Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was toss it, the discussion's not going anywhere...No consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Israeli apartheid (phrase). Please "vote" in this section.

offensive phrase. Delete or merge with Israeli occupied territories. Fullsome prison 23:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid (disambiguation)
  • Comment on nomination I think the proper reason for AFD should be POV fork. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete not an offensive phrase, but OR and POV magnet. The article is essentially about comparing the Israeli-Arab relations with South African aparthed. The comparisons are OR. In addition, this is unencyclopedic: let's put out verified sourced statements about what exactly the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians and let the reader decide whether or not to draw comparisons to South African apartheid. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Disclosure for those who are checking: though I was solicited by another user to comment on the article, it was not by the nominator, and it was before this AfD was started. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This is not Original Research. Googling for "israel apartheid" brings up 3,890,000 google hits. Googling for Israel and the phrase "apartheid state" brings up 131,000 hits.. Google Scholar brings up 9,110 hits for israel apartheid. Google News currently brings up 842 hits. The whole point of the use of the word "apartheid" is comparison with South Africa. Bwithh 02:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable phenom. Article seems balanced. 200,000 google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 23:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I've done a few hours of research on Israeli apartheid, and the term is nothing more than a focused, targeted propaganda campaign for a political platform that according to Abraham Cooper, is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state". Merge anything useful into Zionism and racism, Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, World Conference against Racism, Israeli West Bank barrier, and Israeli settlements. (See also: Veracini, Lorenzo. "On Israeli 'Apartheids'." Arena Journal 22, Annual 2004: 99. Cooper, Abraham, and Harold Brackman. "Through a glass, darkly: Durban and September 11th. United Nations World Conference against Racism, 2001." Midstream 47.7 (Nov 2001): 2(7)). —Viriditas | Talk 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentWouldn't your research findings be better served in the article on Israeli apartheid than here in the AfD. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? The concept exists, wouldn't it be better to treat it in Wikipedia than to pretend that it is so offensive that it can not be even mentioned? --Ben Houston 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't find the term offensive. That was the opinion of the nom. Outside of Uri Davis, and perhaps Zionism and racism the term is unencyclopedic. Your example below, in which you contrast tar baby with Israeli apartheid compares apples and oranges. One is an actual term relating to West African trickster folklore, whereas the other is rabid, revisionist, polemical fringe terminology used as a political epithet. There's just as much research to create American apartheid [2], British apartheid [3], etc. We don't, because this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. —Viriditas | Talk 02:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • CommentBen's point is definitely well-made, but I do want to commend Viriditas in any case for having spent time to research the article and the concomitant AfD; too often we (I include myself) participate in discussions here without having done the research we ought to have done, and it's always good to see one be pensive and moderate (and, of course, consistent with Ben's note, if the article is kept, Viriditas will surely be able to contribute content and add sources, which is always good). Joe 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or at best merge per above arguments. — RJH (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a phrase that, even as it expresses a POV, is notable (toward which proposition see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace (second nomination)). Were we to be using the terminology as descriptive in an article, I'd object; here, though, our article is apropos of a trope that is increasingly common (to be sure, if the article is not/cannot be properly sourced w/r/to the frequency with which the term is used/the prominence of certain users, deletion would be in order). The article oughtn't to include original research, of course; instead of attempting to prove the correctness of the phrase, it ought to detail the arguments of others who make claims for and against the phrase. We don't take original research, but we can compile opinions recorded in secondary sources, even where the primary sources are individuals who undertake original research or push a POV (Charlie Sheen's conculsion that something other than an airliner hit the Pentagon on 11 September is original research [or derived from the original, largely unsubstantiated research of others] but nevertheless notable). Our article Better dead than red, about another notable tendentious locution, provides a fair examplar around which this article can be developed. Joe 00:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per OR concerns and per CrazyRussian and Viriditas. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV by the title. --Rob 00:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep re Joe/Jahiegel. It should provide a summary of the use of the phrase from RS from those that use it seriously (i.e. Uri Davis), why it is offensive to critics, and pointers to the main articles that deal with the related topics. I recently helped develop the article on Tar baby -- it is an offensive term but it was also notable. It was dealt with fairly well. --Ben Houston 00:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the prevalence of a phrase doesn't make it a notable encylopedia entry; the comparison between Israeli policies and apartheid is a notable topic, but this is covered elsewhere. --Leifern 00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fullsome and Viriditas (as well as my own comments on the article's talk page prior to the nomination, in fact I suggested it, I just didn't do it.) 6SJ7 01:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Question: There may be a better place for this, but I don't know where. Homey has now re-titled this article so "phrase" is no longer in the title. I moved it back, he moved it back again. During the period this article is being considered for deletion, wouldn't it be reasonable for the title to at least remain the same? It is even more objectionable without "phrase" in the title. Homey also says it is "non-standard" to have "phrase" in the title. Is