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. This was easily the most difficult AFD I have ever closed. My thoughts are below:

It was a combination of all of the above factors that led me to close as delete. While I realize that this is a likely candidate for WP:DRV, I hope that editors will instead work towards creating a more lasting consensus - there seemed to be some support on both side for examining the use of the word "apartheid" in different countries in a new section of Crime of apartheid, and I hope that an attempt to do so would lead to a more focussed objective than there seems ever to have been for this article.
I apologize for the length of this close, but I felt that under the circumstances it was necessary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid[edit]

AfDs for this article:
  • AfD 1 - opened 5 Jun 2006, closed as "no consensus"
  • AfD 2 opened 29 Mar 2007, closed as "delete"
  • DRV 6 Apr 2007, closed as "overturn and relist"
  • AfD 3 opened 11 Apr 2007, closed as "keep"
  • ArbCom review opened 12 Aug 2007, closed 26 Oct
  • AfD 4 opened 19 Oct 2007, closed procedurally in deference to the ArbCom investigation
Allegations of apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete This article has long been a source of controversy, and is regarded by many as a WP:SYNTH violation consisting mostly of original research. Most of the articles cited in the footnotes contain only fleeting references to the term "apartheid", and I do not believe that any make formal accusations that particular countries are guilty of the Crime of apartheid. (The Bosnia reference is especially weak, as it refers to "apartheid" solely in terms of rich and poor ... normally, there's some reference to class, ethnicity, gender or religion as well.)

For those curious, the first afd ended in utter chaos (the closing admin's comments must be seen to be believed), the second ended in a deletion that was subsequently overturned, the third resulted in a "keep" vote, and the fourth ended with a procedural closure. In other words, there is no strong historical precedent that this article should be retained. In fact, this article's stature is so low in some circles that it's actually been parodied on non-article space (see WP:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid).

I should also note that the previous four nominations took place against the backdrop of controversy over the page Allegations of Israeli apartheid. As this page has now been retitled as Israel and the apartheid analogy, and all of the other "Allegations of [...] Apartheid" pages have been removed, there seems little reason to retain this article. CJCurrie (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC) updated 23:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The following discussions may also be of interest:

CJCurrie (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This listing is utterly irrelevant to this discussion and misleading, as the voting editors don't have opportunity to review the merits of articles that were deleted; and it would be undue burden to expect them to review the state of the articles that were kept at the time they were up for deletion. Whether the article up for deletion should be kept or not should be based on the merits of the article itself, not on opinons about certain editors. CJCurrie has not explained why these discussions may be of interest, save to express some (absolutely unfounded) theories about the thinking patterns of some imagined group of editors with whom he appears to have a disagreement or personal beef (not clear which). CJCurrie also refuses to discuss this issue in the talk page. I can think of many other discussions that also might be of interest to voting editors, but will refrain from including them here pending a constructive discussion. --Leifern (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I agree that Allegations of apartheid should be deleted on its (lack of) merits, but it's also important for newcomers to know that there's a history to this discussion. It's also worth mentioning that four arbitrators concluded that the voting patterns of a real group of editors amounted to a WP:POINT violation, and that nine arbitrators concluded "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" was central to the broader debate. I would tend to think this is entirely relevant. CJCurrie (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this article should be deleted or kept on the basis of its merits, what possible relevance does a completely different article, Allegations of Israeli apartheid have? You were among those who said that the existence of an article about alleged apartheid in Israel had absolutely nothing to do with alleged apartheid in other states; and then constructed the case you were referring to out of thin air. And now you are the one who wants to couple the issues for your own purpose. And to take it even further, what possible relevance does it have that four arbitrators at one point in a messy case they eventually gave up, decided they could read my mind? What you seem be saying is that you think that it is time to finish the work you started in the failed Arbcom case, namely to make it difficult for editors who in your opinion have a pro-Israeli bias to edit articles related to Israel? --Leifern (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" to this article will be obvious to everyone who's looked over its history. The only reason User:Jayjg brought back Allegations of apartheid as a full article in 2006 was to merge Israeli apartheid into it. This isn't speculation -- he acknowledged it at the time! I'm against this strategy for two reasons: (i) Israel and the apartheid analogy is an encyclopedic topic that deserves its own article, (ii) Allegations of apartheid is a WP:SYNTH violation that fails on its own merits.
I don't completely follow the rest of your comments, though suffice it to say: (i) the arbcom case ended in a stalemate, but four arbitrators still endorsed the view that Jayjg and others were taking part in a WP:POINT violation centred around "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", which suggests the accusation wasn't invented out of nowhere, (ii) I'd very much prefer to get over the "pro-Israel/anti-Israel" dichotomy and just work on creating encyclopedic articles. CJCurrie (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do you bring in these other articles and keep bringing up Jayjg's supposed motivation for starting this article? You're arguing a particular line of reasoning to make your point (that the article only exists to serve some kind of purpose that has to do with Israel), but you categorically close the door to the equivalent line of reasoning on the other side (that you want the article deleted to single out Israel).
Also, why is it important why a particular article is started? I started an article on Stein Ørnhøi, a Norwegian politician. Do I need a good reason to start it? Should I have to explain myself in case I did it to make some kind of point that some people might not like?
