Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

Allegations of Chinese apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Perhaps the worst of a now-infamous and metastasizing series of original-research WP:POINT essays. It slaloms around clumsily between five unrelated issues – migrant workers, the Tibetan occupation, African and Taiwanese populations within China, religious minorities within China, and civil liberties more generally among the Chinese. Why this particular grab-bag of disparate topics? Because, using the latest in data-mining technology, a Wikipedian discovered that a certain class of verbal act – an “allegation of apartheid,” if you will, meaning a sentence with the word “apartheid” in it – could be find in one, two, sometimes three (and in one case six!) primary-source documents within each of the five topics above. There are no secondary sources at all; no one discussing these primary-source “allegations”; no sources even calling them “allegations,” in fact, since this particular species of verbal act was discovered, described, and classified by Wikipedians; no sources linking these diverse topics in this or any other way. Different writers writing about different things, with no thought to one another or to the hobby-horses of future Wikipedians, used the word “apartheid”; that is all.

Remember the old Far Side cartoon [“What We Say to Dogs”/”What They Hear”]? That's what we're dealing with. “What Various Sources Say about Various Unrelated Issues in China”/”What Users X and Y Hear.”

blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah...

Each block quote houses one iteration of the word “apartheid.” The blah-blah-blah portions between the block quotes consist of pure original research:

1. "According to Anita Chan and Robert A. Senser, writing in Foreign Affairs, 'China's apartheid-like household registration system, introduced in the 1950s, still divides the population into two distinct groups, urban and rural'."
   The Foreign Affairs article in fact never mentions apartheid.
2. "The analogies to South African apartheid go even further."
   Wikipedian's thesis.
3. "A report by the Heritage Foundation discussed some of the reasons for the use of this term."
   No it doesn't. It just mentions some depressing facts about the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and later on uses the word apartheid.
4. "Desmond Tutu has also drawn comparisons between the fight to end South African apartheid and the Tibetan struggle for independence from the People's Republic of China."
   Tutu told his host, the Dali Lama, that he and his people were on "the winning side."
5. "These tensions have spilled over into the tourist industry."
   Wikipedian's thesis.

The article ends on a wonderfully ludicrous note. We are told that our own Jimbo Wales "compared China's restrictions on internet usage and free speech to South African apartheid." But here we are offered no block quote to go with our blah-blah, nor even given the rhetorical details of the comparison. Why? Because the AP reporter we've relied on for this gem didn't find it notable enough to report. So in the absence of our master's voice saying "apartheid, apartheid," we console ourselves with what appears to be his driver's-licence photo.

Delete this dreck.

