The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Jordanian apartheid

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

Virtually none of the article's ten sources mention anything about allegations of Jordanian apartheid. In only one does the word "apartheid" even appear, and it's a blogpost by Alan Dershowitz. Most of the articles in the metastasizing pseudo-series "Allegations of apartheid" are shabby, but this one is almost insolent in its frivolousness. All were created in violation of WP:POINT by editors who have tried unsuccessfully to delete Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, a copiously sourced article which covers a very prominent, very public, very contentious, and wide-ranging international debate among scholars, journalists, public figures, Nobel laureates, and so on. The tactic in creating these "sister" articles is to google around for random quotes using the word "apartheid" in primary sources in a variety of contexts, and cobble them together into desultory pieces of investigative journalism/original research, sorted by country. Allegations of Jordanian apartheid, intriguingly, takes the opposite approach. Its creator has merely gathered a dozen or so sources – seemingly at random – on Jordanian human-rights issues, none of which ever mentions apartheid, or South Africa, or anything of the sort, at all. These things are presumably reminiscent of apartheid to the Wikipedian who gathered them, so he's stapled them together with the aforementioned blog-post to make this ridiculous article. Delete with extreme prejudice. G-Dett 00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Technically palestinians are not technically citizens of Israel. Anyway, by either definition, both fall out of the definition of apartheid (see Crime of apartheid), apartheid is "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." By that definition, Jordan could fall under the definition of apartheid, but so could just about every other country in the world. That is all allegations.--SefringleTalk 06:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this nomination, there are now four notable reliable sources which prove the allegation is notable, all of which use the term, proof that there is probably more to come. Articles are not built in a day, and this article is all of two days old. It is pretty well sourced, includes alternative opinions, and it apparently is growing, proving it is notable.--SefringleTalk 05:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not proof of notability. Notability requires, in this case, that there be a debate. There is no response from any notable pro-Jordanian commentator or from the Jordanian State regarding these allegations. The few sources available perfectly fit Allegations of apartheid, and should remain there until the allegations against jordan truly become enough to justify one page. I also note that you have stated elsewhere your support to delete this page if Allegations of Israeli apartheid is deleted. I think your contribution is disingenuous.--Cerejota 04:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why did you leave in your hypothesis that I filed this nomination as a POINT-attack against him? Because of your nomination comments. "All were created in violation of WP:POINT by editors who have tried unsuccessfully to delete Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" Basicly implies that every zionist supporter who creates an allegations of X apartheid" article is doing so out of WP:POINT. Maybe you aren't talking about Urthogie by himself per se, but you are using general terms to imply that all allegations of apartheid articles created by any supporter of Zionism was done to make a point and is done in bad faith. Clearly that is a bad nomination.
our job is to decide if there's a vigorous, notable debate or discussion about alleged similarities between Jordan and South Africa. exactly. And only one percent of your nomination focused on this issue. The vast majority of your nomination was an accusation of WP:POINT.--SefringleTalk 03:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treatment of Palestinians in Jordan is deplorable, and it's even worse in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Arab world. Articles that really zero in on the subject would be a terrific addition to Wikipedia, and if you'd like to write them I will help you. That subject, however, has not been looked at through the historical lens of South African apartheid by any reliable sources, nor is there any discernible public debate or discourse about alleged similarities thereof. This article begins with that utterly spurious framework because its goal is not to address the situation of Palestinians in Jordan, but rather to create a WP:POINT bargaining chip with which to secure the deletion of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which some editors object to on ideological grounds. This is an edit war by proxy, in other words, and this breezily incompetent and bad-faith article shows real contempt on the part of the authors for the serious moral and political topic you rightly raise. If you were to suggest heavily revising this content and "moving" it to Palestinian refugees in Jordan or something of the sort, I would certainly support that.--G-Dett 13:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6SJ7, the creator of this article has been on WP for about a year. He knows what he's doing and he'll survive a few ironies at his expense. This article is far and away the least competent of that collective con job and bumbling ensemble piece we call the "Allegations of apartheid" series, which is saying something. What you mistake for anger is connoisseurial pleasure. Surely I'm allowed to whistle while I work, especially when the work in question is mopping up deliberately spilled milk.--G-Dett 20:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What?!? I thought the whole inner solar system was covered, and that Allegations of Martian apartheid was next in the pipeline!
So what sources directly accuse Jordan of apartheid, funny that even the Israeli government has not made such a claim, the term Jordanian apartheid was invented on wikipedia Bleh999 06:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely true, althougt there is notable use of the analogy, but not enough to justify its own page. That content belongs merged into Allegations of apartheid.--Cerejota 10:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable use" in this case refers to one sentence in a book by Benjamin Netanyahu, and one sentence in a blog post by Alan Dershowitz. Cerejota, with regards to notability you need to review the distinction between primary sources and secondary sources.--G-Dett 15:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is why if the result of this AfD is keep or no consensus I will re-state my merge proposal. The sources are too little to justify a page on its own, but are notable enough. Alan Dershowitz posted in a blog, but in this case it is a primary source: he was not reporting what someone else said, but what he said. And do we really have to debate his notability?--Cerejota 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not used as a source in the article anymore.--Cerejota 00:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not getting it. Primary sources are less desirable on WP, and they do not in themselves establish notability except in rare circumstances. From WP:N:

"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability.

And from WP:NOR:

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.

--G-Dett 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Less desirable doesn't mean it cannot be used. It just means lesser quality. I will repeat myself: Exploding whale is both one of the oldest articles in wikipedia, and a featured article, which means there is consensus that this is a good article. However, it is almost entirely made up of primary sources, its notability is to a large extent self-referential, and would be WP:OR under your rather strict and strange criteria for OR. Ultimately, you are just the twisted mirror image of the WP:POINT kiddies and possible meatpuppets (and some not-so-kiddies, unfortunately): you just want Allegations of Israeli apartheid to be the sole article, instead of looking at each instance of sourced material on its own. While I agree in this instance with a delete and merge, I do so because while notable, the material doesn't constitute enough for a separate article and we have a page for such cases, Allegations of apartheid.
I repudiate your double-standard: There is exactly one secondary source in Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Adam and Moodley, and in large part they are both notable precisely because of their book. However, Benjamin Netanyahu is an obvious notable previous to his use of the analogy. You want to delete content of encyclopedic value just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Cerejota 00:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no double standard, Cerejota. Just the single standard: articles must have notable subjects; the notability of their subjects must be verifiable through secondary sources. Your comment betrays an enduring confusion about primary sources vs. secondary sources. Jimmy Carter's book is a primary source because it alleges apartheid. The hundreds of op-ed comments and commentaries on how Jimmy used "the A-word," and the hundreds of news pieces on how Jewish leaders were castigating Jimmy, and how the longtime board members of the Carter center were resigning because of the title of his book, and so on, were secondary sources. The Israel article's 115 cites is chock-a-block with secondary sources, and I can add 400 more by lunchtime if you like. I can't quite believe you're still talking about exploding whale, but for what it's worth that article also has many secondary sources, and I can't understand why you think that it doesn't.--G-Dett 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ {Dershowitz, Alan), The Case Against Jordan
More