGHT) is different from notability and from "grounds for existance of an article". Policies such as WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOT confirm whether a concept justifies an article or mention. You may be thinking of non-notability, but the AFD debate produced evidence that notability isn't an issue here. The concept is clearly discussed by several independent reliable sources. What undue weight discusses, relates not to article existance, but to the balance of views within a neutrally written article, that views must not be unreasonably represented.

Example: the Second Battle of Hogwarts (an event in the Harry Potter series), is extremely minor in literature, or even in fantasy literature. It has no weight at all, almost, in the subject of English Literature. However it is notable and verifiable in its own right, because it is verifiable, discussed by a range of independent reliable sources, capable of encyclopedic analysis, etc.

Undue weight does not stop an article existing. It means that 1/ if the subject is discussed in other articles, it must be discussed with reasonable weight, and 2/ within its own article, different views must be discussed with reasonable weight. Hope that makes WP:WEIGHT clearer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are wring on several accounts. The VfD was unconclusive, period. If examination of the sources shows anything, it's that they do not support the thesis of the writer of article. Not only is there nothing remotely linked to Apartheid in France, but no serious person alledges that there is.

Twisting mainstream sources to make them appear saying something which they do not is giving undue weight, because the appropriate weight for a position that noone holds is zero. Rama 11:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the above, again, slowly, and carefully. You don't yet seem to understand how Wikipedia article criteria work. I have not agreed whether anything linked to apartheid happens in France. I have said that the concept of comparing the French Algerian situation with apartheid exists. The writer is not writing a "thesis", they are documenting that a concept exists and that the concept's existance is notable and can be verified by reading certain books. The article on that concept is what counts. If you have difficulty understanding it, then think of it this way: you and I, and a million scientists, may agree that some subject does not exist. But if there is significant verifiable discussion of it, that discussion exists. The concept exists in reliable sources and (apparently) in the culture. People refer to it, either agreeing, disagreeing, or criticizing it. The concept's existance is verified and occurs in multiple reliable sources. To use your example, if there was widespread verifiable reference to New Orleans being Atlantis, and people analyzing that question in independent reliable sources, then Wikipedia would be quite likely to have an article looking at that concept too. AFD works on policy-based points. The above is what a policy based analysis of the AFD debate would look like. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And I have said, in italics, that the concept that there is Apartheid in France does not exist. Not even as a myth. It is not a significant trend of though. Hence, making as article on an intellectual trend that exists only in the writer's imagination goes against all the rules for admissibility, with which I am fairly familiar, thank you.

What you are saying ("we do not deleted the article we just change the name and the content") is sophism, because is is equivalent to deleting the article and creating a new one on another subject. Acceptable as a solution, yet sophism. Rama 12:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. You're confusing two issues. The purpose of an AFD debate is to determine whether a matter belongs in Wikipedia. Based on evidence of sources, the concept exists, and is notable. In fact it has been noted and used as description, analogy or discussion point several times, independently, by parties who are apparently neither Algerian or French, according to the cites. The AFD view I reach is that the contributors to AFD have shown the subject meets Wikipedia criteria. That is all that AFD is about. The fact it might be offensive or a poor title, is a different issue, and for editors to debate and fix. The fact that it doesn't show a balanced view is for editors to debate and fix, by finding a suitable context within which a balanced view can emerge. It does not mean delete, rewrite, ignore all past work. It means that past work has not yet resulted in a high quality solution (self evidently). Wikipedia articles evolve. They are improved, often have whole chunks withdrawn or refactored. Delete and restart is quite different, even though at times the two may have a similar result. In both cases you havea seed and you want a healthy tree. One you take action to help the seed grow into a tree, the other you rip the seed up and plant a new one. Both have a place, but their approach is quite different. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The concept does not exist. Sources have been twisted as a way that a casual reader might be fooled into thinking that it exists. What is actually happening is that some people have provocatively said that the social situation in some French suburbs is bad, and that the disparity of level of live between the rich and poor quarters is comparably to the disparity between the level of live between black and white quarters under the Apartheid. This is not an argument that there is Apartheid in France. Rama 13:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rama: I read a good french (totally bad in speaking), and are quite connected with the happenings there, and I must say you live under a rock: even a former prime minister has been involved in the comparisons, and a google search for "apartheid urbain" returns 523 hits and "apartheid à la française" returns 831. This is much less notable than the Israeli allegations, but much more than the "nothing" you claim. Remember the term is used as analogy, not an exact match.--Cerejota 13:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Then find some secondary sources supporting this assertion of notability, Cerejota.--G-Dett 13:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, none of these articles actually claim that there is apartheid in the given countries. There only was, and could only be, one apartheid: South Africa's. Everything else is analogy, comparison, provocative argument: precisely what you recognize that exists!!!--Cerejota 13:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Totally beside the point. We depend on sources, "defined in Wikipedia as secondary sources," to define the topic.--G-Dett 13:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, don't be ridiculous. By the same standards, I can set up an article saying that the USA are a fascist state, backed up with quotations of Cheney less distorted than that of Rocard was. What Rocard is saying is that peope must not be allowes to shut themselves in closed communities. And I fail to see him using the term "apartheid" there.

I take it you do not live in France (else you'd be able to speak the language), did it not strike you that the media of your country could give an inaccurate rendering of the everyday situation in France, particularly of the terms in which public debates take place ? (For instance, should you live in the USA, you would be exposed to media owned by notorious conservative pundits, who have every interest in portraying France as ripped with racism and islamism, as a retribution for the refusal of France to back the US aggression against Iraq).

Only by regularly reading the press of the country and perfectly understanding the language can you have a accurate idea of the relative importance of such or such item in the public debate, and the nuances that the terminologies carry. And in the respect, your assessement of the Monde Diplomatique has dramatically failed to impress me. Rama 14:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And for the n-th time, sort lecturing us about not claiming that there is apartheid but only claims of apartheid. We have gotten the point from the start, and what we dispute is precisely that these very claims exist at all. If they did, I am sure that some convincing examples would have been found for a long time. Rama 14:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rama - it is clear from your own words that the concept exists. if it doesn't what exactly is it that you are stating is not a reality in France? you are stating that "apartheid in France" doesn't exist. To do that, you have the concept, and we are discussing the concept, and others discuss the concept, and the concept exists. Even if it is untrue, the concept exists. Editors here have that evidence it is in the minds of more than a few people as an idea. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett: It is obvious you should read the sources more carefully. The Diplo source in particular is extensive and detailed in support of allegations. All of the sources in the article are either clear in their allegation or their repudiation of the allegation, or some even go an say that Islam is to blame. You are suggesting these people are doing so in isolation, however they are obviously responding and counter-responding in a debate. Two sources, the Diplo and the socialist party major, are over-clear in this, and the others imply it:

If there is no debate, as you and others allege, why would a notable political figure, from a leading political party, and with a national profile, would feel the need to deny the allegations and call them over-dramatic? No one at his level would call something that doesn't exist anything. These allegations are notable enough to warrant the attention of such a figure, they are notable enough for us.

Before turning this into your soapbox, please read the sources and investigate what you are talking about. Furthermore, this conversation should be take to the page, and if you are questioning the validity of specific sources, do so there. Otherwise, you are not being productive.--Cerejota 13:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, I'll respond to your points with maximum brevity and bluntness, in the hopes that direct pressure on the valves of sophistry will stop this hemorrhaging of nonsense. The Diplo article is, at best, a primary source alleging apartheid (a word it uses exactly once); it doesn't discuss the subject of the article – which is the allegations themselves – at all. Sources establishing the notability of allegations of French apartheid would be sources discussing those allegations. I am pleased to find you leaning ever more heavily upon the mayor of Montpellier for your claims of notability; it suggests that at some instinctual level it's dawning on you that that's your only source. If you lean in a little closer and breathe more deeply while you praise the prominence of "such a figure," it may even dawn on you that "his" figure is a woman's. As for the soapbox, get down off it and stop pretending it's mine. I have not once in the course of these interminable discussions ever weighed in on whose policies are apartheid-like, or who has a right to use the term or conversely to be offended by it. You don't know my opinions on who deserves the comparison in real life, a question which has absolutely no relation to the question we must deal with on WP, which is in what situations have allegations of apartheid become a notable subject in themselves? My objections to the prank articles you support have been based entirely on WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, and of course WP:POINT.--G-Dett 13:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Lotsa fun, folks

But the policy issue is simple. Read WP:N, for crying out loud:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Got that? Good. Luckily for us, WP:N then goes on to define every word and phrase in that sentence with regards to notability. Bless the heavens, here's "source":

"'Sources,' defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred."

I've bolded the phrase about "secondary sources" so as to make it visible even to Urthogie way in the back of the class blowing bubble-gum bubbles and fidgeting with his pencil.

Allegations of French apartheid fails WP:N, and it fails WP:NOR. That is all. Those who want the article deleted should emphasize its blatant non-compliance with policies and guidelines. Those who think it's valuable and want to keep it have their work laid out for them: find some secondary sources establishing the topic's notability. Those who speak with forked tongues – voting "keep" and defending the article's integrity while intimating that deep down they know it's actually worthless and winking and suggesting backroom deals and trades or "comprehensive" solutions – are trolls. Contrary to popular lore, trolls can travel singly or in packs.--G-Dett 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't fail or at least it is not obvious to me. There are plenty of sources as I have established before. Stop repeating yourself. Thanks!--Cerejota 14:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You can help me to stop repeating myself by providing one secondary source that establishes the topic's notability. So far no one, including you, has endeavored to do this.

On a different but related note, you might also stop repeating this silly canard: "the opposition to the French article is certainly motivated by a defense of France, rather than the quality and notability of the sourced material." No it isn't. The problem has always been the subject's lack of notability, as evidenced by the utter lack of secondary-source material. I appreciate your attempts to be even-handed. Sometimes, however, this leads you into a sort of programmatic six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other logic that plays you false. It may be tempting from a diplomatic point of view to insist that the objections of France-focused editors have been ideological and nationalist just like those of Israel-focused editors, but this is manifestly untrue. France-focused editors have suggested everything from Racism in France to any number of "segregation"-related articles as substitutes for the hoax article. Unlike their opposing numbers in the Israel camp, they do not appear to be concerned about washing dirty linens in public. They appear, rather, to be irritated that serious subjects for France (racism, de facto segregation, colonial history, conflicts between secularism and multiculturalism) have been trivialized by two Wikipedians who know nothing about these issues, nor France in general, and who are remarkably insouciant about their ignorance, because their goals and purposes lie elsewhere.--G-Dett 14:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say I disagree with this view. Please see Exploding whale, which lacks the "secondary source" connection you request. (BTW, another source of a notable talking about french apartheid [2]). The fact is that the sources are notable and the narrative is not OR. It is certainly less notable than the Israeli allegations, however, notability in this case (ie inclusion in wikipedia) is binary, you have it or you don't. As to my alleged canard, I have said that once or twice. I do stand guilty of defending WP:N and specially WP:V, but hey, some people seem to read then and its contents not registering. For example, what happened to verifiability, not truth?--Cerejota 15:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

excuse me, but there are plenty of notes and sources in Exploding whale describing whale which, well, explode. While I fail to see sources in Allegations of French apartheid‎ which point to such allegations, not to mention these allegations having any sort of notability at all. Rama 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are no reliable, external sources on the exploding whale article about the phenomenon of whales exploding, in general. They all deal with specific instances of whale explosions. So, by your logic, that featured article is a synthesis.--Urthogie 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, while Allegations of French apartheid is fabrication. Rama 15:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a non sequitor. My point is that they are sourced in a similar way, and G-Dett's and your objections about notability and sources fail. Whether or not the content is true ("a fabrication") is not under the jurisdiction of any existing Wikipedia policy, aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Urthogie 16:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The comparison is silly, and they are not sourced in the same way.--G-Dett 16:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, I don't understand your point about Exploding whale, which you appear to have taken at face value from Urthogie instead of holding it up to the light. That article is about exploding whales. Its sources are about exploding whales. Some of these are primary sources (major media stories about specific exploding whales). Others are secondary sources talking about exploding whales in general, such as www.explodingwhale.com, which appears to be WP's main source for the article. And then there are secondary sources talking about exploding whales from a technical point of view.

Allegations of French apartheid is not about French apartheid. It's about allegations of French apartheid, which, it tells us, "draw analogies between France and apartheid-era South Africa." It also tells us that this thing, this topic, allegations of French apartheid, "have been increasingly used in discussions of the 2005 French youth riots." None of this is sourced. None of the article's sources talk about allegations of French apartheid, with the exception of the one paragraph in the Guardian piece, where the mayor of Montpellier is quoted. Notice that the article's two-sentence lead, the very two sentences that identify and define the article's topic, are followed by the droll admission "Citation needed". You bet one's needed; come back when you've found it. When an article's first sentence – its raison d'être and very claim to notability – has to be followed by a fact tag, that should set off a lightbulb in your head, Cerejota.

While you're "defending" WP:N, have a look at its definition of "Significant coverage": "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Does Allegations of French apartheid have sources addressing allegations of French apartheid directly and in detail? Where? Which ones? And what are some of the interesting, detailed things they say about those allegations? Does someone say they're part of an attempt to delegitimize France? Does someone else say no, they constitute a noble attempt to come to terms with France's colonial past and its legacy in the present? Does someone say the allegations are a symptom of political hyperbole in general? Does anyone say when they began? Does anyone (not counting Jay or Urthogie) say they've become more prevalent lately? If allegations of French apartheid is a notable topic, it sure is odd that it hasn't occasioned any discussion; I can't find anything about the allegations except that the mayor of Montpellier doesn't like them. Compare that to Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which tells us all about the allegations.

The fact that your best precedent for Allegations of French apartheid is not Allegations of Israeli apartheid but rather Exploding whale is rather telling in the first place, but even that precedent is spurious.--G-Dett 16:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Exploding whale does feature elements which back the assertion that whales do in fact explode. Allegations of French apartheid‎ not only fails to do so, it features quotations taken out of their context and twisted in a way which clearly reveals the fabrication. And articles which about things which do no exist even as myths are to be destroyed.

Urthogie, you have displayed some genuine cunning with your little twist to have this article on Israel deleted; but just because you are capable of designing a ruse does not mean that other Wikipedians are idiots. I won't even mention thinking of the project, not twisting the spirit of the rules with the letter, etc., it's obvious that your are well beyond helping. Rama 16:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Allegations of French apartheid article takes none of its quotes "out of context", and your comments are egregious violations of WP:CIVIL. Comment on article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, so focus on good secondary sources (not on editors motivations)

Again, the problem is how those articles stands, not why they came (or who brought them). Speculating about editors' motivations is a red herring and is in no way constructive. I'm sure many featured articles came from "not so nobles" motivations (you know, passion, hate, desire, propaganda, ...). Moreover we shouldn't care if the article's topic match truth or factual reality (ie. we should have excellent articles about religious concepts, outdated scientific theories, mythologies, etc.).

What's worrying with those "allegations of xxx apartheid" Afd series arbitrations is that they opens a dangerous case for acceptance of over-inflammatory articles titles and main topics deviating from aggregations of disparates opinionated press' citations.

See, we ended up validating the flaky equation: "multiples existing sources" => "notable subject" => "ok for an article's topic & title in wikipedia". But one will always find a dozen of journalistic sources for any combination of the words "apartheid", "cool", "sublime", "cult", "fascism", "dictatorship", ... and a country name, not because "Nepali fascism" is a notable concept, but that's just how press' rhetoric is. So now, everything is permitted.

We had better to think this way: "the more neutral the title is, the better" && "aggregating only disparates primary sources is original research and doesn't make notability" && "titling after catchy and insulting journalistic hyperboles when accurate alternatives exists is calling for POV, WP:POINT, edit wars and controversies".

Those "allegations of xxx apartheid" AfD jugements made the case for anyone wanting to push silly articles like Allegations of USA fascism (primaries sources are plenty), Tony Blair sucks (sources), Allegations that Boston Red Sox are the bests (sources), or as someone said earlier Allegations that New Orleans is Atlantis (sources), and so on (an infinity). Maybe some stupid pro-french or pro-brazilian editor will create such articles to prove that point, to counter the (alleged) pro-israelian editors WP:POINT. And someone from New Orleans will counter that by showing this point with a new article titled Allegations of Parisians being frivolous (sources), etc., ad libitum. All using randoms but serious newspapers' opinions columns as primaries sources. We opened the Pandora's box. And that's bad.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin.pineau (talk • contribs)

Good point.--Urthogie 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin, there needn't be any Pandora's box if we follow WP:N, which demands secondary sources establishing notability. WP:N will prevent Allegations that New Orleans is Atlantis and Tony Blair sucks, just as it prevents Allegations of French apartheid but allows Allegations of Israeli apartheid.