WP:N and WP:NOR require secondary sources for a reason – to prevent hobby-horse essay-articles about issues not recognized as issues anywhere in the actual world. G-Dett 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Two more objections - the article doesn't address whether China is/could be guilty of the crime of apartheid. (If we're going to use legal or semi-legal terms, lets be precise, keep our eye on the ball). And badly referenced, the first link goes to The Economist, no mention of apartheid or even of China! PalestineRemembered 07:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense. The first link references an article from The Economist, which does indeed compare the Chinese hukou system to apartheid. These kinds of fact-free claims are rather depressing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, point-pushing original research surrounding a forced neologism. --Eyrian 01:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. This is trying to solve an editing dispute by AfD. Article has quality issues, but it is well sourced and notable (I mean, it quotes Jimbo Wales, fer god's sake...). Quality issues should be resolved by other means, not AfDs. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Cerejota. Please note that IDONTLIKEIT isn't the objection; violation of WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT, and total lack of secondary sources establishing the topic qua topic, is the objection. And no, it doesn't quote Jimbo Wales, fer G-d's sake. Because there is no Wales quote on record, because the AP reporter didn't report it, because he didn't find it notable, because this is not a topic.--G-Dett 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It quotes Jimbo Wales.--Urthogie 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not on the topic of the article.--G-Dett 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he says apartheid in reference to China if you read the article.--Urthogie 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Urthogie, he says something the reporter never bothered to transcribe, but summarized as a comparison to apartheid. You added the unrelated quote about how China has "damaged the brand image of 'Don't be evil,'" for filler.--G-Dett 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Cerejota. G-Dett's valid complaints can be addressed by editing the article, something G-Dett has refused to do.--Urthogie 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As clarified below, improving the article doesn't work when the concept is flawed at its most basic level. This article is either 1.) an entirely original synthesis discussion of "allegations" that no other reliable secondary source has discussed as such, or 2.) a POV fork of substantive issues in China, which curtails any neutral or encyclopedic discussion by limiting it solely to those who use the word "apartheid" (while simultaneously combining several issues that no reliable sources has combined). If the article is about something else, this hasn't been explained, which is what makes it unclear how the article can be brought in compliance with these policies. Mackan79 13:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Allegations of [controversial entity] [universally abhorred phenomenon] tend to be a random collection of quotes from political activists, and this is no exception. In the unlikely event that someone does serious academic work comparing the two systems, we could possibly write a decent article, but until then this article can be nothing other than utter crap. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. These WP:POINT violations getting sillier with each day. (Incidentally, would anyone care to place bets now on the number of participants to this discussion with a background in Chinese issues, in relation to the number with a background in Middle East issues?) CJCurrie 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ReplyI am saddened by your narrow and incurious demeanor, and hope this is just a quick jab in the heat of debate... Knowledge should look outward, not inward. I have said it before this is why I defend the Allegations of apartheid articles: I have learned a lot more than if we focused on the middle-east alone. And I am a wikipedia because I want to learn.Thanks!--Cerejota 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not about suppression of information, it's about editors forcing the facts to comply with a term they've largely synthesized in order to balance a perceived injustice. What have you learned that couldn't be found in discrimination in China or racism in China? --Eyrian 02:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Red links weaken your argument.--Urthogie 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They indicate directions that this material could move if it wasn't being shoehorned into the apartheid label to fit the designs of tendentious editors. --Eyrian 02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Predictable reply. This page exists to discuss rhetoric, not actual segregation.--Urthogie 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary condescension. How many people need to scream it to create Allegations of alien influence in the UN? --Eyrian 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the centralized discussion, where the point has been raised that allegations articles should maybe not exist. Singling out China's article for deletion is not in following with NPOV. Comprehensive solution is needed.--Urthogie 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not happening. I've watched it from afar, and I know a train wreck when I see it. As in the real world, this conflict is bitterly divided, ruled by emotion, and will ultimately go nowhere. I believe that articles need to stand on their own. That is enough. --Eyrian 02:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. For an edifying example of the thought processes of the authors of this article, and for a better understanding of why this AfD is bound to fail, I encourage everyone to read this. --Targeman 01:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't troll. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misuse the term troll. --Eyrian 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bringing other discussions into this one is definite post[ing] [a] message about [a] sensitive topic constructed to cause controversy in this AFD. I do not use the term lightly, and in fact I think it is the first time I have used it even in the face of pretty dubious debating. I am calling it like it is. The fact that the user made no comment about deleting/keeping this article futher strengthens this view. His comment was directed to inflame, not debate. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How so? It's an example of the same sort of debate that will happen here. A comment on the process that is entirely legitimate. --Eyrian 02:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You know very well what I think of this and all the other bogus "apartheid" articles. Delete them all per WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT. I'm not letting myself be dragged into this quagmire again because it's blatantly obvious (and candidly admitted here]) that these articles are junk written in the worst possible faith. And I'm not using these words lightly. --Targeman 02:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Except, as has been pointed out at least a dozen times, that person didn't create any of these articles, nor did he edit any of them, so his opinion about motivation is about as relevant as your own - that is to say, not at all. One cannot "candidly admit" something which one hasn't done and doesn't know anything about. Moreover, he didn't at all say that the articles were written in bad faith; on the contrary, he apparently believes they were written to uphold WP:NPOV. In any event, it's not a good idea to keep repeating obviously invented falsehoods as if they were admitted truths, as it detracts from more relevant discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This, like the others, is an OR essay with no encyclopedic value, created in obvious response to the Israeli apartheid article, by the same group of editors who created all the others. This needs to stop.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I admit that I'm tired of articles that are entitled "Allegations of ______ese apartheid", but if they're sourced, then they should stay. The idea that this is "dreck" to be deleted is an extreme solution. If it's dreck, then edit it, dispute it in the discussion, etc. Apartheid is a dumb title to use because (a) it's as unique to South Africa, as "Jim Crow" is to the USA; (b) apartheid and Jim Crow referred to laws on the books directing segregation, not policies that had that effect; and, last and least, (c) hard to spell, hard to pronounce, and as loaded a term as can be. Mandsford 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I completely agree with your views, without reservations. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Hi Mandsford, the point is it's not sourced to any secondary sources, as required by WP:N and WP:NOR to establish notability. The article is "about rhetoric," as Urthogie says above, but not one source here discusses rhetoric. That is Urthogie's thesis, which he advances through a constellation of primary sources. Hope this clarifies.--G-Dett 02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Properly sourced, notable, and entirely consistent with the other articles in the "series". I agree with Mandsford, however WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion, and this nom itself appears to be the violation of WP:POINT. <<-armon->> 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Correction Not IDONTLIKEIT, as you must have noticed, but WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT, per above.--G-Dett 02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • True, but has it does easily meet WP:N and it's clearly not OR, they were obviously just a pretext for IDONTLIKEIT. That's how it looks anyway. <<-armon->> 02:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, of course. Well sourced, well written, relevant information, presented in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. The practices of both China's hukou system and that of China in Tibet have well-documented parallels with the situation in apartheid South Africa, and I'm surprised that User:G-Dett dismisses the Dalai Lama's and Desmond Tutu's views on this so cavalierly, considering how strongly she has supported Desmond Tutu's similar statements on other very similar articles. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deleting an article, nor are various nonsensical claims about "primary" and "secondary" sources: Of course primary and secondary sources do exist, and are different, but the argument used regarding them in these articles is spurious. These constant AfDs are quite disruptive; what percentage of other Wikipedia articles do people imagine have even 10 sources, much less 37 citations sourced to 25 different sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • Jay manufactures baloney faster than any mere mortal can eat or otherwise dispose of it, but here goes. This article has no sources, as in zero sources, discussing its topic, "allegations of Chinese apartheid." "Well-documented parallels" are a red herring; what we need, in an article on allegations of Chinese apartheid, is well-documented allegations of Chinese apartheid. Again, zilch, zero, nada. I haven't dismissed and wouldn't dismiss Tutu's views; I dismiss Jay's willful and repeated manipulation and distortion of same. No IDONTLIKEIT arguments have been introduced, only notability and original-research problems and WP:POINT-violations Jay is unable to address and so hopes to distract editors from. The distinction between primary sources and secondary ones is central to both WP:N and WP:NOR, and was well understood by Jay himself as recently as May 1; that he affects now not to understand it is as predictable as it is trivial. AfD's aren't disruptive; the ceaseless production of hoax-articles like this one, for the purposes of leveraging deletion of an article one doesn't like, is disruptive.--G-Dett 04:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • G-Dett, I know I ask you this at least three times a day, but here goes another fruitless try; could you please comment solely on article content and policy, rather than lacing your remarks with multiple derogatory personal attacks? It really detracts from the discussion when you do this. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, and not that it matters, but I'm a she, as Jay knows as well as everything else he misrepresented in that last post.--G-Dett 04:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I've modified my comment to refer to you as a "she". Now, could you possibly stop making uncivil attacks on other editors in almost every single comment you make? I think it would really help the tenor of this discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The hukou system does use a pass system, but that's the only real parallel. Chinese actions in Tibet are deplorable, but are being carried out in a completely different manner than oppression and control of nonwhites in apartheid-era South Africa. The term apartheid as used in this context is simply a term of opprobrium, not a serious comparison. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  It goes much farther than just the pass system, as the article brings out. The exploitation of cheap labor, forced to live in dormitories in places where they are not allowed to be real "residents", the raids and expulsions, etc. are all strikingly similar to the South African situation. As for Tibet, there's a good quote in the article outlining all sorts of parallels. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Those are all extremely shallow or apply to many exploitative systems other than apartheid: the American treatment of the native population, the Normans in 11th and 12th Century England, the Japanese in Korea, the English in Scotland, the English in Ireland, the English in India, ... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Apartheid was a specific legal and political structure. Its overuse to make facile analogies clouds its meaning. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Well, you might not agree that the analogy is a good one, but that's not particularly relevant in the context of this AfD. The fact is that multiple reliable sources have explicitly made these allegations/analogies, comparing Chinese practices directly to those of Apartheid South Africa. By the way, there's a more detailed article about this here, making very specific comparisons (and also stating where they break down). I'll have to incorporate it into the article as well, as there's lots of good stuff there, but haven't had the time yet. In any event, if you are making the larger point that "apartheid" outside South Africa is really just an epithet, and shouldn't be used as a topic/title for encyclopedic articles, then I hear you, but then you're going to have to look at a systemic solution, not just this article in isolation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The author of the paper you link to makes clear that he does not equate the two systems (I doubt any serious scholar would), but is using a comparison as a device to explain the Chinese system to his readers. Thus, saying that the paper is advancing an allegation of apartheid in China does not seem accurate. I'm opposed to most "Allegations/Criticism of" articles as irredeemable POV problems and would be receptive to a systemic solution that would discourage them. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think I agree with you; in my view, the author sees similarities and differences between the two systems, but insists the similarities are quite real. Regarding systemic solutions, here's a page built for discussing exactly that: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. However, it's only fair to warn you that the rhetoric often gets quite personal, and some editors are mightily resisting any sort of systemic solutions or compromises. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Just to translate for those who might be getting lost in this discussion of "systemic solutions" and "centralized discussions." Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which superficially resembles this and the other "allegations of apartheid" articles, has survived six AfD's. The reason is simple: the article has 115+ sources, and most of them are secondary sources discussing the allegations themselves and hence establishing that topic's notability. This article and its sister articles (all written by opponents of the Israel article), by contrast, have zero secondary sources and provide no evidence of notability. At any rate, editors who oppose the Israel article on ideological or nationalist grounds have despaired of trying to have it deleted in the proper fashion, and came up with the brainstorm of creating seven or eight very badly sourced articles built around data-mining (of which the China article is a good example), and making them superficially resemble the Israel article so that they could be presented as a "family" of articles, the fate of which they could then insist be decided together. The idea was that while it's difficult to sink a sturdily built ship (the Israel article), if you chain it to a chunk of worthless concrete eight times its size it will sink. This article is part of that chunk of concrete. This is what the editor above means by the euphemism "systemic solution"; he means chaining the fate of a well-sourced article to that of unsourced or poorly sourced and eminently sink-worthy articles engineered to superficially resemble it. Those who think the articles should be evaluated for their compliance with Wikipedia policy on a case by case basis he says are "resisting any sort of systemic solutions or compromises." Hope this helps.--G-Dett 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Please don't "translate" for me, especially when your "translations" have little to do with my comments, but instead are just another re-iteration of POV and inaccurate arguments you've made many times before. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I understand the political (under)currents at play here. I know there are people who want to see as many apartheid allegation articles as possible, to dilute the effect of One In Particular, and I know there are others who want to see as few as possible, to single out that same One In Particular. I'm really not a partisan in this, and I'm probably in the minority in that respect. I know there are sourced allegations that various countries engage in something various notable people have compared to apartheid -- but I don't think it serves the encyclopedia to have "allegations of X apartheid" articles. Not China, not the U.S., and not That One Country either. These allegations should be incorporated into "Human rights in X" articles or allegations of apartheid, and not create a WP:BEANS-esque attractor for collectors of scandalous-sounding quotes about a country. (I would compare this to a hypothetical Allegations that Paris Hilton is a slut article. One could be written to be factually accurate, well sourced, and made up of quotes by notable people -- but it still wouldn't be an acceptable article. But you've all probably heard this sort of simile before.) That said, I can't in good conscience vote to delete this page while other similar ones exist, and I can't vote to keep this page since it's existence is counter-productive to our encyclopedia's goals. So this is a comment, and not a vote. (Hopefully there are one or two people listening whose minds aren't already made up.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you Quadell, unfortunately the consensus is to keep these sorts of articles. I've made the same suggestion to merge everything into allegations of apartheid even though I think we could easily do without it as well. The problem here is that given that we do have these sorts of articles, there is nothing actually wrong with this one. It's properly sourced and written. <<-armon->> 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Mandsford. The article is an eye-opener and certainly not "dreck." If it has shortcomings, edit it. If apartheid doesn't fit China, than it does not fit any other non-South African article.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  then it does not fit any other non-South African article. Bingo. The existence of one ridiculous article does not mean that numerous other silly articles need to be created. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Nothing silly about this article. It is well-researched and quite an asset to the project. It seems to be opposed for reasons unrelated to its merits.--Mantanmoreland 13:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, how many times do we have to go over this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, It seems to be sourced an does not seem to have the problems suggested by the nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayig's comments above. I found this article realy interesting. The nomination to delete seems like it may be politically motivated. Bigglove 03:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If it's a loaded name, and each of the sections are talking about different phenomena discussed in other articles, and no sources tie these things together, I don't understand why this article exists or how it should be improved. Per WP:NPOV#POV_forks, "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." Is there an argument for why these issues should all be discussed in this article under the name "Allegations of Chinese Apartheid"? Is this the best way to cover these issues in an encyclopedic way? The answer to each seems quite clearly "no." It is in fact entirely original synthesis, tied together under a title that stunts any discussion of the entirely distinct issues discussed in the article, which would be excluded since 99.9% of commentators are not going to discuss these issues in terms of apartheid. That is not improvable, which is why the article should be deleted. Mackan79 04:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you're making these claims; the topic of the article is allegations of apartheid in China, and this article discusses exactly that, and allows for all views on the subject. True, there are other good sources that could be incorporated into the article to round it out; I have two in particular that are thoughtful and extensive, and others exist. However, that kind of work takes a great deal of time. I do plan to get to it, though, and deleting an article because it's not yet complete does not make sense to me. Regarding "the best way to cover these issues in an encyclopedic way", it seems that this argument would apply to all of the "Allegations of apartheid" articles - and indeed, many have said just that. However, others have insisted that this does not apply to one specific article in the series, using various arguments I personally find quite dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There are related problems. 1.) If this article is merely about the "allegations" of apartheid -- that is, about the allegations and their significance as such -- then the topic is clearly not notable, as nobody has discussed these allegations. These are entirely primary sources, meaning editors have data mined the internet for a phrase, and then synthesized an article about its use. This is, per the nom, original research until you find somebody who actually discusses the allegation as such. 2.) There is however some confusion, as some people seem to think the article is valid as a discussion of the underlying issues themselves. That is, not as a topic discussing the significance of the allegations, but as an article on apartheid conditions in China. In this sense, the problem is not notability, since the sources do discuss these conditions in China as secondary sources, specifically by referring to the conditions as "apartheid." It is thus the problem with this notion that I also want to point out, which is not notability but that it violates WP:NPOV#POV_forks in limiting a substantive discussion solely to "allegations of apartheid." In terms of other articles, I wish this did not keep being raised, but I think you know that the analysis is different. In some countries, the allegations are indeed highly notable as such, and discussed extensively by secondary sources who talk about the allegations, which means the topic passes under point one. I didn't choose this, but it is the reality of the situation that we have. In no country is "Allegations of Apartheid" a neutral discussion of the underlying issues, as all have agreed for some time. Mackan79 04:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Human Rights in China. "Chinese apartheid" is an obscure term. There are only around 200 hits on google proper and one hit on google scholar. The second reference is on the hukou system and it says it's been called "Chinese apartheid" or a "Chinese caste system" so there's no reason to think "Chinese apartheid" is a definitive term. Merge the information on houku to hukou with links from Allegations of apartheid and caste. As for the material on Tibet, 1) Desmond Tutu does NOT compare the situation of Tibetans under Chinese rules to the apartheid system in South Africa. What he does is compare the struggle to overthrow the apartheid dictatorship with the struggle to free Tibet from China - two very different ideas. He could just as well have been talking about any struggle against a dictatorship - it certainly doesn't mean he was comparing social, political or legal systems. The other references to Tibet are fleeting and not very deep. I can find no books or scholarly articles that make a detailed comparison between Tibet and Apartheid South Africa. Move the quotations to Tibet Autonomous Region and/or Allegations of apartheid. Move the other references as well since they also are rather fleeting. Until and unless there is some more serious scholarship on "Chinese apartheid" this article does not belong here. Lothar of the Hill People 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per what I said a few minutes ago on the AfD about Saudi Arabia, and per the comments here by Mantanmoreland, Urthogie and Jayjg. 