As for the four Arbcom members, I am inclined to round up those mentioned by them and start this issue all over again with these four so we can get on with our lives. I decided at the time to just let things go rather than go nuts trying to explain why I voted each time; but if my vote on AFDs is going to get discounted on any article that has any connection with Israel because these four arbcom members didn't understand my actions, then I'll start a campaign to vindicate myself. So either you drop this argument, or I'll take it to these arbcom members that you think their views at the time gives you a carte blanche to assume bad faith on my part. --Leifern (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses: (i) I've already answered the other "line of reasoning": Israel isn't being "singled out", and the Israeli apartheid analogy is encyclopedic in any event, (ii) this article is rather different from a biographical piece on Stein Ørnhøi, (iii) I agree that Jayjg's professed reason for re-establishing the article is not directly relevant to the question of whether or not it should be deleted now; it is relevant to the question of how we got to this stage, (iv) I'm not arguing that your "vote" should be discarded, though I'll note that afds aren't supposed to be votes in the first place. CJCurrie (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We've tried that before; in fact, there's a year or more worth of discussion about that at WP:APARTHEID. The current solution of redirecting Apartheid to South African Apartheid and having this article be the catch-all of Apartheid outside of South Africa seems to be working well. AfD isn't the right place to rework all that, imo. -- Kendrick7talk 04:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

You make a reasonable argument for an article titled "Political rhetoric." However, whether you like it or not, the term "Apartheid" has been broadly used to describe the actions of only three countries, and two of these only in their policies since abandoned (one of these - the United States - only ever having had the term applied to it in distant retrospective). The "bias" you believe you perceive is not mine, but the world's. If you want to eliminate it, I think your most productive course of action would be to write books and articles on Cambodian and French and Saudi and Brazilian Apartheid, and not to insist that Wikipedia act as if such books and articles already exist, along with a vast readership. Good luck finding a publisher. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you read WP:SYNTH? If you are going to quote mention of a policy which applies perfectly to this case then at least support it, don't use the quote as reasoning for Keeping this Original Research just because you didn't like the way the argument was worded. I assume from the fact you didn't actual propose a counter argument, that you agree this is entirely Synthesised for the purpose of making a point? Infact... go back through that and you can label two more policy Violations, however Synth pretty much covers it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the part after "But, I digress,"? (The argument put forth by the nominator is so poor as to not really require a vigorous counter-argument.) Anyway, read the part after the digression. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment fully thankyou, questioning that in this case didn't really make sense, considering my point stands. You didn't make a counter argument as to why this is not a synthesis, you simply stated matter of factly that there is notabilty. Clearly you didn't read the references, none of which mention the topic of "Allegations of apartheid" and all of which are brought together purely for the purpose of Original Research. Please remeber there are other Policies by which an article can be unsuitable, Notability through lots of somewhat related references are not the only reason to keep an article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's synthesised, fix it rather than try to delete it. It's that simple.
From the OED:
Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European (Coloured or mixed, Bantu, Indian, etc.); applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib.
[1929 J. C. DU PLESSIS in Die N.G. Kerk in die O.V.S. en die Naturelle-Vraagstuk 22 In hierdie grondbegrip van Sendingwerk en nie in rassevooroordeel nie, moet die verklaring gesoek word vir die gees van apartheid wat ons gedragslyn nog altoos gekenmerk het.] 1947 Cape Times 24 Oct. 7/7 Mr. Hofmeyr said apartheid could not be reconciled with a policy of progress and prosperity for South Africa. 1948 Ibid. 12 Aug. 1/1 Mr. P. O. Sauer..will explain the application of the apartheid policy on the railways. Ibid. 13 Aug. 8 It is always easy to discern the immediate benefits or comforts conferred on the apartheid-minded Europeans, but impossible to discern the benefits conferred on the non-Europeans. 1949 Ibid. 18 July 9/3 Apartheid is to be introduced at the Kimberley Post Office as soon as necessary structural alterations can be made. Separate counters will be provided for European and non-European customers. 1949 Manch. Guardian 13 July 4/6 Thus Dr. Malan's policy of ‘Apartheid’ for the non-Europeans, which is only the Dutch word for Field Marshal Smuts's policy of ‘segregation’, which in turn is only a pretty word for repression, is achieving a position of ‘Apartheid’, in the literal sense of isolation, for the nation as a whole. 1950 Hansard Commons CCCCLXXVI. 2020 It does not really justify making a sort of political apartheid as the basis of one's foreign policy. 1953 J. PACKER Apes & Ivory ii. 17 This residential and social apartheid is not artificial. It is in the very nature of life in South Africa. What is new in apartheid is the Immorality Act which forbids intimacy between White and Brown. 1955 Times 5 July 6/3 The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Fisher, drew a parallel yesterday between the political apartheid which he had seen in South Africa, separating the nation, and ecclesiastical apartheid which prevented unity among the churches. 1958 Times Lit. Suppl. 21 Nov. 674/5 The tristichs deprived of their rhyming nexus suggest only a metrical apartheid. 1959 Times 28 Feb. 7/3 Some system of apartheid in Central Africa would result. 1959 News Chron. 13 Aug. 4/1 Without going to extreme lengths of apartheid, it should still be..possible to allow those who smoke to do so..on a bus top, reserving the lower deck to those who find the habit revolting. 1961 Times 15 Mar. 14/2 The South African Broadcasting Corporation said the word apartheid would now not be used except in direct quotation... It would use the word ‘self-development’ to describe the Government's race policies. 1963 Listener 25 Apr. 699/1 It was Sir Charles Snow who first put about the idea of cultural apartheid.