Your point about not focusing on editorial motives is well-taken, and you are certainly right that articles that begin as WP:POINT-violations can evolve into decent articles. But the "allegations" series has become an epidemic, with a small clique of editors withholding the antidote until their demands are met.--G-Dett 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that your argument about WP:N not applying to say, the France or Brazil article is unconvincing. People who have nothing to do with Israel articles disagree with it.--Urthogie 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? They're not stepping forward. But you are, Urthogie, so would you mind saying why? I know you're more into making deals than explaining things, so I'll make it easy. I'll list the four or five mental steps I go through to test whether the France article meets WP:N. All you have to do is tell me the number of the step you disagree with, and if you're so inclined, why. Here goes:

1. WP:N requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail."
2. The subject of Allegations of French apartheid is allegations of French apartheid.
3. None of the sources in Allegations of French apartheid address the allegations directly or in detail. At best, in the process of addressing other subjects – Algerian colonial history, the riots, gender relations among Muslim immigrants – the sources themselves allege French apartheid.
4. Sources that do not address a subject but rather exemplify it themselves are known as "primary sources." If the citations for an article about Images of cats in Shakespeare consist entirely of passages from Shakespeare that have to do with cats, then you can say the article's sources are primary sources only. If it adds scholarly or popular books addressing the subject of cats in Shakespeare, on the other hand, then it can be said to have secondary sources.
5. WP:N says that for a subject to be notable, it has to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources," and it stresses that "sources" are "defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources."

Which step(s) do you disagree with here, Urthogie?--G-Dett 19:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I'm all with you, but -oddly enough- WP:N didn't effectively prevented anything but one "allegation of" article out of six. The french's afd discussion was closed with a status quo statement saying that keepers arguments were somehow stronger. Since those arguments boiled down to "keep per editorial coherency" (or the "keep this or delete all" variation), I deduced that some sort of jurisprudence took over WP:N... Also I wonder if the fact that newspapers are not alway "secondary sources", and in which case they are not, is well understood by all sysops (plus I'm sure we can even find books/secondary sources stating that Boston Red Sox are the bests ;-), as is, so there's more than just semi-notability: this should only be used for neutrally and accurately titled articles like "Red Sox' successes" or "Alleged qualities of the Red Sox team"). I personally don't care about allegations of French apartheid per se, but I fear further consequences. How do you explains the AfD closing (and how do we recover from that) ? Benjamin.pineau 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC) (or am I pessimistic ?)

Benjamin, you better get ready for more. Once the "allegations of xxx apartheid" was allowed, there is no stopping. You cannot even merge those articles into one, say Allegations of apartheid in Europe including the Israeli article in it if you're not prepared to write a book. So try to recover and make good face to the very wrong play, accept philosophically things you cannot change, or mayday Jimbo Wales for help if you can't make it, but I bet ten bucks he won't move a finger to stop these allegations. Are you sport or what? greg park avenue 18:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. Things that happened, like keeping "allegations of xxx apartheid", are not very grievous (by themselves). What I fear is further articles in this path, generalized. Maybe on much worst topics/titles than "allegations of apartheid", maybe at growing scale. "things I cannot change" are not the problem. Things that will happen may be (hopefully not). Benjamin.pineau 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Benjamin, whether something is a primary or secondary source has nothing to do with whether it's a newspaper or book, and everything to do with how it's used in the context of a given subject. For the article Allegations that the Red Sox are the best, a source that begins "Yahoooo!!! The Red Sox did it again!!! They're the best!" is a primary source, even if it's a peer-review book in a prestigious university imprint, because it is an example of the allegation. On the other hand, if a TV newscaster begins a news segment by saying "Well, descriptions of the Red Sox as the best team ever are at an all-time high. It's not just Boston or Massachusetts anymore, you hear the refrain 'the Red Sox are the best' from New York to Los Angeles and everywhere in between. Some observers have expressed puzzlement at the phenomenon, pointing out that the Red Sox have gone 73 games without a win, but media and psychology experts have described this as a textbook example of what they call 'viral enthusiasms'. More on that story, coming up" is a secondary source.

In short, secondary sources talk about a subject or phenomenon. Primary sources constitute the subject or exemplify the phenomenon. The distinction between primary and secondary sources is central to both WP:N and WP:NOR, and except in rare cases you need secondary sources to establish notability.--G-Dett 20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, thanks for taking time to make this crystal clear ! (oh, and don't hide away: WP:PSTS and WP:SYN needs your help :P; imho they are less enlightening than your explanations above) Benjamin.pineau 22:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Explodingwhale.com is not a reliable source-- it is a fan site-- I could register my own Frenchapartheidallegations.com website, it would not be notable or reliable. Where is the reliable secondary source for Exploding whale?--Urthogie 20:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Exploding whale. It is Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. So, where are your secondaryor your primary sources for Allegations of French apartheid‎ ? Rama 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This isnt Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Allegations of French apartheid, either. We are deciding a global policy for apartheid articles, not creating a way for you to bypass AFD.--Urthogie 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The French apartheid article went through AFD. It's over. If all you want to talk about is the fact that you think its not notable, just leave this discussion. You're contributing nothing to it if all you're going to do is dwell on a lost AFD.--Urthogie 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, then I'll look at you contributing your pearls of wisdom on exploding whales. That's clearly for more on topic.

I am not rambling on the French article, I am taking it as example for a very simple, general policy : do not make things up. Rama 21:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, I'll be happy to talk about your exploding whale comparison, odd as it is, but let me be clear about two things: firstly, for your argument in favor of a “comprehensive” solution to make any sense, the France article would need to be sourced to the standards of the Israel article, not to those of Exploding whale; and secondly, detailed queries about the sourcing of the latter article should probably be directed to its authors. Now, to your questions. That article is about well-documented sensational events, not allegations. "Primary source" and "secondary source" apply differently to events than they do to interpretations, allegations, etc. WP:NOR explains all this, but to be brief, in the case of events first-hand news reports are primary sources. Subsequent discussion and commentary in other venues (including mainstream media feature pieces as well as what you're calling "fan sites") is all secondary. Exploding whale depends pretty heavily upon sources (primary and secondary) that in other contexts would absolutely not be considered reliable, including not only "fan sites" but obscure webpages devoted to "urban legends," and even internet chat room threads (!) like this. Obviously this has all been deemed OK in this context, as the article is a featured article and will even be included in the release version of Wikipedia.

Which is precisely why it's so strange that you're citing that article as the basis for the claim that Allegations of French apartheid is appropriately sourced. Yeah, it seems that in the context of a quirky, freakish but inoffensive article on a subject which is incontestibly factual and has aroused considerable interest but no passion or controversy, then "fan sites" will do as reliable secondary sources. Even chat room threads are OK in that context. But as the subject gets more serious, more subjective, more interpretive and controversial, then no, sources like that won't do. Exactly as you said, if you started a www.frenchapartheidallegations.com website, "it would not be notable or reliable." You answered your own question, unless I'm missing something.--G-Dett 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Exploding whale depends pretty heavily upon sources (primary and secondary) that in other contexts would absolutely not be considered reliable, including not only "fan sites" but obscure webpages devoted to "urban legends," and even internet chat room threads (!)"

Yes, and the reason its allowed to exist and be featured is because notability is not a policy, but a guideline. Guidelines are tested sometimes by AFD's. In this case, the deletion discussion led to "no consensus." So, you are missing something in that regard-- that the AFD is over, and a "comprehensive solution" is the only way to go.--Urthogie 21:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of a "comprehensive solution" – whereby the fate of a well-sourced article becomes magically linked by fiat to the fate of seven badly sourced articles – is fatuous, and it won't happen, because it's an affront to policy as well as common sense. In the meantime we're getting somewhere – Cerejota says he "disagrees" with WP's guideline on notability, and you're finally conceding that you do too. The candor might have come a little sooner. It would be nice if WP:N had in fact been "tested" and found unsatisfactory in the AfD; I'd have accepted that consensus graciously if regretfully. Instead, we had deliberate obfuscation and diversion, block voting by an ideological clique, and stupid sophistries about the supposed sensitivities of "French editors." Many participants, and perhaps even the admin who closed the AfD, came away with the impression that the chief difference between the France article and the Israel article was a relative one involving the quantity of sources, rather than a categorical one involving objective measures of notability.--G-Dett 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with WP:N, I'm merely arguing that it's a guiding principle.
• I might consider compromising with something like plain old Israeli apartheid if it was agreed that it'd be limited to two examples, like Homosexual agenda. Right now, the article is 99% list of quotes. The result is that the Israeli apartheid article is pornographic and decadent, rather than educational. An example or two conveys the meaning. 20 examples conveys "ANTI ZIONIST FUN PAGE!"
• I'm aware that there is more meta-discussion, in a blatantly secondary source sense with the Israeli apartheid article. However, the AFD's show that this is not an issue that will gain consensus for deletion. This is probably because Notability is a guideline, not a procedure.
• The reason I might support the deletion of the Israeli allegation article is because it is impossible for it not to be a quote magnet. Anti-Zionist editors will always go there, and always add quotes. A compromise to only have a few for example could simply not occur. And even if such a compromise did occur, it would erode as people complained.
• To summarize, we have a simple question before us. It isn't a question about primary sources, but whether our precious Wikipedia should foster an environment where articles exist debating whether various countries have adopted South Africa's policies. In my view, there is an argument to be made that such articles are plain old "unencyclopedic."
• Thoughts?--Urthogie 22:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Where I disagree with you, Urthogie, is the idea that the Israel apartheid article is in any way intended to be a substitute for Arab-Israeli Conflict. It is, rather, one small aspect of that issue, and yet one which has clearly become an issue very much of its own. I've tried to explain this a couple of times, but G-Dett did so much better here: "That debate is not primarily about segregation. It's about everything from historical and ethical understandings of the conflict to the question of legitimacy and efficacy of boycotts and other grassroots activism to the pragmatics of international peacemaking (Adam & Moodley, et al). It's a topic unto itself, a remarkably coherent and self-referential one at that, and I don't think there can be any serious claim that it's non-notable." If that article were just about allegations, of course, it would have been deleted long ago. I actually disagree with the idea that it's just about notability; I think all of these articles, including the Israel one, also present a serious neutrality issue in how the articles are named. Even if secondary sources discuss an allegation, I think you want to think very much about a more appropriate name. That said, after a lot of attempts, I think the Israel apartheid debate is one like Homosexual agenda that can't entirely be renamed.

I would suggest one other alternative, which would be Israel Apartheid Debate. This is similar to Israeli Apartheid Analogy, something I think is also an improvement, but clarifies slightly further the fact that this is a debate rather than Wikipedia deciding to explain for us this analogy. This would then hopefully even up the footing, while getting rid of the troublesome "allegations" phrasing. Of course some may say this is really just rhetoric and no genuine debate, but then that is part of the debate itself, which the article would also cover. This would seem to me a significant improvement; I'm curious what others think. Mackan79 22:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with Saudi Arabia?

Here are the problems with it: 773 out of 905 words of the main text of this article consists of quotes. The rests consists mostly of "According to Alan Dershowitz, ", "According to the Guardian", "Ali Al-Ahmed, Director of the Saudi Institute, stated:", "Andrea Dworkin refers to these practices", etc. In fact, if we remove the quotes and who said them, we are left with the following:

Saudi Arabia's practices with respect to women have been referred to as "gender apartheid". [...] Saudi Arabia's treatment of women has also been described as "sexual apartheid" [...] this sexual apartheid is enforced by mutawa, religious police, though not as strongly in some areas: [...] Saudi Arabia's treatment of religious minorities has also been described by both Saudis and non-Saudis as "apartheid" and "religious apartheid".[...] Non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca [...] On December 14, 2005, Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Democrat Representative Shelley Berkley introduced a bill in Congress urging American divestiture from Saudi Arabia, and giving as its rationale (among other things)[...] Until March 1, 2004, the official government website stated that Jews were forbidden from entering the country.[15]

Compare with the 90 words in Human rights in Saudi Arabia#"Apartheid":

Saudi Arabia's practices against women have been referred to as "gender apartheid" and "sexual apartheid".[7] [8] [9] [10] Saudi Arabia's treatment of religious minorities has also been described as "apartheid".[11] [12] [13] [14] Until March 1, 2004, the official government website stated that Jews were forbidden from entering the country.[15]The 287,000 Palestinian refugees, who are currently living in Saudi Arabia, are not allowed citizenship and are often discriminated against. The kingdom maintains separate roads for Muslims and non-Muslims in the Holy cities.

I rest my case.--Victor falk 21:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that one's also crap, and it's the same problem. Quote farm of examples embedded into an original research essay, no secondary sources, no objective indication of notability. These are cut-and-dried things.--G-Dett 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I'm surprised, usually you actually assess someone's claims rather than accepting them right away. Anyone who even takes a cursory look at Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid can see that Dershowitz occupies a small fraction of the article. This is like resting ones case on thin air.--Urthogie 21:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I say something about Dershowitz? I thought I said the article is a quote farm of examples embedded into an original research essay, with no secondary sources, and no objective indication of notability. Which, unless I'm mistaken, it is.--G-Dett 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, Dershoiwitz' is only 24 words, but Dworkin's is 154, Majedi's 94, Al-Ahmed's 148...--Victor falk 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, thought you were saying most of it was Dershowitz. The double comma was read by me as a period for some reason, since I'm used to reading things in lists with commas after each thing, I suppose. My mistake.--Urthogie 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Saudi apartheid article has tons of room for improvement. It receives this allegation in hundreds of places. No reason to delete something with so much potential if the Israel one is going to stay.--Urthogie 22:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well then first improve Human rights in Saudi Arabia#"Apartheid"; it's not like it could do without some. THEN create an independent article, if and when it doesn't fulfill WP:Merge#Merging anymore--Victor falk 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly. If what's being talked about by the RS's is not the allegations themselves but rather some other thing – French colonial history or Saudi human-rights issues – then the material belongs in the appropriate article. "Allegations" articles are a good idea if and only if the allegations are a notable subject in themselves.--G-Dett 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to delete it, take it to AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Article titles and NPOV

Some thoughts on what WP:NPOV requires. NPOV is supposed to apply to article titles as well as the contents of articles. This is a long-established principle - it's discussed in detail in Wikipedia:Naming conflicts, which I wrote almost exactly two years ago and has been an established convention for some time. In particular, it states: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." Now, clearly, an article title that states or implies that "apartheid" is in operation in a particular state - other than South Africa, of course - is extremely POV, not to mention highly inflammatory (as we've already seen). That doesn't mean that comparisons with apartheid shouldn't be discussed in the article body, provided they are sufficiently prominent, numerous and well-sourced, but it does mean that they have to be framed in a neutral fashion.

In addition, the use of "allegations" is deprecated by Wikipedia:Words to avoid#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported. "Allegations" should not be used in article titles, as (to quote WTA) it "introduces unnecessary bias into the writing". The rationale for this is that the use of the term allegations "explicitly mak[es] it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual ... in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable." (And of course someone else will reject it entirely.)

These conventions have stood for a long time, they were adopted to maintain NPOV, and they should be respected here as well. None of these articles should contain the dread words "allegations of apartheid", as that formulation is intrinsically not compatible with NPOV. -- ChrisO 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• So, why there is no article on South Africa - Allegations of South Africa apartheid? It doesn't exist because no one will ever contest it. Allegation in case of France means citing someone like Le Pen, Noam Chomsky, Uri Avnery, etc. It's no bias. It's exactly opposite. It means there is no apartheid in France or USA, but there is a lot of allegations coming out even from notable journalists like Dennis Prager or someone like him from Israel I forgot his name, and politicians like that new Spanish president who even called George Bush Hitler while the rock groups like "Green Day" from Deutschland call us an American idiot. Listen to this song and call it a day, Chris. greg park avenue 01:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is an article on South Africa, one on which I've worked in the past - namely History of South Africa in the apartheid era. -- ChrisO 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But you're missing the point, Chris. The word "allegations" is missing here. greg park avenue 12:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, pardon me? As I quoted above, the term "allegations" "explicitly mak[es] it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual". Of course the word "allegations" is missing in the case of South Africa, because the former existence of apartheid in that country is undisputed historical fact. Nobody disputes it. The very word "apartheid" is an Afrikaans word coined by the Nationalist government of South Africa to refer to its racial policies. It's as much an established fact as, say, the American Civil War or the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland. -- ChrisO 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, Chris. I know where the word came from but it's now in common use even here in Wikipedia. Go to the never disputed article Israeli West Bank barrier, rated "A", almost 100 references, and see how many times this word has been used in it. I think that settles the matter once and forever. greg park avenue 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and supported, ChrisO. Does anyone seriously disagree with this view of what policy says generally on article titles? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't, for one. But I think we should keep in mind that it's a doubly inflammatory title. If "allegations" is bad, "apartheid" is worse. You might as well say "fascist pig", and due to certain historical reasons, some Israelis are thin-skinned about that slur.

Tiamat suggested Israel "apartheid" debate or Israeli "apartheid" (in Options below). A priori the scarequotes offer a way of defanging the slur and could work, but just today I learned that the article was previously hosted on Israeli apartheid (phrase)...