6SJ7 05:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment On the last DRV (U.S. apartheid, I think) I noted that the word apartheid itself is POV and divisive and these articles, which discuss allegations from reliable sources, often fail to have sources which actually use the word "apartheid". (If they did they would be much shorter.) I do not believe that this word is helping the case of any of htese articles to appear as anything but attack pages. The first page to come up with a viable alternative gets a cookie. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there are serious problems with this article, as tabulated by G-Dett (I've added two more to that list above). There are no proper "allegations" as such, but if Jimbo had made them (except he didn't) it would be notable. However, I found the subject "valuable", the article readable and the topic acceptably encyclopaedic. PalestineRemembered 07:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - despite my enjoyment of this particular article, I've discovered that all of the "Allegations of apartheid" articles (other than those for Israel and perhaps Cuba) were apparently created very recently in a collaborative effort to do? what? be attack articles? I don't think these are allegations atall, except as neologisms on these very pages. PalestineRemembered 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per above. PalestineRemembered 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The content of the article is sourced, but the fact that those sources are slapped together to try to create this article is definitely WP:Original research and a violation of WP:Point. The simple litmus test here is that while the sources talks about discrimination and uses the word "apartheid" to individually and seperately describe the situations of the Tibetans, rural workers, etc, they do not collectively refer to all these groups that the article mentions. The fact that the article tries to link these together is what makes it WP:Original research and a violation of WP:Point. The content of this article should be on articles like Human rights in the People's Republic of China and Tibet instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is sourced ad nauseam and there is no reason to delete it unless it's some policy issue to remove all allegations of apartheid articles. If it's not, there really should be an article of allegations of apartheid for every country and this will probably top the list. Amoruso 08:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a laundry list based on a keyword search. While the quotes individually are kind of interesting, lumping them together doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not Google. --Ideogram 08:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Let me expand. Articles like this can be written by a robot that searches Google for a keyword and simply lists all the quotes found. There is no secondary source writing about "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" as a unifying concept. There is no thought involved in cobbling together a list of quotes. The same process could be used to create a series of articles "Allegations of Chinese/French/American thoughtlessness" or any other pejorative term, as can be evidenced by the fact we are facing a group of people creating a whole genre of articles on "Allegations of Apartheid". --Ideogram 08:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was well known that consistency with other articles is not a valid justification for keeping an article. This is obviously a POINTy argument aimed at attacking the Israeli article. In any case, that is up to the closing admin to decide. --Ideogram 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, the American article got deleted, and the French article got kept. There is no such thing as consistency on Wikipedia. --Ideogram 10:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete:The article shows the whole problem of all the political allegation articles.
  They show two levels. Level one is the alleged fact and level two is the allegation itself. Each of these levels should be treated different.
  If the facts are notable, there should be an article about these facts themselves. In this case, there should be an article about apartheid in China, which will not happen, because there is no apartheid in China (Don´t misunderstand me, China is a repressive system, constantly violating human rights, but not every repressing political system is apartheid, a special system of racial separation. For excample the case of Tibet is no case of apartheid, because there the chinese do not try to separate the Chinese and Tibetians, far from it they try to absorb the Tibetians)
  The human right violations in China should be discribed in neutral articles of their own or added to the existing articles about human right violations. This article deals with the allegation itself. These can only reach notability, if they are more than the usual political blabla, because they cause special interrest independent of the content of the allegtion (level one). The claims of the dalai lama about apartheid in Tibet is one of many similar statements, showin no new facts and causing no reaction in addition to the other millions of statements of the dalay lama about the situation in Tibet.It´s the same about the other statements, discribed in the article. Someone made a statement and the only result was an article at wikipedia. We have an unimportant allegation about a not existing correlation. No reason to keep.--Thw1309 08:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - some of these "Allegations of Apartheid" articles are worthless, particularily the one on France. The one on Saudi is decidedly poor, proving only racism (against foreigners) and a divided society, not apartheid. However, I found this article on China interesting and significant. China may does not operate classic "racist" apartheid, but the pass-laws (according to what I've learnt here) get perilously close. PalestineRemembered 10:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You want to read about pass-laws, it belongs in Hukou. There is a bunch of other unrelated stuff in this article. --Ideogram 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Most of the repressive systems use the same methods (because they work so well) but this is not the central meaning of apartheid. Apartheid is a racist system of separtation, the result of a special historical situation and a special racist concept. The chinese system is not better but it is something else. That´s not the point. This article is not about apartheid in China. It´s about allegations of apartheid in China. --Thw1309 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about allegations of apartheid. It's a list of allegations of apartheid. It doesn't say anything sourced about the allegations. --Ideogram 11:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The same pro/con arguments should be applied across all "Allegations of apartheid" series. Consistency please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Absolutely right, but this can not mean that,because one bad article was not proposed for deletion the others should not be deleted too. Delete them all!--Thw1309 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment On the other hand, it's also frustrating when editors continually point out differences between the various articles only for these differences to be ignored for purely WP:ALLORNOTHING arguments. Mackan79 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete It cannot be denied that the article has plenty of references (the quality of referencing is another issue altogether), but many users appear to ignore the fact that we cannot simplistically clump a whole lot of references together and conjour a wikipedia article with a thesis based on the collective information drawn from those references. This is clearly a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and is outright original research.--Huaiwei 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I beg to differ. Previously I'd thought there'd only ever been two apartheid nations (ie government issued IDs dividing people into "communities" within a single non-occupied nation). These series of articles have nuanced my understanding a great deal. And this article on China is second only to the article on Israel in providing "good" information. PalestineRemembered 10:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia Malaysia requires citizens to indicate their religion on their id cards, and a woman recently was not allowed to change her id card even though she had converted to another religion. Apartheid, like genocide, is far more common than most people realize. In fact, maybe these people would be better occupied describing all the genocides in world history, since Hitler tends to get all the credit. Oh, BEANS. And Godwin's Law. --Ideogram 10:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The ID incident is in Malaysia actually, which incidently also routinely classifies its population by race. Heck, so does Singapore, which insists that all children are to study their respective mother tongue, and public housing flats are allocated by race. God, its Apartheid in my own backyard too, so anyone keen to write Allegations of Singaporean apartheid next?--Huaiwei 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the ID issue in Malaysia is more about religion than race. Check out Status of religious freedom in Malaysia for further details. Now read that along with Ketuanan Melayu on the constitutionalised affirmative action practised in that country for decades now. The Chinese allegations would probably pale in comparison, so Allegations of Malaysian apartheid too?--Huaiwei 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If you need to know something, you should look at Wikiedia. There is an article History of South Africa in the apartheid era which says: "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.The rules of Apartheid meant that people were legally classified into a racial group — the main ones being Black, White, Coloured and Indian — and were separated from each other on the basis of the legal classification." This is apardheit and nothing else. Because this is globally detested, every political idiot claims the system, he fights, to be apartheid.--Thw1309 11:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I am fully aware that there are "sources ad nauseum" but the only purpose of the sources is to support the author's POV, which is basically WP:OR. And as Ideogram said, although both sides seem to be addressed, this is a simple compilation of quotes that makes the article seem valid. Pandacomics 11:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - ObiterDicta took the words out of my mouth. Will ^(talk) 11:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per what has been said above. The author uses selective quotes and deliberate mis-interpretation of sources to support an essentially WP:OR argument. PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Another google search for "apartheid + [country of your choice]" that seeks to create a thoroughly artificial and unencyclopedic equivalence between things as different as the hukou system, race in Brazil, sex segregation in Saudi Arabia, and the social situation in the French suburbs, in order to have bargaining chips to secure the deletion of another article--Victor falk 12:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Keep but cleanupCholga^talK! 12:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete the same ol' garbage from the same ol' article author who is engaging in frequent point-making with this synthesized original research. Tarc 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "no sources even calling them 'allegations'". Well, if that's the case, then the article should be Chinese apartheid. We're bending over backwards towards NPOV to call it Allegations of Chinese apartheid. Gzuckier 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Ironies rich and meaty. Yes, no sources calling them "allegations," no sources discussing them as allegations, no sources discussing these utterances period. Kinda what I was getting at when I said the article was unsourced and should be deleted. Now yes, if you changed the subject to Chinese apartheid, you'd take care of the serious notability and original-research violations, as well as solve the fatal sourcing issues in one fell swoop. Trouble is, that fell swoop would take you out of the furnace and into the fire, as the article would by definition become a massive, five-pronged, red-hot and radioactive POV-fork. At any rate, in their use of the word "allegations" the authors of this article are not bending over backwards to make this article comply with NPOV; they're bending over backwards to make the article (and its bastard brother articles) superficially resemble the Israel one (with parallel structure, stock phrases, etc.) so that the collective deadweight of the former may help to sink the latter. It's deletion by other means, as anyone who's read their euphemistic ultimatums and endless strawman arguments about "consistency" can see. The question for Wikipedians in general is whether we want to keep bending over frontwards in submission to these serial WP:POINT-violations, or are ready to confront the aggressive disruption and put an end to it.--G-Dett 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