•Jim62sch•dissera! 22:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If it's synthesised, fix it rather than try to delete it." Ordinarily I would agree, but the problem we have in this case is that the fundamental concept of the article is irretrievably flawed. It's based on the supposition that there is a worldwide phenomenon of "allegations of apartheid", but none of the references in the article discuss this alleged phenomenon. The article instead argues for the existence of such a phenomenon, based on citing random instances when someone has used the word "apartheid" in relation to various countries. That's the heart of the problem. "Unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas", such as the claimed existence of an "allegations of apartheid" phenomenon, are exactly what WP:NOR prohibits. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Articles about political discourse and rhetorical trends can be terrific, but they need sources that actually write about those things, not sources that supposedly exemplify them.--G-Dett (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sofixit template Jim. I should create a template for the following response, since I've typed so many versions of it. In a nutshell: I don't think the sourcing issue can be fixed because so far as I can tell, there are no secondary sources for this topic. This is what I meant when I said it appears to be a made-up topic. Wikipedians using search engines have discovered what they think is a rhetorical trend in discussion of everything from Bosnia/Herzegovina to the worldwide distribution of potable water, but no one describes that rhetorical trend except them. The thing this article is about is not recognized as a thing by any real-world RS; this is what I mean when I say no sources. I've looked for sources myself to no avail, and asked others for them and got nothing.--G-Dett (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You searched all 5 million potential sources? Woe. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every sentence that discusses the topic of this article, "allegations of apartheid," is a synthesis. From the first sentence forward. Because that topic doesn't exist as a general topic in the real world; it was formulated here.--G-Dett (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this should probably go without saying, I will say it anyway: I don't think that even comes close to answering my question. You need to show what the synthesis actually is, from the words of the article, in order to show that there actually is a synthesis. As for the title, it can be changed. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Update: The article has been moved to Apartheid analogies. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, you need to start with the lead and show us which reliable sources claim that "allegations of apartheid have been made, informally, against societies beyond South Africa," which ones claim that "activists and political theorists have used the term 'apartheid' to describe other perceived social or political discrimination," and which ones claim that "apartheid has been used in compound phrases coined to compare actual or alleged forms of segregation, discrimination or disparity to South African apartheid."--G-Dett (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a synthesis in the sense that it draws together a large number of fleeting references to "apartheid" in relation to countries other than South Africa. There is neither a scholarly nor a serious journalistic discussion behind "use of the apartheid analogy, in a general sense". CJCurrie (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer. In just a quick look, I can answer your question in one word: "Arab." The second sentence of the Post-South Africa section reads, "In France the word apartheid has been used to describe the social situation in the French suburbs where Arab immigrants are not integrated with the general French population and live with inferior social services and housing." (italics added) The sentence has two footnotes, the first of which points to the article Postcolonial Urban Apartheid, and the second of which contains an excerpt from an interview of Tariq Ramadan. After the "Allegations of apartheid" article describes the UN definition of apartheid as referring to "racially based policies in any state," we handily see it reported that in France the term has been used to describe the situation of "Arab immigrants" there. All very good, right? We have the state; we have the affected race. The affected race is even Arabs, which perhaps goes to demonstrate the even-handedness of the authors of this article!
But when we look to the footnotes, we find that the first only uses the word "Arab" once, in the sentence, "The 'rage' expressed by young men from the cités does not spring from either anti-imperialist Arab nationalism or some sort of anti-Western jihadism as Fouad Ajami, Alain Finkielkraut, Charles Krautheimer, and Daniel Pipes among others would have it, but rather from lifetimes of rampant unemployment, school failure, police harassment, and everyday racist discrimination that tends to treat them generally as the racaille of Sarkozy's insult—regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion." Huh! "Arab" as something that the situation is not about!
And then if we look to see what exact phenomenon the authors were describing as "apartheid," there is mainly discussion of how "socioeconomic marginalization has been paired with spatial isolation" in "preeminently multiracial sites, with local bases of solidarity conditioned by common social class rather than ethnic or religious similarity."
But, race? Surely race has something to do with it! And it does, sort of: in "popular talk;" in "pre-existing metropolitan anxieties;" in something the authors call "racialization," which apparently is applying a "racial" grouping to a non-racial group; in prejudice excused by Jacques Chirac as a "justified response to the 'noise and smell' of immigrants." So, "apartheid" has been used by the authors to describe a socioeconomically delineated phenomenon that the nattering classes of France (and now a few intrepid Wikipedia editors ...) have described in racial terms for their own purposes or due to their own prejudices. This isn't exactly an "allegation of apartheid," which, according to the UN definition so helpfully described is "racially based policies in any state." Racially-based, not socioeconomic.
Well, surely the second footnote will clarify! Ramadan also talks about France "disintegrating before our eyes into socioeconomic communities, into territorial and social apartheid." So far, the apartheid he talks about is socioeconomic and not racial. But then he almost immediately says, "Institutionalized racism is a daily reality." But this isn't what he has called "apartheid." And he also specifically says, "The attempt to Islamicize social issues perverts and falsifies political discourse." (What might he say about attempts to Arabicize them?)
Anyway, I think it should be clear beyond any doubt that the claim that "apartheid" had been used in France to describe something having to do specifically with Arab immigrants is a synthesis of the authors of the "Allegations of apartheid" authors, or at least they have not gotten this information from the articles they cite.