But concerns over the title should not make us forget about the contents; afaik, you can read a bit here, a bit there, and some pieces there, and of course our own (parodic) article about the debate, but there is no wikipedia article that treats ethnic segregation/discrimination in Israel and the occupied territories comprehensively. Would such an article exist, it would provide context for either a section or an independent article on the debate. I think it is that lack of context that makes the current article a wild disinformation central.--Victor falk 01:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Options

It appears to me the discussion is currently being stunted by a lack of viable options. On the one hand, a significant group thinks that all of these articles should be deleted, but only if the Israel article is deleted as well. The other large group seems to want the articles assessed independently, while tending to see the recent articles as inappropriate. This group also objects to negotiating based on articles that both sides generally agree should not exist. A small minority seems to find the current situation ok. While all of this makes a solution rather difficult, let me offer one anyway.

1. The Israel article is renamed to something more encyclopedic. This could be either simply Israeli Apartheid per Urthogie above (similar to an article like Homosexual Agenda), something like Israel Apartheid Analogy, or my recent suggestions of either Israel Apartheid Debate or Apartheid Debate in Israel.
2. The "Allegations of Apartheid" template is deleted, due to its effect in pushing article material toward a highly problematic title.
3. Other articles on the "Allegations of Apartheid" template are reevaluated by interested editors for either better titles or appropriate merges with other articles.

Comments or other ideas welcome. Mackan79 02:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather astonishing offer. The name changes you have suggested have been dismissed, as have the deletions you have suggested. This page is not a place to perform AfDs by other means. If editors are truly interested in a systemic, compromise approach, then let's hear it, but offering the achieve the results that AfDs specifically failed to achieve is hardly any sort of reasonable idea. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that "Israel Apartheid Debate" or "Apartheid Debate in Israel" had been discussed earlier, is this not any improvement? I'd clarify two things about the suggestion: 1. The name change represented my best ideas, but also an opening to anything better you can come up with. It seems this is where the discussion needs to go. 2. The latter points, other than deleting the template, actually don't seem particularly different from what should generally be happening anyway. That is, I'm not suggesting deletion, but that we all agree that better names and/or treatments could probably be found. So is there anything else I can offer? Basically, I think many of us are open to a better treatment of the Israel article, but would like to avoid expanding an "Allegations of X Apartheid" pattern across Wikipedia. I think others are only open to a complete deletion of the Israel article, but I also don't see how that will happen. This is my best idea, though I'm certainly open to yours. Mackan79 02:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• What systemic, compromise approach would best satisfy your wishes, Jayjg?--Victor falk 03:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We should confine the title "apartheid" to articles dealing with South African apartheid, and not start spreading it all over the place, to the point where it becomes meaningless. All the other titles should be renamed to something like "Segregation in ..." or merged into other articles if appropriate ones exist. Let's take the opportunity to put this whole unencyclopedic mess behind us and move forward. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You've inadvertantly highlighted a key problem here, namely the lack of agreement on what constitutes "encyclopedicness". The people who are opposing the Israeli apartheid article have made it clear that they're doing so because they regard the subject matter as illegitimate. If you look at the comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination), for instance, you'll see that many people voted to delete the article outright - not merge or rename it - because they felt it was an illegitimate topic. As you know, Slim, the criteria for inclusion are based on notability rather than political or moral acceptability; even if you don't like the topic, there's absolutely no doubt that there's overwhelming evidence of its notability. We are in the position that we are in because some people are seeking to override WP:N for personal political reasons. I don't see any way out of this without some recognition that WP:N is the standard, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- ChrisO 07:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well if I can try to engage this, I'd say this is actually a legitimate suggestion, depending on what you mean. Presuming there aren't preexisting articles that could fully treat the apartheid issue in Israel, this would appear then to suggest a new article on "Segregation in Israel." So is this something people would accept?

The reasons I've questioned this idea are two: a.) It seems to me the "apartheid" debate in Israel is itself a notable topic, largely rhetorical, which ultimately justifies an article on the many issues it raises. The list of issues is seen in the article, but is also noted to include the comparison itself, the allegation, the wall, the responses re singling out Israel, the divestment campaign, etc. While this could largely be discussed in an article on segregation, I'm unsure at a basic level that it should be. b.) The idea of "segregation" actually adds another element, while eliminating the rhetorical aspect in a way that could be seen as problematic to everyone. For one, while apartheid is more known, segregation was itself an official policy in the United States for some time with similar connotations. To make this a purely factual article, then, as opposed to one on the rhetorical debate, may present additional problems.

I wouldn't dismiss the idea; I think there's also a reason this problem has dragged on for some time. In my view, something like "Israel Apartheid Debate" remains preferable, with a more natural focus on a discrete area of political debate. Other thoughts on either idea would certainly help. Mackan79 12:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got that wrong, SlimVirgin. Europeans were first to start spreading the word "apartheid" off South Africa, condemnig before the tribunal in the Hague building the protective barrier in the West Bank by Israel, deeming it the apartheid wall. So the word is already in use. Now they don't like it if someone is using it against them, but that's their fault, not us. Next time those clowns from the Hague better think before calling names somebody, especially Israel, because it gonna backfire. greg park avenue 12:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mackan's suggestion seems like the place to start. Jay's chief objection seems to have been the suggestion that the template be deleted. That part of the proposal should be put on ice for now; Jay is quite right that "page is not a place to perform AfDs by other means." Regarding Mackan's suggested titles, I would also be amenable to the use of scare quotes, i.e. Israeli "apartheid" debate or even Israeli "apartheid" controversy.

I am wary of renaming Segregation in Israel for two reasons: a) it's a different topic; and b) the word "segregation" is itself highly charged (in the U.S. context in fact it's much more charged than "apartheid", which is why Allegations of American apartheid is such a piece of drollery). By substituting "segregation" for "apartheid," we'd just be steering our impasse from one room into another.--G-Dett 14:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think G-Dett and Mackan are on the right track here. A title like Israel "apartheid" debate or Israeli "apartheid" using the quotes might assuage those who feel the very title is POV, while allowing those who wish to discuss that particular phenomenon (and not "segregation" or "human rights abuses", etc.) to do so. What are the views of other editors on this?

I should mention that besides ChrisO's suggestion outlining how a universal set of standards can be applied to all "allegations of" articles (indeed all articles in general, since his position is policy-based), I am against treating the titling or handling of these articles as a block. particularly since they were designed as WP:POINT to lead to just such a conclusion and editors who have played this game should not be rewarded for their violations. Each article must be judged on its own merits and depending on its contents, titles should be reformulated accordingly, or material merged into other articles as required. Tiamat 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, making decisions based on bad faith uncivil remarks about other editors is not how the Talk: pages should be used. Any solutions that suggest special discriminatory treatment for one specific country over any others won't satisfy Wikipedia policy, nor the majority of editors who have commented on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Tiamut isn't suggesting "discriminatory treatment" of articles by country; I think she's with me in saying the exact opposite – every controversial article should be rigorously scrutinized for its compliance with policy, with no special consideration whatsoever given to the country it pertains to. There is no Wikipedia policy about the word "apartheid," nor should we create one now. There are, however, policies pertaining to notability, original research, and the use of primary and secondary sources, and those policies have been openly flouted by most of the "allegations" articles.--G-Dett 16:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, as you continue to abuse both this talk page and the editors here with bad faith uncivil comments about "pranks" etc., I'm not going to bother responding to any of your statements. If your behavior shows consistent improvement I'll re-assess. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to draw the attention of editors to the following statement from WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."

In light of the transparent WP:POINT violations we've seen in this discussion, I'd say that User:G-Dett's comments are entirely valid. I'd also note that User:Jayjg's talismanic use of policy links to ward off criticism is wearing increasingly thin. CJCurrie 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose if one keeps hurling accusations at someone, eventually they start to stick, even if baseless. You, among others, have been at this for a while regarding me, so I can understand that you now imagine your baseless allegations have gained some currency. Nevertheless, regardless of how much mud has been thrown, none of it really sticks; your own behavior (and that of others) is far from blameless, and you have no pass not to assume good faith. None. Now, follow policy and guideline, assume good faith, be civil, and discuss article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the face of such obvious contempt for WP:POINT, further assumptions of good faith would be at best unnecessary, at worst counter-productive. Btw, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL were never intended to silence meaningful debate; please stop pretending they're sufficient rebuttals to any and all criticism of your behaviour. CJCurrie 02:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You fundamentally misunderstand two issues. First, there have been 13 of these articles so far, I have only created one of them, so stop trying to pin WP:POINT on me. Second, and more importantly, this is not a page for discussing editor's behavior. This is a page for discussing what to do with the "Allegations of apartheid" articles. That's it. "Meaningful debate" must be around the articles, not slurs thrown at other editors. You don't get a buy on this Talk: page to violate policy. Stop it, now. Discuss articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, my concern is that I so far haven't seen you suggest anything, while a number of ideas have been thrown out. Can I gather that you would settle for an article titled "Segregation in Israel" rather than any of the others proposed? I've said that I'm intrigued by the idea, but also that I have some basic problems with it, while I remain unsure if it's something you would even accept. Others have said they don't like this idea. Considering the origins of this discussion, I'm also not sure if you expect people to just keep throwing out ideas until you say ok. I think several of the options so far deserve some sort of response from you. Mackan79 22:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My view that the term "apartheid" (outside the context of South Africa) is merely an epithet is well known. So far Wikipedia has insisted that the term is not merely an epithet, but, in fact, an encyclopedic topic. So be it; I bow to the will of the hoi polloi. If Wikipedia at some point decides that the term "apartheid" has no place in a proper encyclopedia, particularly in an article title, then I, for one, will applaud Wikipedia's maturation, and its rejection of the extreme polemics and polemicists who have tainted so many articles, particularly those concerning their favorite whipping boy, the Little Satan/Zionist entity. Their howls of outrage at the rejection of any hypocrisy regarding the use of this term is of sociological interest, but ultimately irrelevant in deciding Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia will have one standard, and I will accept whichever it is, and act accordingly. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not for Wikipedia to decide whether this term is encyclopedic; it's determined by our sources. We are after all a source-based encyclopedia. If there is widespread coverage of a topic by multiple independent reliable sources, then it is by definition encyclopedic by the criteria set out in WP:N. Political criteria do not have any place in determining our coverage of encyclopedic topics, nor should they. -- ChrisO 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia makes this kinds of decisions every day; I'm not sure where you got any idea to the contrary. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedians are editors, not scribes. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"...their favorite whipping boy, the Little Satan/Zionist entity. Their howls of outrage at the rejection of any hypocrisy regarding the use of this term..."

Beg your pardon good sir, but such empyrean rhetoric flies way above the heads of us humble Oy Pol Oy's...--Victor falk 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, here's the thing. 1. While you may be fed up with these articles, I don't think you're entitled to make sweeping political commentary about the rather limited number of editors participating in this discussion, particularly while asking others to be civil. 2. While you may be fed up with these articles, I don't think you're entitled to take what you consider a bad editorial decision and spread it around Wikipedia, while refusing to even consider differences between the source material and other factors. 3. While you may be fed up with these articles, I think standard methods of dispute resolution need to apply. That means we need another option.

I think we should avoid ideology here, because I think we all recognize the difficulty of this issue, and what are the interests on each side. You're saying we need not to single out one country with an attack title, and others are saying we need to be able to cover a notable debate. The question is how we can balance these interests. Certain options for improving the situation have been put on the table; while you've criticized them, and repeated what you don't want to see, however, you also still haven't made a counter-suggestion. Do we have one? Unless we do, I'm simply unsure where this is supposed to go. Mackan79 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

1. My commentary was regarding the nurturers of various attack articles regarding a subject we know all too well, in one respect, but about which most of these editors actually know almost nothing, in reality. One of the "Allegations" articles is "about" that subject, in the exact same way as the others are "about" their respective countries. 2. I haven't been creating these articles, and I've explained elsewhere why the "differences between source material" are merely differences in quantity, not kind, except regarding the level of vitriol and hysteria. 3. I haven't proposed we use anything but the standard methods of dispute resolution; on the contrary, it is others who have tried to do end-runs around these standard processes, starting from the very first Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, which was nominated for deletion by a sockpuppet of the creator, on the very day it was created, in order to assure it was kept (and had subsequent sockpuppet nominations for the same reason). It doesn't get much more tainted than that. More recently they have been trying to unilaterally "disappear" these articles even though AfDs have failed abysmally. Save your admonishments for them, Mackan79, my hands are clean in this matter. Regarding proposals, there's little point in me making any specific ones, as whatever I propose will automatically be opposed by a number of other editors; instead it is you who must make proposals, and hope that the majority can live with them. Feel free to e-mail me for more specifics; I have a good feel for the inclinations of many of the editors here, and can probably provide some useful guidance. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, take a good long look at this post, and your other posts about the "little Satan," Israel, who is the "whipping boy" of the editors who oppose you here, and ask yourself if you are "focusing on content, not editors." A little of your own medicine is in order. You need to realize that when you rant about "attack articles" and then withdraw daintily behind the veil of WP:CIVIL when others point out the "prank articles" you've sponsored and which are wreaking real damage on WP, your umbrage will be disregarded. People here are smart enough to recognize the difference between respecting behavioral guidelines, on the one hand, and exploiting them as weapons on the other. You have contributed heavily to these awful articles and defended them ardently; true enough, you've left the honor of having created them largely to Urthogie, but that hardly gets you off the WP:POINT-hook. You are using them as a corrupt form of bargaining leverage; your hands are far from "clean" in that regard. You say you "haven't proposed anything but standard dispute resolution"; so far as I know, chaining the fate of a sourced article to eight unsourced articles on the basis of a Wikipedian's opinion that they're related is not a standard form of dispute resolution. As for your claim to have "explained elsewhere why the 'differences between source material' are merely differences in quantity, not kind," I believe I must have missed that, but you are at any rate quite mistaken. The Israel article is cited to copious secondary sources establishing notability and clearing the WP:NOR bar; the articles you've authored and so ardently sponsored, by contrast, are essays built solely around primary-source examples. You've recognized the distinction lucidly in other contexts, but affect not to here.--G-Dett 04:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:TALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your contempt for your fellow editors has long been obvious; what is becoming more apparent is your contempt for the project as a whole.--G-Dett 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:TALK. Focus on article content, not on other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah.--G-Dett 04:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Jayjg's comments about preventing "special discriminatory treatment for one specific country over any others" have no basis in Wikipedia policy. They're based on two major misconceptions.

The first is that notability is exclusively a binary criterion, in that something is either notable or it's not. In fact, notability is a continuum. There's a sliding scale of notability ranging all the way from non-notable (in which case a topic doesn't merit encyclopedic treatment), through moderately notable (where it may deserve a short article) all the way through to extremely notable (where it requires major coverage).

The second misconception, which follows on from the first, is that all topics should be given equal treatment. In fact, we give what Jay calls "special discriminatory treatment" to notable topics all the time. The level of attention that our sources give to a topic is highly determinative of the level of attention that we pay it. For instance, consider our treatment of the United States, the richest, most powerful and one of the largest countries in the world, versus Kiribati, one of the world's smallest, poorest and least significant countries. We have tens of thousands of articles on every aspect of US culture, geography, politics and economic affairs. Kiribati, on the other hand, probably hasn't got much more than a couple of dozen articles. But there is a good reason for this, quite apart from the geographical bias of Wikipedia editors. Absolute notability is clearly defined by the standard set out in WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Relative notability is a more difficult thing to define, but it can generally be judged by the number, range and scope of sources; if one topic is covered by 1,000 different sources while another is covered by only 10, the first is clearly more notable than the latter. In the example I gave, there are vastly more sources dealing with the United States than there are relating to Kiribati, so - as we're a source-based encyclopedia - we have much more scope for coverage.

That's why it's a fallacy to assert that equal treatment should be given to all topics in an particular subject range. An article on the military of the United States is naturally going to be much longer and require a much more in-depth treatment than, say, one on the military of Kiribati, simply because the topic is far more notable and covered in much greater detail by a much wider body of sources. The same principle applies in the case of the "Israeli apartheid" analogy. Whether or not you agree with the analogy, it's indisputable that it's attracted a massive amount of attention from a huge range of reliable sources. This is in notable contrast to similar analogies in most other countries. An article on "Israeli apartheid" is inevitably going to cover the topic in more detail than any comparable article concerning other countries for the simple reason that there is more to say on the topic.

There is nothing in WP:NPOV or WP:N to require all topics to be treated equally regardless of their level of notability, nor is there ever likely to be such a requirement. Not only does it go against common sense, such a position would in itself be a violation of NPOV. If it were to be put into practice, the result would be that topics of low notability would have their profile artificially raised while highly notable topics would be artificially constrained, seriously violating WP:UNDUE. The reason for "equalising" topics would be purely political, rather than being rooted in any requirements of our policies. We do not use political, societal or moral criteria to determine the content and scope of articles (ask the Chinese, for instance) and NPOV explicitly prohibits us from doing so (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views). -- ChrisO 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is poor

Or, at least not rich in money quotes.

• I: Who is Black? 1 out of 698 words Until 1846, Africanos on the island had to carry a libreta to move around the island, like the passbook system in apartheid South Africa.