“Bending over frontwards?” My my. Anyway, I agree that there are problems with the allegations of apartheid articles—all of them. Any arguments about OR, POV, and notability can oh-so-easily be applied to the Israel article (and have been, many times). I liken this to the one time I ill-advisedly hit the random article button and came across some utterly non-notable middle school, or similar. I put it up for AfD, and was sternly informed that basically all schools everywhere are notable, so I should really pipe down. And… I piped down. Now, I could go back and start putting out AfD’s for all articles on middle and grammar schools that aren’t in some obvious way notable (which is virtually all of them) but what would be the point? I might win some, I might lose some, but the solution is really to take them all out at once, or leave them all in. No point in keeping Marquette Catholic School but deleting Hanshew Middle School, or viceversa. IronDuke 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, no one has ever argued that the Israel article lacks secondary sources and hence runs afoul of WP:N and WP:NOR. There is prominent, widespread discussion of and controversy about allegations of Israeli apartheid, that is, the allegations themselves. There is apparently no discussion or controversy whatsoever about allegations of Chinese apartheid. Going by the evidence of the article on the topic, the only source that's ever discussed allegations of Chinese apartheid is Wikipedia. That's a fundamental difference you can't get around through obfuscation and verbal shell-games. Incidentally, it's not particularly surprising that allegations of Chinese apartheid have never been noticed or discussed before. China is not exactly synonymous with human rights. In terms of public image, China and China's apologists have bigger things to worry about than comparisons with South Africa. It's a fundamentally different equation with a country like Israel, which is one of the reasons the comparison has become a subject unto itself in the Israeli case, but not the Chinese case.--G-Dett 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  People have said time and again that IA runs afoul of NOR (and again, in the last complete AfD, a majority of folks wanted it gone). A secondary source noting that some people have made an analogy does not make that analogy worth an encyclopedia article. Oh, if you have a sec, can you point me to what you believe are the secondary sources which discuss the controversy? I would aprpeciate it. IronDuke 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ian Buruma, "Do not treat Israel like apartheid South Africa", The Guardian, July 23, 2002; "Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week," Jerusalem Post by Jonny Paul; Heribert Adam, Kogila Moodley, Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians; Alex Safian, "Guardian Defames Israel with False Apartheid Charges," Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, February 20, 2006; Joel Pollack, "The trouble with the apartheid analogy," Business Day, 2 March 2007; "Israel Is Not An Apartheid State," Jewish Virtual Library; Benjamin Pogrund, "Apartheid? Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote"; "Carter explains 'apartheid' reference in letter to U.S. Jews," International Herald Tribune; "Archbishop Tutu, please be fair," Jerusalem Post Dec. 5, 2006; Norman Finkelstein, "The Ludicrous Attacks on Jimmy Carter's Book," CounterPunch December 28, 2006; Gerald M. Steinberg, "Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause," Jerusalem Post, August 24, 2004...How many is that and how many do you need? How about we make a deal, Ironduke. If I can produce twenty-five (25) more secondary sources on the Israel-South Africa comparison – that is, 25 more sources that discuss the allegation itself, as a notable subject – will you concede the point that this article and the Israel article are categorically different in their sourcing? That one has a rich vein of secondary sources, while the other has none, and that the difference has fundamental implications for notability? And will you then stop pegging the legitimacy of this article to the legitimacy of the Israel one? You can still vote keep on this, but you'd have to evaluate it on its own merits. Deal?--G-Dett 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. an argument built upon the sensational is one designed to appeal to emotion; it undermines real issues. Real issues are significant enough to present in a straight forward manner as stated above; call it racism. We do not need to manipulate readers to have a visceral reaction to a country or people. To me this title is POV; and these article with "Allegations" need to be deleted or the titles changed; they are too easily used to use primary sources to develop one's soapbox du jour. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As I have !voted before, keep all or delete all articles on this subject. This article has plenty of sources and, per Gzuckier, we could meet some objections by renaming it to Chinese Apartheid. IronDuke 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Let me get this straight. If we delete this article because it has no secondary sources and hence a) cannot offer objective evidence of its subject's notability, and b) must rely on its own original synthesis of primary-source material in order to thread together a narrative, then we must also delete another article that has copious secondary sources and hence neither of these policy/guideline problems? On the grounds that both articles have the word "apartheid" in their titles? This is sophistry, Ironduke.--G-Dett 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The vast majority of the IA article is a quote farm hodge-podge. I see few secondary sources, and am not impressed enough by the few that there are to say that it makes a good WP article. As you’ll recall, in discussion on another page, I pointed out to you the many secondary sources that could be had discussing “Israeli as Nazi.” You did not respond to this, and I’m going to assume it was because of the nature of my sharp—even eviscerating—logic. “Sophistry?” Socratic, I say! IronDuke 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The lack of response is more likely to do with the fallaciousness of your argument, really. The Israeli apartheid article has reliable and verifiable sources to support the noteworthiness of the apartheid allegations. For Chinese apartheid, the article creator and the usual gang have cherry-picked a few phrases here and there, tossed them in the pot, and called it a day. Soapboxery at its finest. Tarc 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't respond because I didn't think your list of secondary sources establishing the notability of "Israelis as Nazis" for a Wikipedia article merited a response. Your secondary sources consisted of: a link to an op-ed in The Iranian (an online newsletter); a link to an unlabeled pdf photocopy of an alphabetical index to an unspecified book (if I were to guess, by Alan Dershowitz); a link to an article on "New Trends and Old Hatreds," accompanied by your bizarre advice that I "look for the Google blurb"; and an article about new antisemitism in England. I concluded that Socrates was fumbling around with Google to no meaningful effect, and I let it go. If you really require a response, I'll say this: your experiment proved how essential the secondary-source/notability requirement is. Editors exasperated with these "allegations" articles often rightly ask, what next? Allegations that George Bush is an idiot? Allegations that Paris Hilton is a ho-bag? Requiring secondary sources that comment on and establish the notability of an allegation is what prevents such nonsense. If you play the game the authors of this article play, where any collection of primary-source utterances can become the subject of a "sourced" article, then anything – including the Paris Hilton article and the Israelis-as-Nazis article – becomes permissible. What was salvageable from the sorry clutch of links you sent me would go very nicely into New antisemitism and Zionism and racism allegations; those are notable topics.--G-Dett 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - One look at the article and it's obvious that this is a gross violation of WP:Point. The article is extremely POV. I see exactly one sentence in the article that serves to provide a counter-argument. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that any editors who !voted Keep would be more than happy to see counter-arguments. It's still a young article. IronDuke 15:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • My comment goes more to the motivation of creating the article in the first place. There was no attempt to create something that was NPOV and encyclopedic. WP is not a soapbox for people to advance their political views. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per lack of any ANALOGY to South African style apartheid, which was based on race and ethnicity segregation ONLY. I cite The World Book Encyclopedia (1974): "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.". China is one nation, one race, only two languages Mandarin and Cantonese, which differ slightly, so the allegations of apartheid are just silly and invalid. These could apply only to the Kashmir region but the word "Kashmir" doesn't show up even once in this article. For French "allegations" article I voted "weak keep", because those allegations were valid, it concerned race segregation, not rural/urban segregation allegations. Also, there is another reason for speedy deletion. As per the same World Book, apartheid means the government's policy. As far as I know, China's government as bad as it is, has never installed this policy; they even claim Taiwan as "us". greg park avenue 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Greg, are you sure you've read the article? Most of the sources make very explicit analogies and comparisons to South African apartheid, and list government policies enforcing the conditions described. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure he's read it. Despite some misguided facts (i.e. "only two languages"), he's spot on in saying that China, if anything, is pro-assimilation, as in they'd much rather have people be absorbed into their culture, and in the case of the ROC, be absorbed within political boundaries as well. Pandacomics 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course, I read it, and I think it's an insult to Wikipedia too, to have here such a piece a garbage on display for so long. The official GOVERNTMENT'S POLICY (and this is a keyword to the term apartheid) strictly enforced in China is: THERE ARE NOT TWO CHINAS! (which is exactly the opposite to apartheid meaning), and everybody knows that. Once a US president did that mistake reffering to Taiwan calling it just like that and must apologize later for insult, however it was not meant to. I don't think you have to apologize for your mistake, because you're not a politician, only a wikipedian, but better get this piece a bullshit out of here ASAP, if only for sake of Jimbo's reputation. I think he's not Billy Gates who keeps money in the crates. And don't sell me that bullshit of yours that all articles including the term "allegations of apartheid" should be deleted as well (your comment below). Each country is different. Britannica would never used it, but they have also the print version. Just imagine Wikipedia in print. You would need a tractor trailer to make delivery from Wal-Mart to your house, but some wikipedians often use this as an argument for deletion of all "allegations" series. Just smile. greg park avenue 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, The article has considered all Wikipedia policies and stays on topic. --82.81.224.249 17:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to anon You'd better sign in if this is to be counted.--G-Dett 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment A couple things: 1. For those interested in factual discussions about China, the existing articles on these issues I could quickly find include Hukou, Tibetan sovereignty debate, Human rights in China, and Censorship in China. So far, I've seen no reason why we would combine all these together, even where no reliable sources have done so, but solely where the word "apartheid" is invoked. 2. For those talking about other AfD's, please note that some of these articles have been deleted, while some live on but remain contested. Allegations of Australian Apartheid was deleted,[1] as was Allegations of Islamic Apartheid.[2] Allegations of American Apartheid was also deleted,[3] though it remains on deletion review,[4] despite the clear history of racism, discrimination and segregation in the U.S. While one has to look to each discussion for the specific reasons, I would hope per WP:ALLORNOTHING that a similar individualized and policy-based approach can continue here. Mackan79 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and Allegations of Jordanian apartheid was deleted as well. You might note I didn't object to a number of those deletions, mostly because the material itself didn't warrant a separate article. Regarding your other argument, though, it applies equally well to all of the articles in this series; yet some editors insist on inventing spurious reasons as to why one specific article should be kept, and all others deleted, and others are insisting the article should be deleted based on their theories about the motivations of the creator, or simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. None of these are good arguments for deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the special pleading argument is backwards, but I'll simply restate that I have not seen it in any of the arguments for delete here. As I've said months ago, an article on apartheid allegations clearly cannot neutrally discuss the factual conditions in any country. At some point, a discussion surrounding a concept/debate/controversy itself can reach encyclopedic proportions. When I've explained why the situation here doesn't meet this standard, and you haven't responded, I'm not sure how you continue to label this as spurious or special pleading. The idea of "comprehensive" solutions, meanwhile, meaning to find the same solution for a number of fundamentally different articles, is exactly what WP:ALLORNOTHING recommends against. This is not to ignore concerns with other articles, but to say they can't be resolved here. Mackan79 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Jayjg, this is not a legitimate series of articles that can be judged all together. Whereas the Israel article is an independant problem, the rest were almost entirely the work of the same group of people (largely you and Urthogie), in obvious response to the Israel article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Cuchullain, it's as if you didn't read a word I wrote. I'll repeat it: "Some editors insist on inventing spurious reasons as to why one specific article should be kept, and all others deleted, and others are insisting the article should be deleted based on their theories about the motivations of the creator, or simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. None of these are good arguments for deletion." Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep an entry that deals specifically with the "apartheid analogy". Whatever problems editors say exists with the titling is the same one that exists throughout the "series" and should be dealt with comprehensively, and not piecemeal. Tewfik^Talk 19:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. the article is a heavily POV essay about observers' interpretation of what might be considered apartheid in China. I do not believe that "the subject" is notable, as it is in essence the amalgam of separate three ideas joined together by a very thin thread as if someone did a string searc on google for "apartheid" and "China". The article should be deleted outright, but it strikes me that the parts of the three constituent parts could be split back out into Hukou, Tibet, and Human rights in China. Just because the article is sourced ad nauseum doesn't mean it is not NPOV, including the title. Ohconfucius 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Abitrary break 1