Tegwarrior (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed - the misuse of the sources is obvious. I'd also like to point out that many of the cited sources use "apartheid" as an analogy, not an allegation, so they're not even directly relevant to the theme of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title (and the first sentence) can be changed, so that's not an issue. In fact, since there is at least arguably a consensus to change the title among those who believe the article should be kept, I am thinking of moving the article myself, while this AfD is pending. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Update: The article has been moved to Apartheid analogies. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A LOT more than just the first sentence needs to be changed. As I've noted elsewhere on this page, the citation for "Canadian Aprartheid" more nearly clarifies that assimilation rather than apartheid is what's worried about in Canada. Much of this article seems to be a hodgepodge of stuff that someone found by through google and didn't review very well. Tegwarrior (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Indeed, it seems that many of the "examples" given for "allegations of apartheid" would more accurately be called "misuses of the term apartheid," because they directly refer to economic grounds for discrimination rather than racial grounds. When a term has been defined as a specific crime, it seems awfully un-encyclopedic to call uses of the term that have nothing to do with that crime "allegations." Saying that someone "murdered" a baseball is not exactly a cause to call the police. The economically based matters that are called "apartheid" are not really allegations at all, but more accurately exaggerations. Tegwarrior (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oh come on, ID. We know each other, you know the history, and you know very well that I, the nominator CJCurrie, ChrisO and others have all of us expressed support for articles on the Cuban apartheid analogy and the Brazilian apartheid analogy, and any other apartheid-analogy article with secondary sources that actually describe and discuss the analogy itself. If you think there are good secondary sources describing "allegations of apartheid" in a general way and establishing its notability as a general topic, share them. If you want to contest what we're classifying as "primary" sources versus "secondary" ones, do so – with clarity and thoroughness, please. If you think WP:NOR is commonly misunderstood and you want to make the case for the validity of articles built entirely out of primary sources, then do that. But don't come here and tell editors who are assuming your good faith that we have "banded together to try to eliminate all mention of any counry but Israel with respect to the apartheid analogy." It violates both the spirit and the letter of the truth as you know it.--G-Dett (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, GD, I’m prepared to admit I’m wrong if and where I am. If my memory plays me false, feel free to tell me. But as I look at the Brazilian Apartheid AFD, I see no G-Dett, no ChrisO, and no CJCurrie. When I look at the Cuban apartheid article, I have a Zen experience: the article of no article. Did you support having that as a stand-alone article? I also seem to recall a deletion (oh sorry: a “merge” from a straw poll while a nasty arbitration was going on about that very issue) of the Saudi Apartheid article, in my view the best of the lot. Did you fight that? Did ChrisO? Did CJ?
And again, the fact that an entirely irrelevant non-finding from a non-case by arbcom is being waved about by some (including you, depressingly) makes me feel like those who’ve smashed nearly every other article on this topic into submission won’t be happy until they achieve total victory: Israel must be shown to be in as bad a light as possible, and Wikipedia policy must not be allowed to stand in the way of that.
As for NOR, this article vastly exceeds common wiki standards. If the articles were all in as good a shape as this or better, we’d really have something to be proud of. IronDuke 03:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I don't believe I was even aware of the Brazilian apartheid afd at the time, but I endorsed retention of the article here. Since we're on the topic, I can't help but notice that most of the people who voted on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Brazilian_apartheid are veterans of Wikipedia's Israel-Palestine battles. Should I assume this was a coincidence? CJCurrie (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ironduke, thanks for your response. Here's where I voted "weak keep" on the Cuban "tourist apartheid" AfD. When the "Brazilian apartheid" AfD came up, I was not certain where I stood on its notability, so I didn't vote. Here's where I expressed my sense that the Brazilian "social apartheid" may indeed be notable per reliable secondary sources. In those comments and just about any other I posted during the whole "allegations of apartheid" debacle last summer, you will find clearly laid out my rationale for inclusion – which has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the need for secondary sources in articles about political rhetoric.
Your belief that the Saudi Arabia article was the "best of the lot" suggests to me that we are working from dramatically different criteria. If you mean that of all the countries discussed in these articles, Saudi Arabia has the most hands-down appalling human- and civil-rights situations, then we're pretty much agreed. But I think "Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid" (now Human rights in Saudi Arabia) was actually the very worst of the lot, because it was built out of the most ridiculously fleeting and incidental uses of the word "apartheid" in three or four random op-eds and blogposts, there were no secondary sources whatsoever, and nothing indicating at all that the analogy had gained any traction or indeed any notice from anyone anywhere. It's not surprising that so few people have ever compared Saudi Arabia to South Africa, because in most people's minds the former is if anything worse than the latter; and it's not surprising that when the odd pundit does make the comparison, no one notices or cares, given that the Saudi regime has so few defenders (the royal family, a handful of oil oligarchs and regional despots, and about 6 or 7 American presidential administrations), none of whom are culturally, emotionally, spiritually, religiously, and politically invested in its reputation the way millions are in that of Israel. If Wikipedia were a tribunal in charge of praising and censuring countries according to their moral merits, I'd agree that Saudi Arabia would deserve a rotten tomato here and maybe Israel wouldn't. But this is an encyclopedia, and we're supposed to be writing neutral articles on notable topics. The "Israeli apartheid" analogy has been the locus of an extraordinary amount of debate, discussion, and controversy for decades now, and the secondary-source literature on the analogy itself is voluminous. By contrast two or three non-specialist pundits used the word "apartheid" in connection with Saudi Arabia, and nobody noticed except a few Israel-focused Wikipedians. Meanwhile, for the last time, in the real world this supposed general phenomenon of "allegations of apartheid" has never been recognized or discussed; it isn't a topic, except here, among us. Textbook case of original research synthesis.--G-Dett (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I voted on this AFD for the simple reason that there was an attempt to slander me in this nomination. Otherwise, I wouldn't have noticed. As for the Israel connection, I'm pretty sure it wasn't any member of this imagined Zionist conspiracy. --Leifern (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an impressive smear, but it misses the point. Let's put it this way: when over half the contributors to afds on Allegations of Brazilian Apartheid, Allegations of Chinese Apartheid (and so on) are veterans of Wikipedia's Israel-Palestine disputes, there's a good chance that the larger issue may have something to do with an Israel-Palestine dispute.