• II & IX: Caribbean studies, Resea de "Foreign in a domestic sense: Puerto Rico, American Expansion and the constitution (pdf) 0 out of 20 pages (approx 15000 words)

• III & IV: Internacional Encyclopedia of Sexuality Puerto Rico 0 out of 9,408 words

• V: Puerto Rico: Progress on Gay Rights, But not AIDS 0 out of 1,323 words

• VI: Working To Address Poverty In Puerto Rico 0 outof 1,407 words

• VII: The Apartheid of American Marketing 0 out of 1,324 words

• VIII: Political Murder in Puerto Rico 0 out of 1,273 words

• X US Congressman Urging Independence for PR Lives Paradox 1 of 812 words: For nearly 50 years, we have been tools, over and over again, that we can have it both ways, the "lo mejor de dos mundos" -best of both worlds- nonsense that keeps Puerto Rico in a permanent state of political apartheid.

• XI The Next Chapter 1 of 722: Alongside former Black Panthers, framed American Indian Movement activists, Plowshares activists, North American Anti-Imperialists, they were two of more than 100 political prisoners in a country that purports to be the bastion of “democratic” ideals and values, a country where the incarceration rate for Black men in 2005 was higher than for Blacks under Apartheid South Africa.

• XII "Lies, Lies, Lies": Calderon And Vieques 1 of 924 [...]I have a difference as to who the culprit is by reminding you that as far back as December 30, 2000 (The Star , "Welcome to our cozy tropical apartheid") I was intimating that even before the election information from Washington revealed lobbying efforts on Calderon's behalf[...]

• XIII & XIV Amnesy International: US Navy must use restraint against protesters in Vieques, Puerto Rico 0 out of 691

4 out of 34,332. 34,332 words is 85 pages. Imagine reading an eighty-five pages booklet titled "Sources Alleging Apartheid In Puerto Rico" that mention "apartheid" four times. Five including the title.

I don't mean I've done an advanced semantic word frequency analysis, but you can say that those sources have literally almost zero... well, have almost zero to do with the subject.--Victor falk 02:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on it, please discuss in the article page.--Cerejota 13:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's not an allegation, it's a statement that a segregation system ended in 1846. Discussing the legacies of apartheid is not making allegations of apartheid.

• Suzanne Irizarry de Lopez a Puerto Rican woman of the Eastern Research Services is a Puerto Rican migrant that writes about the United States.

• Who is this Roberto Guzman that makes his allegations notable? Nevermind, he just uses the word as political hyperbole for "not full statehood for Porto Rico".

• So, if Alejandro had said "incarceration rate for Black men in 2005 was higher than for North Koreans under Kim Il Sung", he would have made the allegation that Porto Rico is a totalitarian stalinist state?

• "Welcome to our cozy tropical apartheid" is a sarcasm.

Sorry; not much food for thought here.--Victor falk 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You know I was thinking of creating a new article on poverty and the pathetically poor economic state of Puerto Rico, since several of you object to the information being included in this article, but this article should remain since it is specifically talking about the apartheid analogy Bleh999 15:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Victor your figures are incorrect, 'Caribbean studies, Resea de "Foreign in a domestic sense: Puerto Rico, American Expansion and the constitution' does mention apartheid in relation to Puerto Rico, it's probably one of the best sources for the article Bleh999 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Five words out of 35,000 then. Is that the rule, five sources with one "apartheid" in each makes an article well-sourced?--Victor falk 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Puerto Rico article is another Urthogie prank, with a topic of his own invention and no secondary sources. Connoisseurs of his crap will want to check out Allegations of American apartheid – another data-mined research essay with no sources attesting to the notability of the allegations themselves. An anonymous editor who astutely observed that the real topic (both in the sense of morally serious and discursively notable) of the article is Racial segregation in the United States was reverted as a "vandal" by Jayjg.--G-Dett 17:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This guy is from: United States [City: Lodi, California] by WHOIS greg park avenue 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of American apartheid is not bad since it has been noted in many books and by many notable people that the situation in the southern US until the 1960s at least was no different than apartheid South Africa, but I agree that it should maybe be in the same article as Racial segregation in the United States Bleh999 18:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That article quotes one book, two supreme court opinions, two magazine articles and one review of the one book, each of which use the word "apartheid" at least once with reference to the U.S. in the 1960s and after. The review, which is the article's longest quote at three full paragraphs and 227 words, only uses the word "apartheid" once, when it gives the title of the book it's reviewing; in its discussion of the book's thesis, it never even mentions South Africa. All of the materials are again primary sources; there are no secondary sources as required by WP:N and WP:NOR; nobody is quoted discussing the actual topic of the article, allegations of American apartheid; and there's absolutely nothing indicating that the comparison itself is notable. In terms of policy, in short, the article is one big miserable violation. Viewed from a general, non-policy-oriented vantage, the article is an interesting anomaly among the "apartheid" pseudo-series, because in this case whatever "epithet" effect resides in the word "apartheid" is muted; America's own legacy of racial oppression is such that we may be one of the only countries in the world where using the word "apartheid" does little to ratchet up the moral stakes. Slavery, share-cropping, lynching, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, and segregation both de jure and de facto provide a rich native vocabulary for systemic racism; we hardly need to turn to South Africa for intensifiers. This, in turn, is probably why so few sources actually use the metaphor, and why the handful of occasions when it was used failed to rouse any notice. What this means for us, of course, is that the article is yet another weird original research essay on a non-topic. But the article's existence is droll and amusing, much like Allegations that Joseph Stalin was as bad as Fidel Castro would be droll and amusing.--G-Dett 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, WP:N and WP:OR do not require secondary sources. OR says "should" be used, and that "any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source". WP:N is to be evaluated in a case-by-case basis.

Not required unless an interpretation is provided. Get it?

However, in large part thanks to my efforts, I have not allowed novel narratives not backed up by secondary sources in any of these articles to emerge, in spite of the efforts of a number of editors to introduce these narratives.

This is were you get it wrong: an allegation of apartheid in a primary source is good content. An observation on what the primary sources say is good content. Interpreting and reaching conclusions from primary sources that are not backed up by secondary sources is not good content.

The difference seems to be lost in you.

I suggest that you be constructive and go around the articles identifying and removing WP:SYNTH of primary sources not backed up by secondary sources. You can also argue why x or y source is not notable. But your blanket denunciations and novel interpretation of policy is getting tiresome and is unproductive to the point of bordering on being disruptive.

Please see (again) Exploding whale et al.--Cerejota 12:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, you may not know there are various featured articles on Wikipedia which have virtually no sourcing at all. Cristero War is one that was featured from 2004-2007 without I believe a single source. That said, comparing Exploding whale seems a bit silly. You are ignoring G-Dett's point, which is that the primary/secondary source distinction exists for a reason. In the political context, one necessary application is that you don't want people data mining for the use of a phrase to make into source material for an article, even where the phrase has gone virtually undiscussed as such. This is particularly a problem if the phrase is being taken out of any larger context where it might be discussed neutrally or in more effective terms. It's essentially comparable to a guy seeing a whale explode and coming on to Wikipedia to write about it; it's original research, because it's too close to the event. You have nobody describing the nature of these allegations, other than ourselves. I think your argument ultimately comes down to ignore all rules -- if a phrase is being used enough, then sure, we may just write an article about it (though ultimately I'd be surprised to find such an example without any secondary sources available). When you're talking about such a questionable name as "Allegations of X Apartheid," though, I'm honestly unsure why you think that's a good thing. Mackan79 13:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, this is what WP:NOR has to say about primary and secondary sources:

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. (emph. added)

My guess is that the "rare occasions" where an article may rely on primary sources (not include, rely) would apply first and foremost to major, spectacular news events at the time of their unfolding: the Virginia Tech massacre for example (Wikipedia's coverage of this got high praise from everyone from local authorities to the New York Times Magazine). I am quite confident that this provisional exception to the rule does not extend to articles about patterns of political rhetoric detected by Wikipedians.

Exploding whale has numerous secondary sources. Because that article a) focuses on factual events the accuracy of which no one disputes, b) arouses universal curiosity but no polemical passions whatsoever, and c) cannot be construed as advancing an agenda of any sort, the bar of quality for its sources (both primary and secondary) appears to be relaxed; even obscure websites and internet chatroom threads are cited as reliable sources. Long live exploding whale, but it is not, for what I hope are by now obvious reasons, a solid foundation upon which to build an ignore-all-rules approach to the "allegations of apartheid" series.

It may be, Cerejota, that you disagree with me and think that the provisional exception to the rule built into WP:NOR should apply to articles like Allegations of French apartheid; and you may even maintain that such articles can be build upon the splattered carcass of exploding whale as their foundation and precedent. But by disagreeing with me on either or both of these points, you are conceding that the sourcing, and hence the claims to legitimacy, of most of the "allegations" series is different not only in quantity but in kind from that of the Israel article. Discussions about a comprehensive solution to this vexatious mess should proceed from that point of common ground.--G-Dett 14:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong on this "hence the claims to legitimacy". You are building a strawman and then burning. I have explained elsewhere, differences in quality, and in degrees of notability, do not a priori and without exception disassociate articles, nor do poor quality or a lesser degree of notability mean they should be deleted. Notability is binary, and WP:RS are reliable sources, period.

Please see {{exploding organism}} for an example.

So the Israeli article is certainly the better one, with a clear secondary source to provide narrative coherence, but this doesn't mean it cannot be related to other articles, nor that the other articles must disappear. It simply doesn't work that way. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A truly wonderful idea

“Allegations of French apartheid draw analogies between France and apartheid-era South Africa”

At last, an introductory sentence truly fitting for a serious, reliable encyclopedia ! Thank’s to this budding “Allegations of X country being the new apartheid South-Africa” series, to be followed, hopefully, by “Allegations of personnality X being the new Hitler”, Wikipedia should eventually break away from its previous image as a Pokemon and porn actresses thesaurus. Allow me to pay hommage to the geniuses who initiated this project. Watch your back, EB! Miuki 08:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind little sarcasm, but that last idiom sounds very unwikipedian to me. And for the record, most of us don't take the sides. Have nice day. Merci beaucoup. greg park avenue 15:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself! I'm off to Popeye's right now and I'm gettin' the rice & beans AND the mac 'n cheese with my wings.

I'm speaking for everybody and if someone is taking sides, he/she will say so. Just don't forget to sign underneath. Lunch is some idea. Have also some red, red wine at Popoye coming with UB40, Hunterz and the Dhol Blasters from the jutebox if they got one in Paris. greg park avenue 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So who says that we are taking sides? No one, not even one person. Who alleges that there is apartheid in South Africa or in Serbia? No one. Only US and its friends has been accused for that. France for being our ally in NATO, under pretext of banning wearing Arafat style headgear by schoolgirls (it was really stupid move because who cares how schoolchildren dress for school?), Saudi Arabia for selling us oil for half the price - buy one barrel, get one free, Puerto Ricans for admitting them in without visa (they don't even need a passport to enter the US, just the birth certificate) - and that's why so many people scream bloody murder - apartheid! That's the story, my friend. Don't take offence. How was lunch, sorry, dinner in France at this time? greg park avenue 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nature of centralized discussion

User:Victor falk posted in Talk:Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid a request that discussion on that article happen here. I disagree with this view. Content for individual articles should be discussed. Centralized discussion should be for meta issues as those might be common to a series of articles, not individual content issues as these are unique to each article.--Cerejota 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a tough call, Cerejota. You're certainly right that the articles should be evaluated independently; articles that violate policy should not be buoyed by superficial resemblance to legitimate articles, and conversely legitimate articles should not be dragged down by their superficial resemblance to unsourced or non-notable dreck. On the other hand, there are two major policy violations common to seven of the eight "apartheid" articles – namely, original research and a lack of secondary sources establishing notability, which is unsurprising given that these seven have been written by the same small group of editors. And given that that group of editors is explicitly using those seven articles to try to leverage the eighth, and using their keep/delete votes purely for strategic (as opposed to policy-based) purposes, it may be that we need some sort of "comprehensive" discussion to get past the impasse caused by their organized disruption.--G-Dett 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself. Do you think we should have content talk on centralized discussion or not?--Cerejota 16:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Since so many of the "content" issues that arise are rooted in the nature of the prank itself, and since the point of this page is to address and resolve the prank, I suppose the answer is yes. I acknowledge there's a risk of discussion becoming unwieldy.--G-Dett 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of why we need to approach this problem comprehensively, as a coordinated campaign of serial WP:POINT-violation verging on group vandalism: [3]. In Victor's version, a reader who types in "Gender apartheid" would be redirected to "sex segregation" – the topic the reader is looking for, and the topic addressed by every single reliable source using the phrase "gender apartheid." Now, after the edit in question, the reader will be redirected to a topic that a) they weren't looking for; b) doesn't exist as a topic outside of Wikipedia; and c) is not a synonym for "gender apartheid" but is rather a different order of phenomenon altogether. Looking for an article on forced separation of the sexes, they'll instead receive an implicit lecture from Jayjg about how the phrase they typed is controversial outside of its South African context. At some point this kind of passive-aggressive bullshit-edit crosses the line into vandalism, and should be treated as such.--G-Dett 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, in all honesty, this is a centralized discussion, which we can agree at the very least serves the purpose to allow the venting of personal opinion. Tone down the wikilawyering, I am pretty sure G-Dett is aware of policy. However, I agree G-Dett must really tone down: it is not productive.--Cerejota 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a centralized discussion of what to do about these articles; it's not a message board for attacking Wikipedians, regardless of one's personal opinion regarding them. And being aware of policy and acting on it are entirely different things; constant reminders of policy are the only way of insisting that policy be followed. It's not wikilawyering by any stretch of the imagination. If everyone responded to these constant policy violations in this way, then the individuals in question would moderate their behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

JayJG, several editors have been doing exactly that on this page, but it does not seem to have moderated your behaviour at all. Please tone it down, it's starting to look like disruption. —Ashley Y 02:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Y, turnspeak, while amusing, is unproductive. Your attempts to pin this on me, while ignoring egregious violations on the part of others, is unsurprising, but equally unacceptable. Use the page for productive Talk: about articles; do not address me personally any further. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is unhelpful. Please try to see your own part in this, regardless of the parts of others. It's the only way we're going to get back on track. —Ashley Y 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ashley, your comments are unhelpful. I know we've had many disagreements in the past regarding article content, but that's no reason to bring your personal issues to this page. Address the civility violations of other editors; don't address me personally any more. That's the only way we're going to get back on track. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem, G-Dett, is that sandwiched between your POV pushing and those of the pranksters, are editors who want to build an encyclopedia of notable, verifiable, neutrally presented information.

Your deletionist position - while supported by many well meaning wikipedians - is a weak one, as the example of the deletion of Allegations of Jordanian apartheid shows, egregious excess will be noted and deleted by the community. The wikipedia community has curious knack for turning cruft into useful information, and I think we should resist the urge to delete everything just because we don't like it. We must in turn take a deep breath and realize what this is about: if the allegations against France are less notable than those against Israel, any half informed idiot will figure that out by her/himself.

This is why Exploding whale (and its own - some WP:POINT - series illustrated in {{exploding organisms}}) is important, it is something that at first glance seems ridiculous and crufty, but when explored, turns out to be precisely the kind of stuff we can afford to do because we are not a paper encyclopedia.

So look at the wider picture (and this goes out to Uthorgie & co and the alleged crew of alleged meatpuppets around that POV side): are you here as a wikipedia, or as a propagandist of your POV? If you are here as a propagandist of your POV, you will be seen through by those who dislike that, and would be exponentially unproductive with those propagandists of the opposing POV. If you are here as a wikipedian, then surely it will show, and you would take to heart things like civility, trying to understand the other position, the WP:5P etc.

This is why I disagree with a centralized discussion of content:

It essentially argues that propagandists of various POVs get together, and measure muscle, and develop critical mass, and then act, not according to the values of wikipedia, but according to the values of their POV.

Instead of defending their POV by using the tools of wikipedia, by reasoned argument, careful research, and seeking consensus, we are creating an arena that basically invites unbridled soapboxing, and possibly the deletion of articles that deserve inclusion, simply because none is listening to each other.

As I learned from my premature merge request of the France article, even stubs can grow quickly into useful articles.

This is not a soapbox. Verifiability not truth.
You can always get the fork out of here!!!