• Merge and redirect to Human rights in China. It's an unecessary content fork; the relevant material, including allegations of apartheid, could and should be incorporated into the human rights article. AfD's are not about "systemic solutions"; they're about individual articles. At this point, it's a reasonable interpretation to say that both the editors who keep creating these content forks, and those who use the AfD's to accuse them of a broad range of malfeasance, are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The amount of potentially constructive energy being wasted on this issue is disheartening. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A reasonably well-written, NPOV, and referenced article. Beit Or 19:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article inherits notability etc. from the parent, Allegations of apartheid, article, for which it serves as a convenient repository of content. Of course China does not practice apartheid. Neither does France, Cuba, etc. Or Israel. Only ZA practiced apartheid. The decision has been made, repeatedly and ad nauseum, that Wikipedia can have an article on the epithet. The fact that that article has grown into a whole family of "articles" and that Wikipedia doesn't have a good mechanism for recognizing or presenting multi-"article" articles doesn't justify the kind of guerrilla warfare this AfD represents. The encyclopedia will not be improved by merging this content into Allegations of apartheid, and the time spent on doing so (and on this discussion) is simply a waste. Andyvphil 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability is not inherited. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Every major authoritative dictionary of the English language from the OED to M-W to Webster's New International defines "apartheid" both as the proper name for South Africa's former system and as a generic political term for systemic segregation. The articles in this pseudo-series are merely gathering instances of the regular use of a word and building narratives to thread the instances together. Wikipedians never decided – not repeatedly, not ad nauseum, not even once – that "Wikipedia can have an article on the epithet." What was decided, rather, was that if use of the word or concept (or "epithet" if you will) provoked enough discussion, commentary, controversy, scholarship, and international debate, then that debate could be considered encyclopedic. A very different thing. Creating a series of unsourced hoax articles in order to leverage deletion of an article that's survived six AfDs is "guerrilla warfare"; addressing the disruption head-on and through the usual channels is not.--G-Dett 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Who says Israel practices apartheid? But there is well documented analogy to it made by very notable politicians (Nobel Prize winners) and artists. If you wanna keep this article just because the name of "allegations" as an epithet has been allowed into Wikipedia, then I'd rather vote for switching "allegations" to "analogy" in this series and see how many countries fit into it. Probably very few only. Definitely not China. They even don't fit into "allegations" category. Then I recommend to rename this article Epithets concerning China. Some day we may rename it even to China apartheid jokes. greg park avenue 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete first off, per WP:N, notability is not inherited. Second, this is WP:POINT synthesis original research, as none of the reliable sources provided directly or significantly address "analogies between practices of the People's Republic of China and apartheid-era South Africa." VanTucky ^(talk) 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into Human Rights in China or somesuch. Seems a clear case of synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and/or climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. T L Miles 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, Mackan79, Pandacomics, Huawei, Hong Qi Gong. While I agree that the article is informative regarding the Hukou system, that material belongs there. There are no secondary sources discussing the analogy and as such the collection of the information under this title is WP:OR. Tiamat 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep nom seems like a misplaced emotional opinion, not GF for WP. --Shuki 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The opinions expressed here should converge on the proposed subject of the article in question, not on amateur speculation about mentality of its author or contestant. We don't need another Wikishrink. greg park avenue 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• At any rate, Shuki, WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT aren't emotions. Do you care to say why you think Allegations of Chinese apartheid qualifies as one of those "rare" cases under WP:NOR in which no secondary sources are needed?--G-Dett 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please avoid begging the question, it's a logical fallacy. The article contains only secondary sources; it doesn't posit that there is apartheid in China based, for example, on the hukou laws and the definition of apartheid. Rather, it cites secondary sources that make that analogy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• When the subject is "allegations of Chinese apartheid," a source that makes the allegation is a primary source. A source that discusses the allegations – that says, for example, when the allegation was first articulated, or who contests it, or what its political implications are, or if or why it's controversial – is a secondary source. Now I can see you've been working on this article trying to save it since the AfD was posted – larding it with more truffles sniffed out by your google-hounds, and removing Jimbo's driver's license photo – but where exactly are the secondary sources? I'm not eagerly rereading with each tweak, I'll confess, so maybe you can point me in the right direction; still don't see anyone talking about the allegations. One thing's certain – it's absolutely, categorically false to say that the article "contains only secondary sources."--G-Dett 23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Your bizarre claim that secondary sources all magically become primary if someone inserts the words "Allegations of" into an article title has been refuted below. I know you don't like the words "Allegations of" in the titles of these articles, but this new shell game of yours is taking things way too far; please have some respect for the integrity and meaning of words. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Based on comments here, I've significantly improved the article, adding material from new top-notch sources, and re-organizing, re-working and clarifying the rest. I encourage editors here to re-read the article, as I think it's rapidly approaching some of Wikipedia's best work. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Citing sources to make an analogy" is still synthesis OR. The topic should only be written about if or when sources make that analogy. And none of them do. The article compiles sources to create a topic, which is not Wikipedia's goal. We only report what other people say. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What on earth are you talking about? The sources explicitly make the analogy, not the authors of the article. They're the ones explicitly saying "apartheid". Many even explicitly mention South Africa, or draw explicit analogies to its apartheid laws, for example:
      • "As in South Africa under apartheid, households in China faced severe restrictions on mobility during the Mao period. The household registration system (hukou) system... specified where people could work and, in particular, classified workers as rural or urban workers. A worker seeking to move from rural agricultural employment to urban nonagricultural work would have to apply through the relevant bureaucracies, and the number of workers allowed to make such moves was tightly controlled. The enforcement of these controls was closely intertwined with state controls on essential goods and services. For instance, unauthorized workers could not qualify for grain rations, employer-provided housing, or health care." Wildasin, David E. "Factor mobility, risk, inequality, and redistribution" in David Pines, Efraim Sadka, Itzhak Zilcha, Topics in Public Economics: Theoretical and Applied Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 334.
      • "The application of these regulations is reminiscent of apartheid South Africa's hated pass laws. Police carry out raids periodically to round up those tho do not possess a temporary residence permit. Those without papers are placed in detention centres and then removed from cities." Waddington, Jeremy. Globalization and Patterns of Labour Resistance, Routledge, 1999, p. 82.
      • "I’ll be drawing some comparisons to South Africa’s apartheid system, not because I think the analogy is perfect but because it’s revealing. Many ruling classes in developing countries have approached broadly similar problems of labor regulation by adopting some strikingly similar measures to divide the workforce, even if the apartheid ruling class was unique in finding its particular racial solution to the problem of controlling its labor force." Whitehouse, David. "Chinese workers and peasants in three phases of accumulation"Template:PDFlink, Paper delivered at the Colloquium on Economy, Society and Nature, sponsored by the Centre for Civil Society at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, March 2, 2006.
      • "The permit system controls [migrant workers] in a similar way to the passbook system under apartheid. Most migrant workers live in crowded dormitories provided by the factories or in shanties. Their transient existence is precarious and exploitative. The discrimination against migrant workers in the Chinese case is not racial, but the control mechanisms set in place in the so-called free labor market to regulate the supply of cheap labor, the underlying economic logic of the system, and the abusive consequences suffered by the migrant workers, share many of the characteristics of the apartheid system." Chan, Anita. China's Workers Under Assault: The Exploitation of Labor in a Globalizing Economy, M.E. Sharpe, 2001, p. 9.
    • Has no-one actually bothered to look at the sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment All the "new information" that you've given legitimately....belongs in the Hukou article. Apartheid is racial segregation, plain and simple. Isolating rural residents from urban residents is just setting a caste system, and has absolutely nothing to do with race. Because, you know, you can't exactly racially segregate (sure, you can segregate through other means = not apartheid) within any one race. Pandacomics 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Your disagreement with the thesis of the sources is interesting, but not really relevant. But if you strongly feel that "apartheid" is related only to "race", then perhaps you should put the Social apartheid article up for AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • WP is not a place for you to present your WP:Original research though. What this article is, is a hodgepodge of information about circumstances of seperate peoples, slapped together into an incoherent topic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • As explained, WP:NOR doesn't apply here since the sources themselves make the analogy, not the authors of the article. Reading previous comments (including the ones immediately above this), WP:NOR, and the article itself would be helpful; it's hardly "incoherent". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Sources who make the allegation are primary sources, Jay. I hope you're not up to some damn shell game with that basic definition.--G-Dett 23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Nonsense. In the case of hukou, for example, material that describes the hukou system in China, and material that describes the apartheid system in South Africa, are "primary". If a Wikipedia editor took those sources and created an article comparing the two, and saying that China practiced apartheid (or a form of it), then that would be original research. In this case, however, it is the secondary sources themselves that make these comparisons and analogies; the article, in contrast, just reports what they say. Similarly, regarding Tibet, one could take reports of the Chinese colonization of Tibet, and its impacts on native Tibetans, and compare it to the situation in South Africa, alleging "apartheid" - and that, indeed, would be original research. However, the article, in contrast, reports on secondary sources that make the analogy, and repeats what they say. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
              • What absolute rubbish, what a shell game. In an article on "allegations of Chinese apartheid," a source making the allegation is a primary source. A source discussing the allegations is a secondary source. Period. You have no secondary sources here, none, nada.--G-Dett 00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                • So if the article were renamed Chinese apartheid they would suddenly become secondary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • Exactly. And you'd be out of the WP:NOR furnace and into the WP:NPOV fire. You can't have an article on Chinese apartheid, because it's a loaded POV phrase, relatively few people use it, and there are much more common terms and subject headings for the disparate phenomena you've gathered here. You can have an article on the comparison, if it's a notable one, as established by sufficient secondary-source commentary about the allegation itself, per WP:NOR and WP:N. After all we've been through regarding the Israel article, it's astonishing that you'd forget all this, all the while talking about a "comprehensive solution."--G-Dett 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                    • Amazing. The secondary sources all miraculously turned into primary ones because the article name starts with "Allegations of". Remove it, and they all become secondary again. Talk about a shell game. Thanks for "clarifying". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                      • Jay, please. Your very basis for these articles has been that they are supposedly on the allegations as such and not on the factual situation.[5] We've discussed this many times before, as well as the relative status of primary and secondary sources. Have you now forgotten this? Mackan79 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                        • Interesting way you have of taking that statement out of context. The article in question was indeed about allegations of apartheid, as is this one; it's not a broader article discussing, for example, hukou in general, but rather, an article which reports the specific comparisons that secondary sources make between hukou and apartheid. Similarly, in the case of the other article, it wasn't a broader article discussing the social situation in the French suburbs (which would be a lengthy article indeed). Instead, it was an article which reported specific comparisons secondary sources made between the French treatment of Muslim and Arab communities, and South African apartheid. Secondary sources, not Wikipedians, have made these analogies and the articles just report what they say. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                          • Jay, your argument has been that the material can't go elsewhere, because we need to focus specifically on the allegations of apartheid. It's not about the underlying issues, you say, but only these "comparisons." Therefore it needs to stay here, and we need to discuss only people who talk about apartheid, because it's an article about allegations of apartheid. Now as far as I know, that means the article is about the use of the term, as otherwise I have no idea why we would limit the discussion in that way. But then you're also denying that we need any secondary sources discussing the use of the term. You're saying, rather, that anybody who makes the allegation is a secondary source and good enough. You're ultimately trying to have it both ways, by making the scope as if it were about the phrase, but then analyzing the sources as if it's about the underlying issues. If I'm misconstruing your comments, please let me know; either way your argument amounts to a complete circumvention of Wikipedia's policy on these issues. Mackan79 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                            • Mackan79, I've read your argument twice, and I honestly say that I do not understand it. All I can say is that the article contains only secondary sources discussing the comparison between China's actions and the South African apartheid policies, and an infinite number of shell games regarding the two words "Allegations of" in the title will not magically transform those secondary sources into primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                      • "[W]hether or not something is a primary or secondary source depends on how it is used. For example, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a primary source as discussed in that article; that is, it is a primary source which has been subjected to a great deal of secondary analysis." That's what you wrote on May 1 of this year, Jay. Forget, remember, forget, remember; that's the shell game.--G-Dett 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                        • I remember, but it's not relevant; the Allegations of French apartheid article isn't an analysis of Robert S. Leiken's article titled "Revolting in France; The labor-law protests pitted the privileged young against disaffected immigrants". Rather, it is an article that reports what Leiken (and over 20 other secondary sources) say about France's policies and their similarity to South Africa's apartheid. False analogies don't make good arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
          • The fact that the hodgepodge of information was slapped together and thrown into one article is what makes this original research. This is an interpretation that there is a connected, coherent, and singular subject matter, based on sources that do not present this view and only present the circumstances of specific and seperate people groups. This is why it's original research. I fully believe that the content, if the sources are in fact reliable, do believe in articles like Human rights in the People's Republic of China, Tibet, etc etc. And the article was basically put together to advance a specific point. It's made to be POV and a violation of WP:Point. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm curious; do you think your argument applies to Allegations of Brazilian apartheid as well? How about Allegations of Israeli apartheid? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mandsford. It's not up to us to purge WP by what some enraged Wikipedians qualify as dreck for no valid reasons, tellingly spicing up the sauce with constant personal attacks.