Last year's controversy over the various "Allegations of [...] apartheid" was an embarassment to the project, and it's lamentable to see the same gamesmanship continuing. CJCurrie (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but that works both ways - the Arbcom case last year was lengthy, involved, very unpleasant I'm sure for everyone involved. Raising the voting pattern of one possible group should open the door to someone responding in kind. If I had hours to spare, I could have generated lots of documentation to look the detractors from this article look just as bad if not worse, but I honestly believe that each article's existence should be based on its merits alone. --Leifern (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to those of us who wanted to keep the encyclopedic article Israel and the apartheid analogy, and also wanted to delete the dubious articles that were created in response to it? This doesn't strike me as a mark of inconsistency. CJCurrie (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ G-Dett. Okay. So you, CJ, and ChrisO didn’t all necessarily support the articles you earlier said you’d supported. No biggie, I guess, but you’ll save me time if you look these things up first. We may indeed be using radically different criteria to determine which articles merit inclusion -- “the secondary-source literature on the analogy itself is voluminous.” Really? Voluminous? And there’s been “an ‘extraordinary’ amount of debate?” Radically different criteria indeed.
Also, as you’ve demonstrated such a keen interest in eliminating fleeting uses of the word apartheid, I wonder if we can look forward to your excising all fleeting allusions to it in the Israel article.
@ CJCurrie. I find it puzzling that you keep using the word ”gamesmanship” in a derogatory manner: gamesmanship is the only reasonable explanation for the existence of this AfD that was calculated to inflame, and for the appalling appeals to bad faith that have accompanied it. You're a veteran -- you had to have known this would happen. IronDuke 23:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ironduke, this is getting annoying. Here's what I wrote last summer, in a statement to Arbcom:

My sole criteria for any "allegations" article is that there have to be secondary sources discussing the allegations themselves and attesting to their notability, not merely primary-source instances where the word "apartheid" is used gathered and arranged into quote farms...I do not believe the Israel article is the only article that meets this criterion. The Cuba article meets this criterion (though just barely), hence my vote for "Weak keep." And the Brazil article may meet this criterion – and will almost certainly do so if the title specifies "social apartheid." ([14], emphasis added)

And whaddya know, it's since been moved to Social apartheid in Brazil. Rustle my beanbag if there's an AfD on it and you'll have my "keep" vote.
You post here that I and others have "banded together to try to eliminate all mention of any counry but Israel with respect to the apartheid analogy," and when I point out (for the tenth time) that this is false and give you a cursory review of the history, instead of retracting you try to find some new quibble to be magnanimous about ("no biggie"). Next you'll be telling me I've only reiterated it nine times, and forgiving me my misleading paranthetical aside. The "biggie" here is that you keep burying the history and feeding this nonsense about "singling out Israel." Yes, the literature on the Israeli apartheid analogy is indeed voluminous. It goes back decades, and was fed for many years by the close strategic and economic ties between Israel and South Africa. It has become more purely rhetorical in recent years, and is now fed more by demographic concerns about the future of Israel, and the diminishing practicability of the two-state solution due to settlement expansion and the failure of the peace process. Yes, there's a whole lot of crap in the article as well and yes, you and Jayjg are right that it's a POV magnet and often a total mess. Read my extensive suggestions to its talk page at the end of last summer, which were geared toward a historicized treatment of the analogy itself, coupled with a reduction/elimination of the quote-farm food-fight aspect (see my posts in archive 24 of that talk page, especially the lengthy academic bibliography). In answer to your question, yes fleeting mentions should go, except where fleeting mentions themselves have provoked great consternation and discussion (Carter's book = great example). If you feel like giving me a magnanimous "no biggie" free pass on something, let it be for my lack of follow-through last summer. My suggestions were good ones, and my bibliographic research extensive, I think you'll find.--G-Dett (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think bring up this bit of ancient history is totally inappropriate. I stand by my vote, but would not apply it now to anyone involved in the earlier case. This nomination should succeed or fail on its merits, not on virtues or failings of a proposed, but failed finding of fact. Fred Talk 01:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Fred’s having said what he did puts the kibosh on what I was going to write, which would have been to the same effect, but with perhaps less impact. I trust that ends that part of the discussion for good. In fact, if editors wanted to go back and strike through the inappropriate remarks, a lot of people would, I think, take it as a sign of good faith.
As for your “support” of other articles, all I can say is there wasn’t any for Brazil where it most mattered, on the AfD. And the Cuban article is gone.
You also misquote me, saying that I said you were a member of the band that was seeking to single out Israel. I don’t see where I said that.
How voluminous is the literature exactly? How many books have been written solely on that topic?