--Cerejota 01:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the confusion here could be resolved if we attempted to deal with the Israeli article seperate from the series of articles created by Urthogie and Jayjg, and possibly seperate from the main Allegations of apartheid article. The major point of contention clearly lies there, continuing this discussion without addressing that will only muddle up the discussion more than it already is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and made some attempts above. Since numerous people have suggested the need for a global solution, I'm continuing to hope someone will be able to offer one that might work. Mackan79 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Cúchullain, there have been 13 "Allegations of apartheid" articles. Which ones did I create? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you started them yourself, but that these articles have been largely the work of your and Urthogie. Just of the survivors, you've been a (in some case the) major contributor at Brazil, China, France, and Saudi Arabia (which you started).--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I created 1 of the 13 articles. On most of those articles I've made 10 to 20 edits; I don't think I've made the majority of edits on any of them. The series as a whole has had over 4,000 edits made to it, of which I'm responsible for perhaps 200 or so. Dozens and dozens of people have been involved here. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you're really splitting hairs here. You have made very significant contributions to all four of the articles I listed, as has Urthogie (who started most of them). Looking at Brazil, you easily made more contributions than anyone other editor, by number of edits and text added.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have made about half of the edits to the "Brazilian apartheid" page. I'm not sure why it's a bad thing, though; have I added bad sources, or misrepresented what the sources said, or violated some policy in relation to this? I think, on the contrary, I've been careful to choose high-quality sources that make interesting and challenging points on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You did quite a fine job as far as that's concerned, but that's beside the point. My point is that the "series" of later articles has largely been the work of two people. As such, I think it would fruitful to deal with them as a seperate issue from the original Israel article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to abandon the "global" approach, that dog just won't hunt. Perhaps we could use some very basic suggestion like not having the term "apartheid" in article titles, but the idea of a global solution is based on the incorrect assumption that we all agree the articles are really comprable.

This is at the very heart of the matter. The argument comes down between those who want the fate of the Israel article tied to the fate of the others, and those who don't. Those that don't are quite divided internally (some want the Israel article kept and the rest deleted, some want them all deleted, some want each reviewed individually, etc.), but the real divide between us is over the relation of unit A (the Israel article) to unit B (the others). Progress will come when we examine the units seperately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You've created a false dichotomy; for most editors (including me), some of these articles have seemed encyclopedic and notable, and others not. On the other hand, more than one person has suggested getting the term "apartheid" out of the article titles would go some way towards cooling the heat here. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jayjg, but that sounds dangerously close to the quid pro quo some around here have accused you of instigating. Is your intention really to reach this type of agreement? That would lend credibility to those who say you and others are behind an effort to hold wikipedia hostage... because it sounds like a ransom request. I assume this isn't the case, but care to elaborate?--Cerejota 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Several users think the French and Brazil and Saudi allegations articles are notable, and other ones like American are not. If anything, the various ranging opinions from keep all to keep some to delete all illustrate how intertwined the fates of these respective articles truly are.--Urthogie 15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean not true? I said "some want each reviewed individually"; this would include those who want one article kept and another deleted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but surely Cuchullain is right that the central dispute here is between "those who want the fate of the Israel article tied to the fate of the others, and those who don't." The users you allude to – who say Brazil yay, America nay, etc. – presumably do not see the fates of the individual articles as linked. Such users and I might find ourselves in disagreement over individual articles – for example I think the Cuba article may meet notability requirements, though in its present form it's a primary-source quote farm – but we would be together on one side of the central debate here, in that we'd be arguing for a single set of policy standards that each article has to meet on its own.--G-Dett 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason the Israel article still exists is surviving AFD's. Same with the France article. Any discussion which is in denial of France having passed the same test As Israel's article can progress nowhere. (Yes, i know Israel has been nominated several times, but that's proportional to how long its been here)--Urthogie 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that the first two nominations of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article were straw man nominations by sockpuppets, one by the very person who created it. The intent was to present bad arguments for deleting, so that the article would be kept, and so that subsequent AfDs would include a bunch of "Keep - please respect previous AfD" type votes. A lo and behold, that's exactly what happened. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We keep coming back to the Israel article. Does anyone really think this isn't the central issue here?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No. And those who say otherwise, lie. However, this is ultimately irrelevant, and only concerns POV pushers on both sides. What I am really concerned about is in expanding the quality and quantity of content in wikipedia.

Regarding Allegations of Israeli apartheid title change, I have said it again and will repeat it again. There is a debate around Israel and the analogy of apartheid thta is rather unique, which is the existence of a notable, verifiable, and reliable secondary (and at times primary and even tertiary) source that clearly generates a non-original research narrative that specifies apartheid vis a vis israel as a notable debate in itself. That is Adam and Moodley. This means that we cannot eliminate the word Apartheid or Israel from the title, without in effect deleting or merging or in some other way significantly changing the scope meaning and coverage provided by the article at this point. I do agree with changing to something that fits the seocndary source better, like Debate on Israel and apartheid or Israeli apartheid debate or soem such. But it is clear that there is a wealth of information and secondary and tertiatry sources that lend notability to this narrative.

Currently, this is the only one of this nature, but I think further investigation will reveal that at least the Brazilian, French, Saudi and even Puerto Rican pages might actually come up with the same type of source. This is why I oppose blanket rename or discussions, and demand that each be individually evaluated rather than as a group. Remember Exploding whale et al, where humans keept getting deleted but other organisms didn't... Thanks!--Cerejota 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another way of putting it is that we have a choice between A) a speech-code-type approach to resolving the situation, in which we'd decide whether the word "apartheid" should be banned from Wikipedia subjects outside of South Africa, regardless of notability; and B) an existing-policy approach, whereby we'd hash out a collective articulation of how WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV (including WP:UNDUE) will apply to articles about "allegations of apartheid," and then evaluate each of the articles individually and rigorously according to those criteria.

Obviously my preference is for B, partly because of my distaste for speech codes and partly because I think the existing rules are fully equipped to sort out this impasse, but I'd be very curious to hear others' thoughts here.--G-Dett 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Then B approach it is, unless someone wants to introduce an "A-word" to the Wikipedia's hand jive list of taboo words like in jails for "N"- and "J"-words (J meaning J-cat) as its poor substitute. greg park avenue 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A Skeleton Dummy

First, I'll refer to Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid#Article_titles_and_NPOV.

Second, when looking at history, one sees many compromises such as Debate about the controversial allegations of soi-disant "apartheid" in Israel, Judea, Samaria, the Occupied Territories in the West Bank & Gaza, and the Palestinian National Authority. Most of those monsters were stillborn and non survived an early age.

Third, I believe there should not be any article called "allegations of X apartheid". Both "allegations" and "apartheid" are sly and slippery words, so an article title then beccomes quadruply inflammatory, or something.

That leaves two logical options: "Segregation in Israel", and "Israeeli apartheid". We know what happened with the latter. Regarding the former, G-Dett summed up the objections thusly: "a) it's a different topic; and b) the word "segregation" is itself highly charged (in the U.S. context)"

• b) is most easily countered by WP:GLOBALISE. Just as Israelis'll have to learn that most people think about the security wall and not about the apartheid debate when they hear "apartheid wall", Americans'll have to learn that "segregation" is not an highly charged word in the rest of the world.
• a) I think it's actually an argument for having that title. Not only that, but also one of the strongest. By necessity, one has to provide context when writing an encyclopedic article about a highly controversial debate. There might be a time and a place for such an article, but not until there is an article that describes the segregation or lack thereof in Israel. First after the topic has been treated within such an article, can it be expanded into its own article (which should be the exception rather than the rule, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of chess)

So here's Segregation in Israel.

Most of the content could be gathered from articles in the "See Also" section; all of those articles are of high quality, and there is no reason why this one shouldn't be either. --Victor falk 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's written in Latin. greg park avenue 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew there was something odd about it.--G-Dett 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the dummy article with the Latin ought to be moved immediately either to user-space or perhaps it could be a sub-page to this page. But if it stays where it is, I suspect it is going to get tagged for speedy deletion, speedily. Second of all, if the issue at hand is the title of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, I have read all the various discussions of using the word "segregation" and I don't think it is really accurate. "Discrimination" would be more accurate. Or perhaps we don't have to call it anything in the title. Several people have opined that the most important thing in this article (or the only secondary source in the article) is the description of Adam and Moodley's work. Having now read it, I think it belongs in an article on the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (which already exists). Maybe there could be a sub-article, something like "Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", or "Accusations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "Rhetoric in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". I think I like the last one best of all. It is neutral and accurate. But any of them would be better than what we have now. 6SJ7 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Victor, this is what I meant when I wrote, "by substituting 'segregation' for 'apartheid,' we'd just be steering our impasse from one room into another." Between the "segregation" title and 6SJ7's "Rhetoric in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," however, I'd have to say the latter is closer to the topic. It would be a very, very broad article, however, as a number of existing articles would be merged into it: New antisemitism, Pallywood, and so on.--G-Dett 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"very, very broad"? That's a tiny, tiny, bit understated (^_^) ...--Victor falk 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I have to admire your cleverness and tenacity, but as we used to say in the old neighborhood, for crying out loud! I am trying to see if we can resolve a dispute here, not create a bunch of new disputes! 6SJ7 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head here. That is the fundamental difference. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is of course both discrimination and segregation occurring in Israel, as in all other countries. An article called "Discrimination in Israel" would cover things like lower wages and racism against Arab citizens, Thai immigrants, etc.

Segregation has a geographical connotation and a secondary meaning of separation that "discrimination" is lacking. And it is those special types of geographical separation, such as the separation barrier, the unilateral disengagement plan, and Hafrada that create the allegations of apartheid.--Victor falk 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this analysis. See for comparison Segregation in Northern Ireland and Religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, two articles which I've been working up in the past few days. -- ChrisO 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we use an acronym? It would soften the term's epithetic blow, and we could simultaneously create a speech code and circumvent it. I suggest Israeli Diaper Hat Debate.--G-Dett 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles that are actually relevant to Allegations of Israeli apartheid are Human rights in Israel and West Bank. Most of the "Israeli apartheid" article isn't about "Segregation in Israel" at all, unless you're willing to concede at this point that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Segregation vs discrimination: for reference

• Discrimination: Definitions [4]. Etymology [5]. Synonyms [6].

• Segregation: Definitions [7]. Etymology [8]. Synonyms [9].--Victor falk 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support Rhetoric in the Arab-Israeli conflict if it also includes New antisemitism. If such an obvious rhetorical device is allowed to exist as a title, I do not see why Allegations of apartheid. Thanks! --Cerejota 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Cerejota; best suggestion yet on this page.--G-Dett 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Compare also Islamofascism and Homosexual agenda. Not Allegations of Islamofascism, or Allegations of a homosexual agenda, I note. I would be interested to know why such bald yet controversial titles are acceptable but Israeli apartheid isn't. Is it really just a question of whose ox is being gored? -- ChrisO 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference being that a) antisemitism describes a real phenomenon, b) what actually constitutes antisemitism has always been debated, and c) those to whom the label applies inevitably deny it. On the other hand, everybody agrees that Israel isn't practicing actual apartheid, since only South Africa practiced that. In other words, the term is recognized by all as an analogy, metaphor, comparison, what have you. Contrariwise, "New Antisemitism" is seen by its proponents as real antisemitism, not a metaphor for antisemitism. The other differences between the articles would be the fact that there are literally a dozen highly recognized scholars who have discussed "New antisemitism", and the reflects that. Not so for "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, Adam and Moodley and Benny Morris are not notable scholars... not mention that Haaretz has had a series of appearances of highly noted academics who speak of apartheid... However, I think you are drawing a fine line here: There is indeed Antisemitism and this is not debated. In fact from time to time we are infused in these article with such a phenomena. However, "New Antisemitism" is not only a rhetorical device, it is a rhetorical device used in particular by the right-wing of the political spectrum to attack the left-wing of the political spectrum. The notable academics you mention do not use the term as serious academic discourse, but as rhetorical devices in political debates. There isn't even the equivalent of Adam and Moodley (a jewel of a study even -or specially- where I disagree with it) for New Antisemitism: sage-like pronunciations and propaganda pamphlets, while all valid content for wikipedia, cannot constitute a claim of superiority in terms of title.

In the final analysis, New antisemitism is the mirror image of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, the allegations being used mostly by the left-wing to attack the right-wing. This is why it is attractive to me...NPOV requires that in the battle of ideas, the battleground should be defined equally: by creating Rhetoric in the Arab-Israeli conflict as a merge of both, we can create such an equal battleground. Let the games begin!--Cerejota 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Moodley are indeed scholars, as is Benny Morris. How much of the article reflects their views, though, vs. talking head soundbites from partisans? As for your analysis of New antisemism, it is not, in fact, "the right wing attacking the left wing". And mixing these different concepts is a classic example of original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to take issue with the assertion that "allegations of Israeli apartheid" aren't covered by recognised scholars. This is trivially disprovable - search Google Books for "Israel apartheid" and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of books discussing the topic. There are several entire books specifically about it (see the works of Uri Davis, for example). You can argue that the comparison isn't legitimate but you certainly don't have any grounds for arguing that it's not been documented by scholars. -- ChrisO 07:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the existing article reflect that? Davis is an academic, it's true, but is also a noted extremist, insisting he is a "Palestinian Jew" and, perhaps uniquely, insisting on living in a Palestinian community. One would hardly expect a particularly nuanced argument from him, and in any event, the article doesn't seem to use much of his material. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So does the fact the Davis defies the segregation endemic in Israeli society (i.e. that Jews must only live in Jewish communities) make him an extremist in your eyes? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the fundamental question remains, "Would this topic be better covered as part of another article, or is it better covered as a topic of its own." With the debate in Israel, I'm convinced it's become a topic of its own, much like New Antisemitism, Pallywood, or any number of similar articles. If it hadn't, I'm not sure Wikipedia would need to cover it at all. While articles on discrimination or segregation could certainly also be created, my nagging feeling is that those would really be less appropriate, by changing the natural terms of each of those discussions. In fact, that material is already treated in articles like Human_rights_in_Israel#Israel.27s_record:_human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories, or West_Bank_Closures, probably either of which are more natural ways of describing these controversies in Israeli society.

In terms of names, this is admittedly difficult; Israel Apartheid Debate still shows the most potential to me, in capturing a point I think could be better discussed in that article: the extent this term represents a full-on controversy in Israel both in what it alleges and as to those who have used the term. If this wasn't true when AoIa was initially created, it most certainly is now, as seen in the nearly endless commentary on Carter's book, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and on and on. The one other idea I have is to invert this, making Apartheid Debate (Israel), which would seem to clarify this point one further step, that the article discusses not just an allegation but an ongoing and extremely contentious multi-faceted debate with regard to Israel. I know this is outside what many are asking, but it seems about as far as you can go without simply deciding to write an article on something else, while the case for that related to other existing articles doesn't seem conclusive. Mackan79 01:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer anything that suggests "comparisons" rather than "allegations". The latter is a bit of a straw man, and allows people to say "it's not apartheid, that's by definition specific to South Africa", which misses the point that Carter et alii are making. —Ashley Y 09:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the term "apartheid" that seems to upset objectors to all of these articles, so the suggestion doesn't seem engendered to solve the problem. In the case of the Israeli article, no doubt the entire debate could be easily and sensibly captured in a Human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip article. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be not a bad idea, though I'm not sure. I'd like to see some input from other editors.--Victor falk 13:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe Tiamat's is a response below. My problem also remains, that this is still a different topic, which would effectively bury a very prominent debate. In discussing this earlier, one idea was to go ahead and create that article as somewhat of a parallel to AoIa, for a neutral discussion of the various "facts on the ground." This makes sense for a number of reasons, and would be a way of reducing some of that material in the AoIa article. It also became apparent articles like here already discuss that material, while also clarifying where the issues differ. I think either article could be part of a solution here, if some greater effort were made to reduce a lot of the quotes in the Israel article, while directing readers to those for neutral discussions of the factual issues. That would more appropriately limit the article to the discussion of the rhetorical debate, which I think many of us feel is what justifies the article. Mackan79 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it make sense then to start moving the "facts on the ground" material to the more relevant article, pruning down the AoIa article, and see what is left after this process is complete? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's something to try. I thought it was something Cerejota was working on, though I'm not sure how far he's come; I noticed on looking through it earlier today that much of the factual material appears to have already been removed. There do remain a lot of extraneous quotes and repetition. I can look at it, not necessarily a great deal right now. Of course the other articles remain an issue; if someone with concerns with the Israel article actually made an effort to improve it, though, I'd be more comfortable that we're making progress on all the rest of this. Mackan79 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's something to try. Meanwhile regarding the other articles, in light of my exchange with Benjamin (below), I think Wikipedia's idiosyncratic definition of apartheid has played a fundamental role in creating conditions for the mess we find ourselves in. WP's working definition of apartheid essentially has a) carved away a core part of the standard dictionary definition (its applicability to non-SA contexts), and then b) treated all of the many instances of the word's use that fell under the excised part of the definition as deviant and therefore intrinsically notable. Hence all the quote-farm articles, with no objective indications of notability. --G-Dett 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ashley is right that the "it's not apartheid, that's by definition specific to South Africa" line misses the point, just as it would miss the point to say that "ethnic cleansing (etničko čišćenje) is by definition specific to the former Yugoslavia." At any rate the claim is objectively false. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "apartheid" as follows:

Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European (Coloured or mixed, Bantu, Indian, etc.); applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib.