> [G-Dett] "Sources who make the allegation are primary sources, Jay."

Wrong: if the Economist chooses "Discrimination against rural migrants is China's apartheid" for a title, that's a secondary source saying so - quite possibly citing a primary one who said so in the first place - absolutely nothing wrong with that. Same applies with "China reviews `apartheid' for 900m peasants," as feels The Independent, and "Third World Report: 'Chinese apartheid' threatens links with Africa" by The Guardian, or "China's 'Apartheid' Taiwan Policy" by NYT. I agree with Jay: The distinction between primary and secondary sources, valid in saner circumstances, is just a spurious red herring here. The list goes on with a dozen or so [WP:RS] - obviously, rational argument is futile here. --tickle me 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tickle me, you are now officially arguing that when a newspaper or magazine runs a story, it is "citing" its own staff writer. That the guy writing the headline is a secondary source, "citing" the primary source which is the story itself. Why not make the copy editor a tertiary source? And the paperboy a quaternary source? If you're like me and have a nice little Jack Russell to bark like hell and bring the paper to your feet, he's your quinary source. "The Independent feels" – I promise you, Tickle me, I'm not enraged, I'm tickled to death by this crap; OK, I'm mildly irritated at having spit up half my martini onto the computer screen, but I'll get over that. But let's be clear here – I am not responsible for the pretzel your train of thought has buckled itself into. It is precisely in such insane circumstances – in an article about what some people say, how some people use a certain word, as noticed by some Wikipedians using search engines – that the distinction between primary and secondary sources becomes fundamental. Simply put, if the comparison you've found hasn't itself been remarked or discussed by anyone, it isn't a notable topic.--G-Dett 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