“If you feel like giving me a magnanimous "no biggie" free pass on something, let it be for my lack of follow-through last summer.” Actually, that's exactly where I don’t want to give you a pass. Harping on an article because it simply organizes information in a way you don’t like (how many user-generated lists are there on Wikipedia, again?), while letting the IA article fester does not help your case when you claim to bear no animus towards Israel. Not saying you do, BTW: I really have no way of knowing that. I can only read your edits, not your mind. IronDuke 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the flare-up, Duke, my affection + respect for you is undimmed. I left the Israel article last summer because I was approaching burnout and because the inestimable HG (one of the only editors widely credited on both sides for knowledge and fairness) was in charge, not because I was content to see it fester. My parting suggestions were as follows:

This article...could use a lot of improvement, beginning with a rename to Israeli apartheid analogy and a more detailed, rigorous, and nuanced treatment of the various valences of the analogy. It isn't purely a debate about what Israel is or isn't "guilty" of, a fact I think is not fully appreciated by those who keep suggesting moving this to Human Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories (nor, for that matter, by those who insist on the word "allegations" remaining in the title). The Adam/Moodley book is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to work that accepts the analogy as a working model (with reservations) but tries to turn it to practical and pragmatic purposes of conflict-resolution as opposed to rhetorical and ideological purposes of delegitimizing Israel. The South Africa comparison is at the center of debates about whether a society can transform without losing its essential character, whether a SA-style truth and reconciliation commission could work in Israel-Palestine; whether a successful peace process based on a one-state solution (South Africa) can provide a good model for one which will almost certainly end in a two-state solution (Israel-Palestine); whether the almost sui-generis efficacy of boycotts and international sanctions against South Africa is a good model for anti-occupation activism, or whether it's likely to provoke a backlash and other unintended consequences; and so on. We need to begin to expand the bibliography and explore books like Geneaologies of Conflict: Class, Identity, and State in Palestine/Israel and South Africa, Talking with the Enemy : Negotiation and Threat Perception in South Africa and Israel/Palestine, Peace Building in Northern Ireland, Israel and South Africa: Transition, Transformation and Reconciliation, God's Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster, Mobilizing for Peace: Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, and South Africa, Undercutting Sanctions: Israel, the U.S. and South Africa, and so on, as well as other books exploring the ethically controversial dimensions of the analogy we're more familiar with: Israel and South Africa: Legal Systems of Settler Domination, Security, terrorism, and torture: Detainees' rights in South Africa and Israel : a comparative study, Israel, South Africa, and the West, Israel And South Africa, etc. This is a fascinating subject and deserves an article in its own right; I see neither reason nor precedent for a merge.--G-Dett 17:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The "tourist apartheid" in Cuba article was not deleted; it was merged with Tourism in Cuba per the consensus of Latin-America-focussed editors. It has a section of its own there, and Cuban tourist apartheid is a redirect. As for where my support for the Brazil article mattered most, it survived the AfD I didn't vote in, and its move from the POINTy Allegations of Brazilian apartheid to Social apartheid in Brazil, a move urged by me and others, is what has preserved it since.--G-Dett (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I'm not suggesting that last year's proposed finding of fact should be applied to any contributor to this discussion; I brought it up as background information. CJCurrie (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you single out that particular FoF? There were 11, if you count the variations. 04:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC) IronDuke 01:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Yes, and that's why we should have an article on the Crime of apartheid. It's not enough to justify the piece currently under discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a (good) argument for a merger rather than a deletion. It appears that both articles are so close in theme and so short that they might be merged. This article does look a bit too short though, given all the other, country-specific articles on allegations of apartheid. It seems it could work well as a longer article with sections summarizing the other articles. In that case, it would be too long to merge. Noroton (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, there aren't that many. I see country-specific articles for Israel, the U.S., France. This sounds like it could all fit into one, merged article. I'm changing my vote to reflect that. Noroton (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to live with merging Allegations of Apartheid into Crime of Apartheid (though I would not, of course, support a merger of any country-specific articles that are encyclopedic in their own right). CJCurrie (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC) See below for a clarification. CJCurrie (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't write that well: I meant to say almost exactly what you just did. Sorry for the confusion. Bad idea to edit while tired. Noroton (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding the crime of apartheid is a specific legal charge, have any of the countries with articles suggested for merger been charged with the crime of apartheid? By that I mean some real sanctioning body like the World Court not just some journalist or academic comparing policies or broad social and demographic trends to apartheid. If they have not been charged or sanctioned for the crime of apartheid then there is no reason to merge into Crime of apartheid. Also, the quote from the UN only speaks to the existence of apartheid and the possibility that it may, at some future time, appear in nations other than the RSA, not to the existence of any overarching and connecting allegations of apartheid around the world. The WP:SYN problem is in no way addressed by the quote. L0b0t (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly right. There are two different topics here – one about political rhetoric, the other about international law – and only the latter topic has sources and notability. These two topics have tended to be conflated on Wikipedia, a problem that's been exacerbated by the systematic misuse of the word "allegations," which only properly applies in the context of international law (ChrisO has addressed this problem above and I have at length elsewhere; analogies, comparisons, and so on are not "allegations," a term which refers exclusively to assertions of fact that could conceivably be proven or disproven). Any merger would have to be very selective and avoid further conflation; otherwise, far from atoning for the SYNs of this article, it would sink deeper into them.--G-Dett (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I should indicate that I'm willing to merge Allegations of Apartheid into Crime of apartheid on the following terms: at the end of the latter article, brief reference is made to the fact that the "apartheid" analogy is sometimes used in a less formal fashion, where no formal allegation of the crime of apartheid has been made. One or two noteworthy examples may be provided. This may not sound like much of a "merger", but then Allegations of apartheid isn't much of an article. CJCurrie (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the crime of apartheid is specifically "inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized 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." Probably two thirds of the "examples" of the article have nothing to do with the crime of apartheid because they are about socioeconomic discrimination rather than anything based on race. Tegwarrior (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the "apartheid concept" you refer to was created through judicious use of synthesis right here in this article, it is purely a product of Wikipedia, there is no body of work in reliable sources that talks about apartheid as political rhetoric and connects it around the world to countries other than the RSA, which is what this article is about, this article is NOT about the real, actual, defined Crime of apartheid. This article just collects disparate, unrelated, incidents of some journalist or blogger compares economic inequality or broad social and demographic trends with apartheid as it was practiced in the RSA prior to 1992. It is ALL original research and synthesis. Those who have simply opined "keep, not OR or Syn" have either not read the article, sources, and our core policies or they are being obtuse. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment Whatever happens to this article, this AfD has attracted enough attention to set a precedent for what counts as original research when working from primary sources. We should all hope it will be a sensible precedent, given that it's likely to reverberate beyond the Israel-Palestine quarrels on Wikipedia. To my mind a good guideline for thinking about these things is this: if an article's genesis would be virtually inconceivable without the use of automated search engines – not just more difficult but virtually inconceivable – then that article probably constitutes an original research synthesis. That is, if there's no bibliographic trail anywhere, if the scenario involves the equivalent of thousands of monkeys with red pens reading through mountains of primary sources and circling key words, it's original research.