The misconception that "apartheid" only properly refers to South Africa, and that any other use is a metaphorical extension that must be documented and explained by Wikipedia, is perhaps the core misconception spawning this whole disastrous series. That some sources use a term in its dictionary sense is decidedly not notable, unless some other sources note it and begin to discuss or debate the usage itself.--G-Dett 14:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah ! I have to admit I thought it was only for South Africa. My bad, sorry. Note that our Apartheid article doesn't help much: "Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans, cognate to English apart and -hood) was a system of ethnic separation in South Africa from 1948, and was dismantled in a series of negotiations from 1990 to 1993, culminating in democratic elections in 1994." (I see there's also a legal definition at Crime of apartheid but ... what to do with that one ?). Benjamin.pineau 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not your bad, Benjamin, the apartheid-related articles on Wikipedia constitute something of an ecosystem unto itself, its groundwater contaminated by this core sophistry. It may also be interesting to look at the history of the History of South Africa in the apartheid era article you've quoted from, beginning with edits like these: [10] [11] Note that the article used to be called simply Apartheid (now a redirect), and that it began thusly:

Apartheid is an Afrikaans word, meaning "separation" or literally "apartness". In English, it has come to mean any legally sanctioned system of racial segregation, such as existed in The Republic of South Africa between 1948 and 1990. The first recorded use of the word is in 1917, during a speech by Jan Smuts, then Prime Minister of South Africa.

Until folks you've recently made the acquaintance of arrived there. What you see now on all apartheid-related pages is an intricately designed, hermetic, self-referential semantic wiki-world in which "apartheid" refers only to South Africa – pace the OED, pace common usage – and all other instances of its usage, the many thousands of them, are "attempts to extend the meaning" (an unsourced notion of course) which in their very deviance are intrinsically notable, therefore meriting articles organized by country which collect such instances and build narratives around them.--G-Dett 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't quote Wikipedia's own definition from one moment in time. Here's the Encyclopaedia Britannica's:

Apartheid. (Afrikaans: “apartness”), policy that governed relations between South Africa's white minority and nonwhite majority and sanctioned racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against nonwhites. The implementation of apartheid, often called “separate development” since the 1960s, was made possible through the Population Registration Act of 1950, which classified all South Africans as either Bantu (all black Africans), Coloured (those of mixed race), or white. A fourth category—Asian (Indian and Pakistani)—was later added.

No mention of "any legally sanctioned system of racial segregation." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slim, I wasn't quoting the previous WP definition as authoritative (!); I was quoting it to show that the article Benjamin was quoting from has been seriously shaped by the dispute we're working through on this page, and that the very definition of apartheid has always been central to that dispute. The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, is about as authoritative a source on linguistic usage as you can get.--G-Dett 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If citing the OED is too anglophilic for some tastes, here's Merriam-Webster:

Function: noun
Etymology: Afrikaans, from apart apart + -heid -hood
1 : racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa
2 : SEPARATION, SEGREGATION <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

It may be worth stressing that as use of the word as a general term has become standard, the word is less and less to be found in italics or within inverted commas, which are standard for foreign terms. In other words, the term's 'naturalization' into standard English has proceeded apace with its becoming a general as opposed to proper noun.--G-Dett 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

From the World Book Encyclopedia, volume "A", last copyrighted in 1974, found in basement of my house, must undust it before copying:

APARTHEID, ah PAHRT hayt, is the South Afican government's policy of rigid racial segregation. Its official goal is the separate development of the nation's several racial groups. Laws isolate these groups in most activities, but especially in education, employment, housing, politics, and recreation. The word apartheid means apartness in Afrikaans, one of the official languages of South Africa.

Apartheid not only segregates whites and nonwhites, but it also has led to efforts to segregate South Africa's nonwhite groups from one another. For example, certain residential areas are reserved for persons of a particular racial group. To enforce segregated housing, the government has moved thousands of families. A nonwhite must have a pass to even enter a white neighborhood. Schools are completely segregated. Nonwhites cannot serve in Parliament or hold certain jobs that are reserved for whites.

Apartheid became an official policy of South Africa after the Nationalist Party gained control of the government in 1948. This party is dominated by Afrikaners, the descendants of the early Dutch settlers of South Africa. South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth of Nations in 1961 after other member nations criticized its racial policies.

Thomas F. Pettigrew

Now, the keyword is the government's policy. I hope it helps. greg park avenue 03:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The term Pallywood is objectionable to me, but I don't think that renaming it Allegations of the Palestinian manipulation of the broadcasting of current events would solve my problem with the article. As it is, I concede that there are some sick people out there who like to ascribe all kinds of wrongdoing to Palestinians using whatever feeble evidence they can muster. Now, I can either pretend that they don't exist and try to delete or rename the article, or I can accept that they do exist and try to make the article as faithful a representation of their views and those who reject them, as possible. Similarly, I don't think it's the word "apartheid" which is objectionable to editors who oppose the creation of an Israeli apartheid article, it's the subject itself. But the fact is that the subject exists, there is a discussion around it, and therefore it has to be faithfully represented by us, using terminology that discusses the subject in question and not euphemisms that cloud which subject it is exactly that is under discussion. Mackan's suggestion for Israeli apartheid debate or Israeli apartheid analogy or Apartheid debate (Israel) all some like great ways of including "apartheid" (the analogy being discussed) without taking sides in the debate. Tiamat 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid analogy is the best, most neutral choice I've seen. It avoids the straw man of allegations, and it doesn't even imply that there be such a thing as apartheid outside SA. —Ashley Y 05:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article name, the words "allegations" was used to neutralize the epithet "apartheid"; attempts to remove one without the other are an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A false deduction. Yes, "allegations" neutralizes "apartheid", but so does "analogy". As the article says, "Allegations of Israeli apartheid draw an analogy..." —Ashley Y 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On this matter it would probably be better to canvas the opinions of those who are bothered by the term "apartheid", rather than simply stating the views of one who approves of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, everyone here "approves" of the term apartheid in WP articles, with the exception of Victor. On the one side, there are those who support a copiously sourced and notable article involving the term apartheid. On the other side there are those who support seven quote-farm articles using the term apartheid, each of which lacks secondary sources. One side has stringent demands regarding notability; the other has very loose and relaxed standards regarding notability. That is the core of the debate.--G-Dett 10:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In the same fashion those who find Pallywood and New antisemitism are canvassed for their opinion? Come on!

This would mess would be resolved in a second if people realized the "apartheid" in the title comes from Adam and Moodley - as secondary source - and it is actually OR to eliminate it. Adam and Moodley didn't set out to study "Human rights in the West Bank and Gaza strip" they set out to study allegations of Israeli apartheid. Period.

Like Nigger, you cannot simply rename the article something other than what it is about simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or find it offensive. I mean, I am very sure that any black person in the world finds the use of the word "nigger" as an insult at least as offensive as a Zionist finds Israeli apartheid (which is why I originally supported Israeli apartheid as a title: even if it is an epithet, it deserves to be represented as is, not weasel-worded. Now the article has changed, so it is a moot point). If we were to correctly respond to not being offensive, we would rename it to The N word, rather than it being a redirect. NPOV - Article naming clearly states title changes should not be used to settle POV disputes. I think the fundamental problem is that we are all trying to push POV instead of letting the sources speak. In fact, if we were to do a true NPOV title, it would be Views on Israeli apartheid as per WP:NPOV itself. Of course, I have said I can live with Allegations, in so far as the content is clear. Thanks! --Cerejota 01:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about this article, not any other articles; WP:OTHERSTUFF is much more relevant. And I'm not trying to rename the article; rather, others are suggesting it be renamed, and it just so happens that those people are also those who approve of the article in the first place. Solutions that satisfy only people on one side of this issue aren't really solutions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

so you want it deleted pure and simple? am I understanding correctly?--Victor falk 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review the false dilemma. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Quite nice. If I ask for a "yes" or "no", I'm guilty of false dilemma, and if I ask for elaboration, it's the fallacy of many questions[12].--Victor falk 02:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you stop trying to put words in my mouth you won't have to keep reading articles on logical fallacies. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of "false dilemma" and "logical fallacy" before, but I believe it's good etiquette to check the sources one is referred to.--Victor falk 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The first thing in the article is to define "allegations" as an analogy. The whole lead then discusses the analogy. Adam and Moodley also use the word "analogy". In fact, the article in general refers to "the analogy" and "comparisons" much more than to actual allegations that the situation in Israel or Palestine is apartheid. —Ashley Y 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some sources describe it as an "analogy". How does that "neutralize" the term "apartheid"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A better question is, should "apartheid" be used as an epithet that needs to be "neutralized"? "Israeli apartheid analogy" means as analogy between Israeli policy and the original apartheid in South Africa: the word "apartheid" is not being used as an epithet. —Ashley Y 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously some people feel the term does indeed need to be neutralized in some way, as they have expressed quite eloquently on many different AfDs. That is also why the articles have the word "Allegations" the title. Rather than trying to ignore that reality, you should accept it and search for compromises that will be acceptable to all sides, not just your own. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with them, "allegations" might be necessary if "apartheid" is going to be used as an epithet. Instead I propose using it to refer to the original. And I have no interest in "compromise" between "sides": I am looking for consensus based on appeal to policy. —Ashley Y 02:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The various sides have very different views of what policy demands here, and consensus will require compromise between the sides, so you should probably be interested in that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If I can step in, "Analogy" neutralizes the title in a few ways. Primarily it clarifies that the article is about an analogy that some have drawn, not a phenomenon of "Israeli Apartheid." I think that is the primary problem with "Israeli Apartheid," that it is unclear where this is a phrase or an agreed-upon reality. It also suggests, like the current title, that these are primarily direct allegations, as opposed to the more abstract comparisons it often is in practice. That may be less vital, but I think the first point is important. Mackan79 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Since it is specific to that article, I have summarised the arguments on Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. —Ashley Y 03:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the place to solve the systemic problem, not specific article pages. That's what it's for. As I pointed out there, if you insist on "analogy" in the title, then Apartheid analogy (Israel) makes more sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not addressing the systemic problem here, nor am I here making any particular recommendations about renaming other articles. —Ashley Y 03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Piecemeal attempts to resolve these issues in the past have inevitably failed, and this is the page for addressing the systemic issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

would you accept to delete/redirect all the other articles if a satisfactory name is found for the israel article?--Victor falk 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal view is that systemic solutions should be proposed. I haven't pre-judged what those solutions should be. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Victor falk 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the unfortunate aspects of the creation of all the other "allegations" articles is the damage it does to the rest of the encyclopaedia. People have created articles about allegations of apartheid without (I assume) any particular interest or knowledge in these other countries, and regardless of the existing set of articles about their social issues. I'm glad to see that at least the Northern Ireland article was moved to a more sensible name, perhaps others might follow suit with input from editors familiar with these countries. —Ashley Y 05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been no "damage" to the encyclopedia, and these continuing bad faith appeals to motive and proofs by assertion are disruptive; please desist. Regarding AFDs or RFPMs, there are proper venues for that. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Thanks. —Ashley Y 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:AGF. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. —Ashley Y 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been, well, allegations of damage to wikipedia, that's why we're having this very debate...--Victor falk 01:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A solution?

User:Jayjg has made an interesting suggestion at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. During the course of a discussion on a proposed rename to "Israeli Apartheid Analogy", he suggested that "Apartheid analogy (Israel)" would be a more sensible choice. (It is not clear if Jayjg actually supports this proposal himself.)

I think this suggestion is worth considering, as seems to resolve two of the three problems associated with this troubled page: (i) it removes the dubious phrase "Allegations of" from the article title, and replaces it with something neutral, and (ii) it would (presumably) bring to a close the ongoing efforts to delete the page, if Jayjg and his allies are willing to accept the rename.

The only problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't address the recent proliferation of unencyclopedic articles purporting to examine comparisons between other nations and apartheid-era South Africa. That said, it doesn't make matters any worse and would be a marked improvement over the present situation in other respects.

What do other editors think? CJCurrie 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

“ Hold on, everyone here "approves" of the term apartheid in WP articles, with the exception of Victor. On the one side, there are those who support a copiously sourced and notable article involving the term apartheid. On the other side there are those who support seven quote-farm articles using the term apartheid, each of which lacks secondary sources. One side has stringent demands regarding notability; the other has very loose and relaxed standards regarding notability. That is the core of the debate.--G-Dett 10:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC) ”

Your description of the problem is spot on.

I do not oppose an article on the israeli apartheid debate with "apartheid" in the title. I have proposed titles without it to satisfy those that find "israel" and "apartheid" in the same title provocative. Jayg's proposal of integrating with "Human rights in the West Bank and Gaza" is acceptable to me. Personally, I don't mind it having it since, well, it's what it's about. I find Israel apartheid analogy, which has been floated upthread and supported by several editors, viable. Regarding "apartheid analogy (Israel)", my worry is that it invites to having Apartheid analogy (X) articles, and that we would then be back to square one.--Victor falk 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

CJ, You're starting another war of names, what I think all this mess concerning Israel is about. If Israelis back in 1948 wouldn't named that land Israel when seceding from Great Britain, but somehow more neutral like "The Sovereign State of Palestine", then Jihad would probably never happened. The name "Israel" offended Arabs, while "Palestine" was completely neutral meaning the territory, the name of land, not religion. Now change the "Israeli Apartheid Analogy" of yours into "Palestine Apartheid Analogy" and see how stupid it will look. "Palestine" and "Analogy" are the neutral words, while the word "apartheid" is not - in this context it will state that there is an apartheid in Palestine. Let try this, replace the name "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" by "Allegations of Palestinian apartheid" and see how it looks now, it even doesn't make any sense. And you know why? Because "allegations" and "Israeli" or "allegations" and "apartheid" are two loaded words, but these neutralize each other when used in combination, just like "-" and "-" give "+" meaning exactly this: there may not be necessarily an apartheid in Israel as defined in the World Book Encyclopedia (see above) but there are many allegations that there is. greg park avenue 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I share your (Victor Falk) concern with the Apartheid analogy (X) model. I think Israeli apartheid analogy is a very fine compromise that avoids the "allegations" weasal word and avoids being a formula that encourages (fill-in-the-blank) article creation. I would point out that "Israeli apartheid" as a term between quotes garners 174,000 hits, whereas "French apartheid" get about 225 hits. I believe the hits for other similarly named apartheid articles would be around the same. The term "Israeli apartheid" in other words, is notable in itself and should be part of the title of the article, with analogy tagged onto the end to put to rest the fears of those who feel that it standing alone is too much of an assertion of fact. Tiamat 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly a possible way forward, but I suspect it will not be accepted. As far as I can see, the editors involved in this discussion hold a number of mutually incompatible views towards the AoIa article:

1. The subject is notable and deserves an article, and the current article title is OK.

2. The subject is notable and deserves an article, but the current article title needs to be changed.

3. The subject is notable but should be treated as a subsection of an existing article so that Israel doesn't get greater attention than all the other cases.