> Simply put, if the comparison you've found hasn't itself been remarked

> or discussed by anyone, it isn't a notable topic

Hard to believe you're pulling this one. If the the Economist, the Independent, the Guardian, or the NYT have articles titled like "Discrimination against rural migrants is China's apartheid," while dealing with the subject in the ensuing text, they're yet neither remarking nor discussing the topic, much less notably so, as these rags are no WP:RS? As rags in general are no WP:RS anymore, all of a sudden, lest they deal with apartheid in some tiny country we need not mention? This is sheer filibustering, hoping that opponents just leave the premises, tired eventually. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez, saying that the Economist's article makes a serious allegation of apartheid is just ludicrous misreading of the source. If a newspaper runs a story called "London Mayor is worse than Hitler, says residents", do you think it is seriously alleging that the London Mayor is a fascist dictator bent on world domination?

These aren't allegations - they are analogies - or, in many cases, hyperbole or exaggeration. This article tries to misrepresent exaggerated analogies as allegations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious; do you think your argument applies to Allegations of Brazilian apartheid as well? How about Allegations of Israeli apartheid? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

> ludicrous misreading of the source

Would you mind elaborating on that? When likening China's discriminatory attitude against its rural migrants to "apartheid" they didn't mean it, because PalaceGuard008 knows better, QED? Whose palace are you guarding?

> This article tries to misrepresent exaggerated analogies as allegations

We might want to complain with the Economist, as their article doesn't suit our expectations. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

btw, this just escaped me till right now: G-Dett feels the urge to admonish us to "[d]elete this dreck" - right per nom. I can't believe that, given that dreck is Yiddish, while Zionist (and worse) is the standard qualifier for Jay and Urthogie, the authors if the disputed article. Seems like even faint pretense isn't needed anymore. --tickle me 00:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am less tickled by this sort of smear, though. If you want to know how I feel about the word "Zionist," click here. And then drop it. For good. As in now.--G-Dett 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

> "If you want to know how I feel about the word "Zionist," click here"

Astounding: you're writing your very own persilschein? Good thinking, I'm convinced, now. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-written article, well-sourced. I also like that it says "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" rather than "Chinese apartheid". I see no good reason to delete. I do see that there's some overlap between here and Human rights in China, but that article is already extremely long, and it wouldn't make sense to merge more information into it. Instead, this is a good sub-article as part of that series. --Elonka 01:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A good, well-sourced article. Frivolous AfD. Arrow740 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep. AFD seems poorly conceived. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Stupidity Anyone who links this AFD debate with the rest of the "Allegations of X Apartheid" series, especially the god-damned Israeli one, is an idiot. I spent months trying to establish a "consistent" policy on the Taiwan/Republic of China naming policy, and failed. Nobody cares about your petty war. By trying to make China a pawn in your pathetic game you have only earned yourself the enmity of a whole new group of people. --Ideogram 03:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if the title of this article was changed to "Chinese apartheid", it is clear it would have to be about a specific government system that has been called apartheid. It is only by calling it "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" that it can talk about five different government policies which have nothing in common other than having the rhetorical device "apartheid" thrown at them. The fact that people overuse the term "apartheid" is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. We don't have articles about "Allegations that X is a Nazi", because it's so fucking common. --Ideogram 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment Move this to "demographic problem of China" or a page with similar title. Apartheid sounds more incendiary than anything else. This article is really biased too. I can't believe there're allegations of "apartheid against Taiwanese", no doubt referenced by single quote mined source. You want to know real apartheid? Go read how harsh we (the Taiwanese) treat mainland Chinese domestics and mail order wives here in Taiwan, what a pathetic article . Blueshirts 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Apartheid" is indeed "incendiary." The problem is, once Wikipedia is ablaze, putting out an individual flame here and there won't work. The whole fire needs to be put out. And, as a famous poet once put it, we didn't start the fire. 6SJ7 03:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)