I have always assumed, for example, that an article like Talking animals in literature would be original research unless sources outside Wikipedia had defined that as a notable general topic.

Now, let's apply the test I've just described. Automated search engines like Google don't exist, so I consult a reference librarian, who tells me that a Harvard scholar by the name of Marc Shell has indeed written about talking animals in literature. I then consult Professor Shell's books and articles, and their bibliographies lead me to other sources, primary and secondary. By mid-afternoon I have the skeleton of a well-sourced Wikipedia article. With Google I could have gotten there in the time it takes to brew a pot of coffee, of course, but the bibliographic trail is well-marked, and easily traversed in a half-day at the library. This passes my proposed SYN test.

If, on the other hand, Marc Shell's work or its equivalent doesn't exist, and the research librarian can only furrow his brow and dimly recall reading something about a talking dog somewhere in a Pynchon story, so I go and scour Pynchon's oeuvre looking for the dog, in the meantime hiring 1000 research assistants to start reading other novelists at random looking for other talking animals in other books, then this fails my proposed SYN test and I'm doing original research.

The fact that both the half-day search at the reference library and the 6-month primary-source team expedition take only 3 minutes on Google has led many, I think, to regard them erroneously as comparable forms of research. The fate of this AfD will give us a sense of where the community stands.--G-Dett (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very cute and clever, but this AfD is about this article. Besides, all of your "spinning" will just make people dizzy. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it shows what "the community" thinks. Take out all the editors who are involved in Arab-Israeli articles and you'll have a pretty strong consensus for deletion. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, now we have spinning of the spinning! And see my comments on your "counting" below. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take out the people who disagree with you and you will indeed have a 'consensus' for any position! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not what I said. Take out the editors on both sides of the Arab-Israeli issue and you'll still have a consensus for deletion. This AfD has been distorted, like all the other "allegations of apartheid" AfDs, by the endless Arab-Israeli edit war. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just did a count (as of 17:40 UTC, July 12), excluding those who can reasonably said to be "involved in Arab-Israeli articles" and I get 11 for keep, 13 for delete, and 1 for keep/merge. (There were, of course, some definitional problems as to who is involved and who isn't. I am not going to analyze each editor in "print" because it would be overly intrusive. If you count the total number of comments on this page, which I didn't, you will see that I excluded a lot of people. If in doubt, I excluded the person. I did include Avruch's "delete", in case anyone was wondering.) Hardly a consensus either way, and barely even a majority either way. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did the same count - they cancel each other out, don't they? But if you count the editors who are not "involved in Arab-Israeli articles", I think you'll find a majority for deletion. (Then again, decisions shouldn't be based on a crude headcount anyway...) -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already excluded those involved, and got a count of 11 to 13. Look, you were the one who said there is a "pretty strong consensus" if you exclude the involved, and there is no consensus, there is barely a majority. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We may be counting the numbers differently. Not that it really matters, anyway, since the quality of the arguments is what is supposed to count, so we'll just have to let the closing admin decide on that point. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I had assumed (with you) that the NOR/SYN issues would be clear to the wider community, but reading through this AfD I am not so certain. Of course some editors are simply taking an IAR approach (Jay for example is ordinarily very strict and exacting on the need for secondary sources, but is keen to make an exception for this article), but as more input from less involved editors comes in, we're beginning to see quite a range of opinion. If you look at Danielx's keep vote below, for example, he's very clear about his position that notability is a meta-content issue, and therefore established purely by editorial consensus that a topic is valid and interesting – not by the existence of secondary sources devoted to it. His view has been endorsed by others here. Again, given the amount of attention this AfD has drawn, a "Keep" decision may well set the precedent for a shift in how we think about the viability of articles on quirky topics devised by Wikipedians with no secondary sources. An article like Queen of Bollywood, for example – which was deleted when it was shown to be built entirely out primary sources using the phrase "queen of Bollywood" for this or that actress, with no secondary sources connecting these actresses or discussing the phrase itself – may be ripe for a comeback.