4. The subject is illegitimate and should not be discussed at all in any article.

The third argument is based on a basic misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE and doesn't have any reliable basis in Wikipedia's policies. The fourth argument is, of course, based entirely on personal political sentiment and has no policy basis at all, but it seems to be a major factor in the arguments here. I note that many of the people involved in the AfDs on AoIa - including Jayjg - have voted to delete the article in its entirety, rather than merging it somewhere else; this suggests that they incline towards argument 4, disregarding all evidence of notability. I expect that these people are likely to object to any solution that doesn't result in the article being purged from Wikipedia. I hope I'm wrong in saying that, but past experience suggests otherwise. -- ChrisO 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the term "standing alone". It fits here. That's because Jews proclaiming independence back in 1948 went it all alone, killing the stereotype once and forever that they're the wisest folks on Earth. I only hope I didn't allienate anybody by this comment. Sorry if someone feels this way, it wasn't meant to. greg park avenue 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Greg, I hope I'm not being overly rude in saying that I find many of your comments completely incomprehensible and (as in this one above) bordering on trollish. If you don't have anything useful to contribute, please don't clutter up the discussion. -- ChrisO 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, I would agree with you about Greg's comments, but I have to say that I don't think your comments in this section are helping to achieve a solution either. Both Jayjg and I, and others, have discussed possible new names for the "Israel" article either on this page, the article's talk page, or related AfD pages. Has anyone said that only a deletion would be acceptable? 6SJ7 17:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being "completely incomprehensible", Chris (and 6SJ7), but Jimbo likes it bold, not overcautious (see this), but the word "trolling" according to Wikipedia is a synonym of Sock puppetry which I think hardly applies here. greg park avenue 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would second Tiamat in at least hoping that we don't need to put parentheses/quotes into the title. Ultimately I'd probably prefer either to the present, though punctuation would make me slightly more ambivalent. Also, I don't know about canvassing, but a straw poll on AoIa might be one option, which is probably how a name change would need to happen anyway. I believe the question here remains whether either of these options would allow for individualized treatment of the rest of the articles; this may indeed be a reason to avoid the parenthetical title, or there might be other options. Mackan79 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why you guys never say I second Tiamat but always I would second or I wouldn't? Like those weathermen in England saying that the weather not necessarily would be fair, meaning anything from blizzard to sea calm. And I think you missed the point. She didn't mention any parentheses or quotes, just the fact that the idiom in question about Israel has got more hits (ratio about 1000:1) on internet than about France, and as a matter of fact, is more notable this way, which sounds pretty logical to me. Now I even guess why. However, I must credit you for what you have tried to do, at least to address the challenge, not the person who wrote it. greg park avenue 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I second tiamat. And mackan too.--Victor falk 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There you talk like a man. Now we can go places in London if you show me around and maybe steal horses? greg park avenue 21:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving the information in all of the 'allegation' articles to more encyclopaedic locations is an option - but deleting them, while keeping one after a slight name change, is not. Labeling "Israeli apartheid" as analogy and not as mere allegation is even less NPOV. Essentially, making encyclopaedic topics of things popular in google, like say, fuck Bush, is not the way to go. Than again, may be I shouldn't have suggested that. btw:

• fuck Bush: 544,000 hits
• Israeli apartheid: 175,000

I'm somewhat relieved. Anyway, there's some serious trouble for some shitty little country. I wonder why - will the Protocols tell? I didn't bother so far, except for some summaries who, um, allege forgery. How about Systemic bias against Israel for a new topic? --tickle me 22:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is a painfully obvious double standard on the part of a number of editors who believe that "consensus" means "majority rule", and who, simultaneously, believe WP:ILIKEIT is synonymous with WP:NPOV. There is, and always has been, room for an article on Israeli apartheid: specifically, it should discuss the usage of the term as a false analogy, a politicized appeal to emotion, and so on. Instead, the article is used as a soapbox for a group of editors who happen to think this false analogy is a matter of fact...thereby twisting Wikipedia into yet another tool to forward the vile rhetoric that Israel is a "shitty little country" which is "the source of all the problems in the Middle East" (if not the entire world). Wikipedia policy, neutrality, and respectability continue to be held hostage by this pedantry. There is no encyclopedic value whatsoever to a collection of articles about "allegèd this" or "allegèd that". The move of Israeli apartheid, however, to Allegations of Israeli apartheid was supposèdly done precisely to make the title "more encyclopedic". It has not; all it's accomplished is to make obvious that the article contains nothing of encyclopedic value whatsoëver. It is, in fact, at best, of little more worth than the World Weekly News or the National Enquirer, and a Wikipedia foothold for stormfront at worst. In any case, the timing of this discussion is interesting. Like so many other similar discussions, I can't help but notice that it's begun on the eve of the Sabbath. This trend is beginning to look less and less like mere coïncidence... Tomer^talk 23:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you didn't get the drift of a bit of sarcasm used by Tickle and got too serious on the subject of the "shitty little country" which happens to be home for more than one nation, and now play Columbo on that assumption. Better back off until there's still time before you get too deep in mud. Uncle the Good Advise greg park avenue 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And there are only 928 hits on bloody Bush, that's amazing how those polite British lads love us or US (US + UK = League of Nations or what?). At least they don't smell fish behind every bush. So who is behind that awful rest (~500,000)? greg park avenue 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OT:

Tomer, while I concur with the soapbox issue, you're going over the top with that Sabbath conspiration theory. Pro Israel Wikipedians are rather suspected to be Zionists than Haredim by their foes. --tickle me 01:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tomer: since according to you I and other editors who defend the encyclopedic need and notability of the Israeli apartheid article are either tabloid falsifiers, or nazis, I think we don't have much to talk.

Please read WP:NPA. And of course, Godwin's Law (and no, your analogy is not valid).

And of course, books like Adam and Moodley's "Seeking Mandela" (both of which according to your criteria surely are either tabloid mythologists or nazis) establish without a doubt the notability and encyclopedic value of the analogy between South Africa's apartheid and the current situation in Israel.

Nevermind they prove that the analogy is problematic, misguided, and unempathetic with the plight of the European and Mediterranean Jews that founded Israel:

By even looking at the allegations in a serious fashion, they are "in fact, at best, of little more worth than the World Weekly News or the National Enquirer, and a Wikipedia foothold for stormfront at worst".

And then you dwelve in the worse of the worse of the conspiranoia: there is a surge of debate near the sabbath.

Well, I have a rather different take:

There has been a surge because in the last two months about 4 articles have been added to the series (including one that was deleted).

So it neither began on the eve of the Sabbath, nor is it new.

However, I do have an explanation for the seeming weekly coincidence: in all English speaking countries, the Sabbath coincides with Saturday, normally considered the first of two rest days after a five day work week. Some of us do have irregular hours or sacrifice sleep, but the bulk of us either study or work on other days, and hence have less time to edit wikipedia. Of course, as the rests days approach, there is more time. Nothing sinister, its just that the eve Sabbath and the eve of the first rest day of us tabloid journo/nazi goyim are exactlly the same!...

We are all smart people here, regardless of POV, and hence I think that the only thing that really gets to me is how casually we insult each other's intelligence by using sophism, conspiranoia, and strawmen to prop our own POVs. I try to avoid it at all costs, and I suggests others do the same. Not because it is policy, but because it is the right thing to do. Thanks! --Cerejota 04:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for "Apartheid analogy" Israel reports 510 hits and lists 225 real hits. Most are references to Jimmy Carter's book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, and there are a few hits related to Israeli Apartheid Week. "Israel Apartheid" searched as a quoted phrase reports 173,000 hits and returns 75 pages of hits, a Google limit. Those hits cover a much broader range of topics related to the subject. A search for "Israeli apartheid" allegations reports 19,500 hits (the first one is Wikipedia) and maxes out at 75 pages. So "Israel Apartheid" is the phrase in wide use, adding "allegations" still gets a substantial number of hits, but "Apartheid analogy" is a niche phrase. --John Nagle 07:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you hit the jackpot, John, with that Jimmy Carter's book. Now we can switch to Tiamut's version of "apartheid analogy" concerning Israel, which wasn't contested much anyway, but not before adding this book to the article as the principal reference with proper citations, and then we can proceed to the closing. This title is now notable, though for the Israeli article only. greg park avenue 12:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Two articles with Carter's book as principal reference?? While Palestine Peace Not Apartheid might be a fat cow in regards to factual errors, double encyclopaedic milking should deem a proper exercise to jackpot seekers only. --tickle me 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Carter's book is simply a notable that in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article serves two puposes:

1. Decry the use of the analogy for referring to Israel proper.
2. Make some allegations regarding the separation wall as a form of aparheid.

It is not a secondary source, and it is not by far the principal reference in Allegations of Israeli apartheid. In any case, Adam and Moodley are the principal source. Please read things before talking about them. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota is exactly right that Carter is a primary source not a secondary one; I am pleased to see the distinction finding a stable place in this discussion. It should be pointed out, however, that the notability of Carter's book is established by the flood of secondary-source commentary on his use of the analogy. --G-Dett 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This page really needs to be a page for new and innovative solutions, not a place where people attempt to get results they have been unable to achieve by other means. For a long time now supporters of the "Israeli apartheid" epithet have been trying to a) get the word "Allegations" out of the title of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, and more recently b) to get the other "Allegations of apartheid" articles deleted. They have generally failed at both, except in the case of poorly written "Allegations of apartheid" articles. This is not the place to re-hash the same arguments they made in trying to achieve those aims, or re-propose actions intended to achieve those same results. Instead, please propose systemic solutions that are not attempts to win already lost battles via other means. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So, Jay, do you actually support your own suggestion to move Allegations of Israeli Apartheid to Apartheid Analogy (Israel)? (Please note that I'm not ignoring your stated concerns regarding individualized vs systemic solutions. I suspect, however, that a viable resolution for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid will make our task much simpler elsewhere.) CJCurrie 04:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC), amended 05:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not suggest the article should be moved there, I pointed out that "Apartheid analogy (Israel)" would be a better name if one insisted on have the term "analogy" in the title. I've also commented elsewhere that "analogy" was inaccurate, as not all sources use the term as an "analogy". The only suggestion I've made is that solutions be systemic. My personal view is that renaming eight or so articles to some new convention isn't really much of a "solution". Do others think that moving the articles to "Apartheid analogy (Brazil)", "Apartheid analogy (China)", "Apartheid analogy (Cuba)", "Apartheid analogy (France)", "Apartheid analogy (Israel)" etc. will prove to be a long-term solution? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote above, "The only problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't address the recent proliferation of unencyclopedic articles purporting to examine comparisons between other nations and apartheid-era South Africa." So, no, I don't believe it will be a long-term solution to that particular concern. I also wrote, "That said, it doesn't make matters any worse and would be a marked improvement over the present situation in other respects." CJCurrie 07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, in my view the least "encyclopedic" of the current crop of "articles purporting to examine comparisons between other nations and apartheid-era South Africa" is the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article. As you have seen from the comments above, others feel the same way. By contrast, the Brazilian, Cuban, and French apartheid articles in particular are quite tidy little articles that bring interesting and important views to light in an encyclopedic and well-written way. The others could use a little work, but they aren't bad - certainly not as bad as the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article. That said, it's not really helpful to re-hash arguments that failed to win over editors in AfDs. You have your opinion, others have theirs. Let's leave it at that and move on to solutions. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, I'm quite aware that you and your allies have never accepted the validity of the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article in any form. It's precisely for that reason that we're in our current predicament. CJCurrie 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, I request that you try to adopt a more civil tone here; statements about "you and your allies" are not conducive to harmonious dialog. I also request that you avoid this kind of blaming; one could as easily state that it was the creation and nurturing of that non-encyclopedic proganda-fest of an article that is the reason we are in our current predicament - indeed, that would be, in my view, the accurate view. Regardless, please try to focus on solutions, not re-hashing old events and views, and pointing fingers. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, will you clarify two things? 1) Can you elaborate on your suggestion that "solutions be systemic"? I think everyone here wants a systemic solution, which is why they're participating in a centralized discussion, but there seems to be disagreement over what "systemic" should mean. My idea of a good systemic solution is one which rearticulates and reaffirms, in maximally explicit terms, how core policies and guidelines (especially those regarding sourcing and notability) would apply to any existing or proposed article about "allegations of apartheid." My idea of a bad systemic solution is one in which the legitimacy of one article is pegged to that of another solely on the basis of superficialities of structure and phraseology. 2) When you say this page should not be "a place where people attempt to get results they have been unable to achieve by other means," does this mean you won't be asking for the Israel article to be deleted or merged, and think such a request should be off the table?--G-Dett 14:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

1) A good systemic solution would be applied to all articles at the same time, and would be a compromise, rather than an attempt to achieve previously stated goals via other means (see comment below). 2) In my view, and that of many others, the only real solution for the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" POV-monstrosity is outright deletion, salt the earth, etc. The article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, a political propaganda-fest that a good encyclopedia (like Britannica) would never put up with. However, in the interests of trying to find a compromise here, I am willing to explore other options for that useless material that damages Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a systemic solution would be to merge all of the useful information in each of the articles to Human rights in X articles. If this were a vote, that's how I'd cast my ballot. IronDuke 01:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think merging to "Human rights in X" is the only encyclopedic and NPOV option. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your views, Iron Duke and Briangotts. The thing that concerns me about the current trend in the discussion is that supporters of the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article have, before this discussion, been openly trying to achieve two goals; a) get the word "Allegations" out of the title of the article, and b) get all the other "Allegations of apartheid" articles deleted. For some reason they seem to think that this is the place where they can achieve the exact same ends they were unable to achieve via other means and processes. In my view this is not really taking this venue seriously. Systemic solutions will be required here, and they will have to be compromises acceptable to all parties. Insisting on a solution that is exactly what you have tried to achieve (and failed at) before is not a compromise. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg's capacity for irony never ceases to amaze me. Those coming to this discussion late should note that he and his allies have tried to have the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid deleted several times, without success. The Human Rights in (x) suggestion strikes me as nothing more than the latest in a series of efforts toward that end; I imagine that it will meet with the same fate as previous efforts. (Btw, should I assume that Jayjg is opposed to any solution under which "Allegations of" will be removed from the article title?) CJCurrie 02:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving material to a different article/articles is hardly deleting it, though the latter would clearly be a much better outcome for Wikipedia in the case of the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" material. Please try to work towards compromises. Also, it would be best not to assume; for example, I certainly haven't ruled out the solution proposed by Iron Duke and seconded by Briangotts, which would, of course, also remove "Allegations of" from the titles of all of these articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, if I can contest your impression, the only reason I've suggested alternative names for the Israel article is in the hope that we can improve it to some point where its current critics will be comfortable letting the articles on each country be treated independently. I have no interest in changing the name against anyone's will. As G-Dett explained, I think pretty much the only thing many of us are hoping for here is to find an idea that will allow some grudging return to the status quo, where articles are dealt with based on their own merits. "Israel apartheid debate," "Israel apartheid analogy," "Apartheid debate (Israel)" and the rest were all intended as suggestions in this direction. Of course, I do think those articles would be improvements, in that they would be more encyclopedic than the "allegations" title, and in my view are less pointed than the current title. If others don't, however, then the question simply remains what we can do to unravel the current situation.

As far as Human Rights, we already have that article for Israel, which doesn't seem capable of covering this debate. Again, we're then back to asking whether all articles on accusatory debates or theories should be merged into other articles. Even then, "Human Rights" clearly isn't the right article for every country, while nobody here even has a hope of knowing the specific details for every country. These and other reasons are why I've suggested we need to be able to address the Israel article in some independent way to alleviate some of its issues so that the same approach can then be applied elsewhere. Mackan79 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as Human Rights, we already have that article for Israel, which doesn't seem capable of covering this debate.

Indeed. The Israeli Apartheid Analogy is a distinct subject which has been addressed by several academics and politicians -- most recently by Joseph Paritzky, a former cabinet minister in Ariel Sharon's government who believes the term is entirely appropriate for describing Israel's land laws. Hiding the analogy away on Human rights in Israel is not a viable option. CJCurrie 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why the subject matter, where relevant, can't be folded into Human Rights articles, and for all the apartheid articles. I suppose you could argue, "Yes, Israel has an apartheid system; no, that does not impinge on the rights of Palestinians in any way," but you'd need to do a good deal of convincing. At the moment, the attempt to prove the material in question doesn't belong under Human Rights has been merely a matter of assertion. I look forward to counter-arguments, if there are any. IronDuke 03:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm arguing that the "Israeli Apartheid" analogy is a sufficiently notable subject in its own right, and is worthy of being addressed on a separate page. I would also draw attention to the fact that several individuals (including yourself and Jayjg) have tried a variety of methods to have the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid page removed in the last year; this latest suggestion, as such, seems like another "back door" attempt at deletion. CJCurrie 03:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CjCurrie, as has been explained, moving material to a different article is not deleting it, though in truth deletion would be a much better outcome for Wikipedia. It seems clear that by "compromise" you so far mean "I will get my way on the title of the article, and I will get my way on deleting the other articles". That is not "compromise", that is insisting on getting your way on all items. Please try to work with other editors to achieve a middle ground. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few explanations in more detail. See the second comment on the thread here, which gets the main points. Basically, the issues here are substantial enough where trying to put this in another article doesn't seem justified. If you ctrl f for "Carter's book" I discussed another angle, which is the extensive response to these allegations as well as the surrounding debate. Tiamat also explained the "not censored" aspect here. I think those cover the main problems. Mackan79 04:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia debates such as this, the word "censored" is usually just an epithet thrown around to scare people out of making sensible editorial decisions. The proper response is Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Regarding your other point, there's no reason even issues you consider to be "substantial" could not be included in more encyclopedic articles; considering the fact that a large number of people think the material has no encyclopedic value at all, it seems a middle ground. Keep in mind, Britannica does not have an article on "Israeli apartheid", and never, ever will. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor does Britannica have articles on Pallywood, New antisemitism, Islam and antisemitism, Arabs and antisemitism, or any of the other exotic varietals you nurture in your editorial greenhouse.--G-Dett 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, let me say I agree that the IA is quite possibly the worst of a bad lot of articles. I would almost vote to keep it as an example of a dog’s breakfast of poorly-written, quote-farming POV OR, but that might violate WP:Point. Other articles in the genre are actually substantially better, on all fronts, than I’d guess about 80% of the articles we have.

Mackan: thanks for those links, as to the first, I will go on record as saying I don’t give a foetid pair of dingo’s kidneys whether the Adam and Moodley material is included somewhere on Wikipedia. We don’t have an encyclopedia article about every book ever published (though there seem to be some who wish we did), and if we must, that info could included there. This argument goes on to recapitulate the debate, which says “Lots of people are using this analogy,” therefore it’s worthy of an encyclopedia article. Myself, I’m hard-pressed to think of any “analogy” that merits an article. Even if there were, an oft-repeated slur surely would not merit such. Tiamut’s argument seems to be “Look, I have to put up with shit I hate, so you all can put up with shit 'you' hate.” Understandable, but not ultimately compelling. We’ve been over all this before, in any case.