6SJ7, can you be clearer about what you think is wrong about my proposal? I.e., do you think the world-without-Google (WWG) test for notability is generally a good idea (would clearly rule out oddities like Queen of Bollywood), but because of the Israel issue here we need to take an IAR approach to the present case? Or do you agree rather with Danielx that a topic is notable if editors feel it is notable, even if no secondary sources about that topic exist?--G-Dett (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now do you have a reason that is germane to the discussion at hand? This AfD is about an article that fails WP:OR and WP:SYN and those concerns have yet to be addressed. We have seen lots of straw man arguments, lots of WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments and lots of arguments about the relevance of other articles but this article is still afoul of policy with no hope of improvement because the subject just does not exist other than on Wikipedia. L0b0t (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who participated in the last four deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid, excluding those who are currently blocked or who have not edited in the last month; a "friendly notice", limited in scale, neutrally worded, nonpartisan and open. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO has canvassed no less than 115 users. This needs to be taken into account when closing this discussion. I do not think 115 users is a "small number" of "friendly notices" as mentioned in WP:CANVASS. Jehochman Talk 18:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
115? Can this be documented, or is ChrisO stipulating that's the right number? Looking at the policy, it appears this is at least excessive cross-posting. If ChrisO limited this cross-posting to editors he knew were likely to vote his way, then it might be votestacking. To be fair, ChrisO's culpability in this matter shouldn't be held against the honest delete voters, though. Should this be investigated separately? --Leifern (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read Shuki and Jaysweet's comments below. I didn't discriminate on the basis of who was likely to vote which way; thus of the people whom I notified, 9 have so far !voted to keep and 8 have !voted to delete. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those AfDs have involved a larger number of editors than in most cases; that's the only reason for the number of users notified, and in absolute terms it's a tiny fraction of the user community. But consider the bigger picture here. The more feedback we have in this AfD, the more integrity it is likely to have as a representative view of the Wikipedia community. Nobody has been asked to support one side or the other. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The language in WP:CANVASS refers directly to 'indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors' which clearly is not what Chris has done. Suggesting that something improper has occurred is off base. Jd2718 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are four factors: 1/ number of editors, 2/ indescriminate selection, 3/ non-neutral message, and 4/ biased selection of recipients. ChrisO's notices, made in good faith, have only failed the first criteria, not the other three. Yes, there were 115, and that's too many. Nothing needs to be done other than recognize the issue and keep it in mind for the future. Jehochman Talk 07:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the number is relatively large is because the previous related AfDs involved an unusually large number of editors. That's all. If they had involved only 30 editors, I would only have notified 30. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The chart at WP:CANVASS uses the term "Mass posting" but User:Jehochman needs to read the text, not just glance at the picture. Excessive cross-posting: Important discussions sometimes happen at remote locations in Wikipedia, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-mailing other Wikipedians. Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming"... Chris has neither been indiscriminate, nor has she spammed uninvolved editors. Jd2718 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

After reading the notice left by Chris0, I don't see anything that is not endorsed by WP:CANVASS. A number of editors commenting here seem to have brought issues with other articles and topics with them to this discussion so some fresh eyes here can't hurt. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been renamed Apartheid analogies but that does nothing to address the problems of WP:OR and WP:SYN. This is still just a collection of random, disparate mentions of the word "apartheid" in relation to various policies and practices of nation states and broad socio-economic and demographic trends. The only thing that connects these items is that somewhere in the source material the word "apartheid" appears. This article is just an original research dumping ground held together by synthesis. L0b0t (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the widespread dillution of the original meaning of the word. But the ignorant journalistic or NGO usage of it to describe descrimination in many places has already been accepted by equally ignorant vocabulary-challenged people around the world. Very sad, but a fact that WP will not be able to change.--Shuki (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, since when is the United Nations an NGO? -- Kendrick7talk 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
??? You're simply wrong. The only direct quote you give directly contradicts most of the rest of your comment. Tegwarrior (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree when you say "...all of which would benefit from a high-level view of "comparisons to apartheid" rather than only splitting them off into separate subjects.", once a reliable source does that then, and only then, we write an article about it. Since a reliable source has not done that yet, this article fails WP:OR and WP:SYN. This article is nothing more than a collection of random uses of the word "apartheid" in relation to a vast array of things from government policies to broad socio-economic trending. This article is about the term "apartheid" as used in political rhetoric not the actual, defined and codified Crime of apartheid there should be no conflation of the two. L0b0t (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the same standards that some are trying to apply to this article were applied to the one on Israel, that article would become rather small as well -- I'd guess about one-fifth its current size. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, all the sources in the Israel article refer to Israeli apartheid where none of the sources in Allegations of apartheid refer to some sort of overarching apartheid analogy. Strongbrow (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it may be a good idea to merge the articles right away. That will make it more dificult to use different standards for different cases. Count Iblis (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, as I've already noted many times, is that Israel and the apartheid analogy is an encyclopedic topic with a large volume of secondary literature behind it. "General allegations of apartheid", by contrast, is a made-up topic. I imagine some editors would favour any strategy that brings about the removal of the Israel article, but there's a qualitative difference between the two works. (Not that it matters at this stage, I suppose. Unless a rogue admin does something crazy, the final result of this debate is unfortunately going to be "no consensus".) CJCurrie (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging this article into Israel and the apartheid analogy makes about as much sense as merging Europe into Belgium. How could you have a section in Israel and the apartheid analogy on France? And there's no basis or mandate for merging the Israel article into this one. The Israel article passed a recent AFD with flying colors and without a merge option - this looks like the side that lost in the Israeli apartheid AFD is trying to get its way through the backdoor. The only article you could possibly merge Allegations of apartheid into is Crime of apartheid. Strongbrow (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2008 (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.
More