CJ: is there a way to ask you to stop poisoning the well that you will listen to? I understand that your attempts to assume bad faith about me aren’t meant to make me angry, but rather to influence others who may engage in this debate. I do, however, respectfully request that you keep your insinuations to yourself. I, for example, assume good faith regarding your own actions: that you supported [13] an antisemitic sockpuppet farmer does not nullify your arguments. Myself, I chalk that up to a bit of willful naivete on your part, but in any case, I intend to give your views a fair and respectful hearing. I urge you to do likewise. IronDuke 04:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Readers should note I accepted a barnstar from User:Kiyosaki (who was later revealed to be the "Disruptive Apartheid Editor") before his identity was discovered, and at a time when he was keeping his prejudices hidden. I was skeptical about the star at the time (hence the terseness of my response), but didn't have any reason to decline it. My "thanks" notice was an act of politeness, nothing more.

If you're going to mention this matter, you should also be so good as to inform readers that I removed the star after Kiyosaki revealed himself to be an anti-Semite, and that I added a note explaining my decision on my user page. Your interpretation of my actions as "supporting an antisemitic sockpuppet farmer" is at best reckless, at worst a smear. That you've chosen to make this point while lecturing me on "assuming good faith" suggests that you share User:Jayjg's sublime sense of irony. CJCurrie 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, it might be worth noting that User:Kiyosaki wasn't banned until after I posted these notices on Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid: [14], [15]. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I can probably claim an assist in revealing his identity. CJCurrie 05:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, CJ, I think the first line of your post is the best indicator of your missing a step here, or at least missing my point. “Readers should note I…” No, they shouldn’t, they shouldn’t note anything about you. They should read your arguments and accept, reject, or modify them. I’m not sure how to take your assertion that you deserve an assist for noting the antisemitic troll’s post on Jimbo’s own talk page. I think the credit here would pretty clearly go to Jay (and maybe SlimVirgin as well) for keeping such close tabs on this guy through his many annoying, hateful, and sub-literate iterations.

I should say, in contradiction to your insinuation, that while I respect Jay’s contributions, he possesses nothing like the sublimity of my own rich sense of irony, (though I might add your having confined your entire last post to a self-justification of your own actions and an attack on mine, while ignoring the substance of what I wrote, is certainly giving me a run for my money in the irony department). IronDuke 14:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, welcome to the "centralized discussion," the smoke-filled backroom where the horsetrading goes down with only the thinnest veneer of decorousness and deference to policy. With respect, your posts thus far have done little to refine or advance the discussion. While strawman arguments are pretty common fare around here, your misrepresentation of the logic for retaining the I/P article as “'Lots of people are using this analogy',” therefore it’s worthy of an encyclopedia article" deserves special delectation. That is not only not the argument we've been making; it is exactly the empty argument that the other side has been making for their metastasizing series of hoax articles. It's their only argument, and one we've been patiently dismantling, thank you very much, only to find it endlessly re-erected in all its insulting flimsiness. The script goes more or less like this:

Apartheid prankster:See, five people said the word "apartheid" about these five different things having to do with France; therefore, we need an "allegations of French apartheid" article.

G-Dett (with customary sweetness of tone): And what, dear heart, is the evidence that these five uses of the term apartheid are, ahem, notable?

Apartheid prankster: Wikipedia has decided that all references to apartheid outside of South Africa are intrinsically notable. We don't like that decision, but until it's changed, this article is by definition notable. Now, if you'd kindly reconsider the Israel article, we might be persuaded to take a more reasonable approach to pol–

G-Dett: My, my. I didn't think WP had decided that the use of the word "apartheid" was intrinsically notable. Can you point me to that decision? I thought it had decided that a prominent international controversy involving notable scholars, statesmen, and Nobel laureates hotly debating the Israel-South Africa comparison was notable. After all, the notability of something like the Lewinsky scandal derives from the political reverberations it set forth, not from the intrinsic notability of every act of fellatio in the White House. Don't you need secondary sources establishing the notability of the allegations themselves?

Apartheid prankster: Secondary sources, bah! You just want to single out Israel. Exploding whale has no secondary sources, so we don't need 'em either. Now, if you'd kindly reconsider the Israel article, we could be persuaded to...

Etc. etc. etc. Ironduke, you've taken your place on this maddening merry-go-round of inanity, and you're welcome to it. You are not welcome, however, to any more stupid smears about CJ or anyone else.--G-Dett 15:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, to take your most vituperative comment first, I don’t believe I have “smeared” anyone. CJ was supportive of an antisemitic troll. Yes, his most hateful speech was after CJ had accepted a barnstar from him, and yet, the group of editors opposing the Kiyosaki sockpuppet (whom CJ continues to mutter darkly about) twigged to the fact that this editor was disruptive and unhelpful, and was indeed masking horrifying bigotry with pseudo-arguments a bit before CJ did, (eg almost right away—here is one of Kiyosaki’s earlier bon mots “I thought the interview with Jimmy Carter, in his own words, is a better source than the Forward which is a Jewish newspaper.” A comment like that is a big red flag for people who are used to encountering antisemites on WP. Not picking up on this doesn’t make CJ a bad person, or someone not worth listening to—indeed, this has been my entire point all along: content, not contributor.

Finally, although I understand you meant your having “customary sweetness of tone” to be ironic, your actual tone, and CJ’s as well, are often poisonous, and do little to further the debate.

Whew. Now that we’ve got all that out of the way, any chance of our returning to the discussion already in progress? IronDuke 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I'd never seen that particular comment before now. This may come as a surprise to some people, but I didn't read everything "Kiyosaki" wrote during his time on Wikipedia (especially given that most of his interventions came off as amateurish, sub-literate, and, as you say, unhelpful). I did repeatedly ask SlimVirgin to provide me with a page diff demonstrating his "earlier bon mots", but she never responded.

In any event, I was sufficiently skeptical of Kiyosaki's editing skills to keep him at a distance, but wasn't aware of his bigotry until after the barnstar situation. I didn't "help" him except insofar as I sent off a perfunctionary thank-you notice for his unsolicited gift of a barnstar. For you to interpret this as evidence that I was "supportive of an antisemitic troll" is a smear, notwithstanding your denials. CJCurrie 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

See above. Calling someone "supportive of an antisemitic troll" can't help but poison the tone of the debate, however much honey is mixed in. CJCurrie 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CJ, I’ve placed your comments all together. If you want to quote me, and respond within your own comment, that would be great. I hope that’s okay with you, but I don’t like comments cut apart with insertions (I used to, but I’ve come to believe that it makes things harder to follow).

My recollection of your previous comments was that you maintained you could not have known that Kiyosaki was a creep. I believe that you could, but didn’t, and it’s no big deal in the final analysis, just maybe be a little more careful next time. It doesn’t help your cause… but I guess you know that. (See below for more on this.) IronDuke 23:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps I could have "known that Kiyosaki was a creep" ... had I decided to read every single one of his editorial interventions prior to accepting his unsolicited barnstar. In any event, we went through all of this several months ago, and I can't imagine any reason for you to bring it up now except to conduct a smear campaign. CJCurrie 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To be more precise, you tried to smear CJ in the time-honored fashion – that is, while protecting yourself with the latex glove of plausible deniability: "I, for example, assume good faith regarding your own actions: that you supported an antisemitic sockpuppet farmer does not nullify your arguments. Myself, I chalk that up to a bit of willful naivete on your part, but in any case, I intend to give your views a fair and respectful hearing." Cute, Ironduke. Cute like I don't hold it against my opponent that his wife had a terrible drinking problem, that kind of cute. Even cuter was when you then admonished CJ for trying to provide a neutral antidote to your cheap well-poisoning: "Well, CJ, I think the first line of your post is the best indicator of your missing a step here, or at least missing my point. 'Readers should note I…' No, they shouldn’t, they shouldn’t note anything about you. They should read your arguments and accept, reject, or modify them." Verrrry cute, Ironduke. Slime your opponent with an insinuating ad hominem, then when he defends himself castigate him for focusing on a personal and hence irrelevant issue.

With that late unpleasantness behind us, where we go from here is up to you. We can talk about the policy issues only. This would be ideal; nothing could make me happier. Or you can toy around with discredited sophistries and strawman arguments, in which case expect a little thrust and parry, but no hard feelings. Or you can continue with the smearing-followed-by-patronizing-'who me?'-denials, in which case the feelings will be very hard indeed, and the responses eviscerating.--G-Dett 22:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, G-Dett, first I’ll say that while I cannot agree with your approach, I appreciate discussing this issue with someone who is clearly smart and literate. (Even though you are, um, you know, being nasty. “Eviscerating?” Erm, not the gerund I would use.) I think we’re getting bogged down now in the CJCurrie/Kiyosaki thing. My only point in bringing it up was that precisely that it was an ad hominem attack, just like those that CJ was making, so could we leave it, please. (I don’t, by the way, see you screeching about CJ’s attacking other contributors). I still think that’s a reasonable request, though I’m not quite sure how we can get off this merry-go–round of--

IronDuke: Can we please just focus on issues?

G-Dett: Sure. As long as we leave it clear to everyone that you suck.

--other than for me to say, okay, fine, you’re fully entitled to your opinions about me. Now, back to the issues:

No one is going to get this issue resolved all their own way. I think it’s important for everyone to acknowledge this. To the best of my memory, a majority of Wikipedians do not think IA should exist as such, though opinions differ as to how to make it go away. I still don’t see how allegations of apartheid are not directly and inseparably entwined with allegations of human rights abuses against Israel, and that all relevant information should go there. Yes, notable people use the analogy, but notable people compare Israelis to Nazis, and we don’t have a separate article on that, for good reason. IronDuke 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

An article on comparisons between Israelis and Nazis, no matter how prominent the accusers, would not meet my bar of notability, per the understanding of WP:N and WP:NOR I've advanced in detail here, because it would lack sufficient secondary-source material describing the allegations themselves and attesting to their prominence and notability. It would, however, meet the bar of notability set by Jay, Urthogie, and others here who have insisted that articles about "allegations" need only cite primary sources where the allegations are made, not secondary sources where they are discussed. I agree that such an article would be a ghastly mistake; you might want to take your question to those whose spin on basic policy would make such a monstrosity entirely permissible and ultimately quite likely.

Either your memory is failing you or mine me, but what I remember is that a majority of Wikipedians want the Israel article to stay, as evidenced by its passing six AfDs and an Arbcom decision. My take on it is that it should lean much more on its secondary sources than its primary ones, with its quote-farm tendencies radically curtailed and the content organized according to the various discourses in which the comparison has become a live and contentious issue. Namely: the ethical discourse, the strategic discourse, the historical discourse, and the discourse of international peacemaking, peace and reconciliation commissions, etc. The debates about the Israel-South Africa comparison are quite distinct within each of these, and the secondary-source materials available rich and vigorous in each case.

I don't screech about garden-variety personal jabs, which bother me a lot less than sophistries, but I do screech about guilt-by-association, because I've seen it used in a very cynical fashion on WP to intimidate people. Eviscerating was an adjective (a participial one), not a gerund. Thank you for your playlet, which made me laugh out loud.--G-Dett 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dammit! I was almost going to write "adjectival" and changed it to "gerund." I blame my liberal arts education. As to the !vote count, on the last one that wasn't speedied due to people being sick of hearing about it, I count about 28 keeps (leaving out one single-edit anon) versus 35 deletes. Not that it's majority rule around here (except when it is), but I feel that should end people saying, “Oh please respect the wishes of the majority of Wikipedians that IA should remain more or less as it is.”

As to more substantive issues, I don't see why secondary sources should command here, but in any case, many exist for Israel as a Nazi state. I found [16], [17], [18] (see Google blurb), [19] after doing a very cursory Google Scholar search. It isn't hard to find people libeling each other, nor to find scholars discussing it. That doesn't mean we need to have an article on it. IronDuke 01:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[OUTDENT] Please see the new section below the one below this one with a new proposal. I put it there because it builds on what comes before it and we need a new break line anyway. Tiamat 23:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Israeli apartheid to Hafrada

Beside that they mean the same thing in Afrikaans and Hebrew, the article already adresses comparisons with apartheid; just a matter of shoring it up a bit--Victor falk 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ready to assent to this suggestion yet, but I'd agree it's worth considering. Should I assume that references to "Israeli Apartheid" will be permitted on the revamped page in situations wherein the original source material does not specifically use the word "Hafrada"? CJCurrie 22:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so, it's about the phenomenon, not the word.--Victor falk 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a tad concerned that some hypothetical editor could delete references to the Israeli Apartheid Analogy from our revamped Hafrada page, using such justifications as "it's not about `Hafrada'", "the source doesn't mention 'Hafrada'", etc. If we can receive assurances (by which I mean real assurances) that this won't be the case, your proposed redirect might be the best option for moving the discussion forward. CJCurrie 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have modified my proposal below to include these ideas. Take a look and let me know what you think. Tiamat 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We now have Hafrada (Separation) as the main article, with Separation program (Israel) as a redirect to it. That's probably OK, although there's an argument that the English term should be the main article, per WP:ENGLISH. --John Nagle 23:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would object to renaming Hafrada (Separation) to just Separation policy (Israel) since the sources used throughout the article use the term Hafrada. I think both terms side by side are fine. Hafrada has a certain currency in English as evidenced by the sources in that article (the vast majority use the term itself). That article has a long and contentious history itself so we should tread carefully with any renaming there as well. Tiamat 23:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does Hafrada redirect to Hafrada (Separation)?--Victor falk 23:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No way. The words may have similar literal meanings, but they do not have the same connotation. Or perhaps I should say, the question of whether they have the same connotation is part of this whole stupid debate. Wikipedia does not need any more of this garbage. 6SJ7 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

New proposal - Breaking deadlock and being real

Looking over all of the discussion at different articles in the "apartheid series", it struck me that most of the information could be integrated into articles like Social apartheid, Urban apartheid, and Sex segregation. In fact, they could be properly dealth with in these categories. The only exception seems to be Israeli apartheid. Now interestingly, social apartheid get a little over 20,000 g-hits and 317 google scholar hits, urban apartheid gets 11,000+ g-hits and 357 scholar hits while Israeli apartheid gets about 190,000 g-hits and about 89 google scholar hits. "Saudi apartheid" or "Saudi Arabian apartheid" gets less than 500 hits on google and none on google scholar. "Chinese apartheid" gets about 200 g-hits and one hit on google scholar. Etc., etc., for most of the series.

So, my proposal is two-fold:

First, I propose we merge material in all of the articles related to Social apartheid, Urban apartheid, and Gender apartheid into those respective articles.

Then, we can see what we are left with and make the appropriate evaluations.

I believe we will be left with the original which spawned this "series". This we can rename Israeli apartheid (describing the term and its use - with a section entitled "Controversy" to discuss the controversy) or alternatively we can merge the material into the article Hafrada, under a section entitled "Israeli apartheid controversy". What does everyone think? Tiamat 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd add Theocracy to that list, which covers many of the Islamic states, but other than that, it's a reasonable taxonomy. --John Nagle 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A note on the Kiyosaki Affair and related stuff

The whole disgusting Kiyosaki Affair is one of the reasons I kept away form these articles for so long. If Uthorgie and Co had not started doing research on other allegations of apartheid, I would have left this sorry mess alone. But hey, nothing piques my curiosity more than new information...

CJ and G-Dett, regardless of the value of their arguments, are tainted by this. They missed an opportunity to defend wikipedia against an obviously anti-semite vandal. This taint is real and they must live with it. Sorry, but its the truth. However, the string of attacks, sarcasm, irony, and quite frankly, circular logic offered by their opponents is hardly productive. JayJG actually comes close to admitting WP:POINT, if it weren't that he is well-guarded with words.

There seems to be a new form of WP:OWN, whereas editors of both sides of the POV engage on debates using what amounts to reference, creating an environment of hostility that is not conducive to good editing. It is a hostile, self-referential environment Jayjg in particular is guilty of this: if I were a new editor he would be guilty of WP:BITE (at least had the decency to apologize, unlike G-Dett and CJ).

My suggestion is to all WP:COOL and let a crack team of peer-reviewers look at the sorry mess. I would even offer that this team be composed of the top seven peer-review editors, and vetted by G-Dett and JayJG (who seem to lead their teams).

If they delete the articles, I think wikipedia suffers, but it would be a minor compared to the amoutn of suffering we already have, with dozens of people who could be doing something else (WikiProject Puerto Rico calls... and a shitload of the computer articles are OR crap.)

If something is true, it will emerge regardless of wikipedia. If it is a lie, it will be exposed even if included in wikipedia: I think those who claim these article harm wikipedia are guilty of the same hyperbole as those who claim Israel practices apartheid. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, I appreciate your exhortations to cool things down, but disagree with much of what you say. First off, Jay has not, as far as I know, violated any Wiki policies here. Also, as I have said exhaustively above, CJ and G-Dett's arguments are not tainted, and please don't allege that they are. Their arguments must be accepted or rejected on their own merits, regardless of past behavior, whether it's been wonderful or terrible. Finally, I don't think a "crack team" of anything is the answer. I think the people who post here, on both sides of the question, know vastly more than any "crack team" would. It's up to them/us to work together, and find (sometimes painful) compromise to keep articles in the touchy arena of the Middle East and associated topics balanced. IronDuke 01:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)