there an actual rule or accepted style prohibiting it? 6SJ7 04:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Characterization contained in title may be disputed, but the phrase itself is undoubtedly in notable usage. Having seen some delete votes, every single one seems to be on the basis of factual/political opposition to the analysis done using the term; no delete voters actually even tries to deny the notability of the term itself (or really, the NPOV of the article as a whole). LotLE×talk 01:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is very NPOV, so much so that I don't see how it can be cleaned up and I am someone who agrees with the sentiment --Stilanas 01:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to relatively balanced and phrase is confirmed to be in wide circulation in academic and news media (See my Google comment above). And absolutely agree with Ben Houston regarding User:Viriditas's comments. Bwithh 01:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "The concept exists" as Ben Houston wrote, or "phrase seems to be in wide circulation" as you wrote, are not valid arguments. Here, a double standard is being applied inorder to demonize Israel. Where is Saudi apartheid? Are you ready to say that it doesn't exist? ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I think it's fair to say that the concept of Saudi apartheid exists, and that concept can be dealt with in several articles. I distinguish the two by noting that this phrase is notable not solely for the message it conveys, but also for its prominent and frequent usage, as against the Saudi phrase, which yields only 115 Google hits. Joe 02:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The point is that the phrase is in wide usage, not that it is being used to demonize Israel. As Joe notes, the phrase "Saudi apartheid" is not widely used (I would note that the comparison of Israel with South Africa partly arises from its historically close relations with SA during the SA apartheid years). Just because you disagree with the politics of a phrase, this doesnt change the significance of its wide usage. Wikipedia is not censored in that way. Anyway, it is also used in contexts where the phrase is refuted and debated - [400 hits on the website of the leading Israeli newspaper] Haaretz (and most of the hits are to do with Israel, not South Africa) (corrected previous 26400 hit result due to typo. By the way, accusing me and Ben Houston of deliberately and maliciously demonizing Israel may count as a personal attack. Please see the rules on this. Bwithh 02:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Don't throw rocks while in a glass house. As for "historically close relations with SA" - what's that supposed to mean? That Israelis spread their wicked apartheid to SA? To write a serious encyclopedia, we should distinguish between "wide usage" by propagandists and WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Israel officially opposed the apartheid system in South Africa, but was also against international sanctions against South Africa. There is a long history of military cooperation and trade between the two countries which continued through the 1980s when international sanctions against South Africa were implemented. South African uranium was vital to Israel's nuclear weapon program. In exchange, Israel helped pre-apartheid South Africa develop their own nuclear bombs. Some nuclear proliferation commentators have suggested there was a joint Israeli-South African nuclear test in the South Indian Ocean in 1979.[4][5] [6] Not directly relevant here, true, but anyway that was the close relations I was talking about Bwithh 04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless you imply that apartheid is somehow contagious, all that is irrelevant to the subject. For the better explanation of roots of this quazi-anti-colonial propaganda, see Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge salvageable parts into articles with NPOV titles, per Viriditas. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep the article was being worked on to bring it into compliance with NPOV. The term is clearly a real one, there's little reason not to neccesarily have an article about it as long as you present the controversy over it. Let the peer review, and other editors work on it. --Strothra 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment it's pretty clear by now that there will not be consensus for deletion. If some people here think this term is actually being used, let it be kept, but we must remove the OR and as much POV as possible, and be absolutely clear that this article is belongs in Cat:Pejorative political terms. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: This AfD is still an infant. Consensus is very likely to emerge. HKTTalk 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Viriditas. Such an article is inherently POV, regardless of the neutrality of the content. The fact that propagandists widely use this term is worth mentioning in Zionism and racism, but Wikipedia is not the forum for fabricating legitimacy for a propogandist term by treating it as if it isn't a neologism. HKTTalk 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently POV, and WP is not a soapbox. All the points have already been made (or could be made) under Israeli West Bank barrier or similar. Isarig 03:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic or too helpful, and besides, Israelis don't speak Afrikaans. Ramallite (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That the phrase was originally Afrikaans is irrelevant. Apartheid has entered the English language (as well as others) and has been accepted as such for a long time. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid Bwithh 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Viriditas. --DLandTALK 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to POV title. --Bill Levinson
  • Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above abakharev 05:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Shlomke 06:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Viriditas. Pecher Talk 07:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as the phrase is notable then redirect to Israeli-occupied territories and have a section on Israeli apartheid and Apartheid wall.Rex the first talk | contribs 08:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is certainly notable enough (6,170,000 hits at google[7]). Also, it can be well balanced (with an expanded crticism section). Perhaps we could move this article to Israel and apartheid, just like Zionism and racism. Deleting this article is just plain censorship.Bless sins 10:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Bertilvidet 11:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for crying out loud ... merge any useful content elsewhere, but this sounds like it borders on something made up in school one day BigDT 11:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm of the opinion this should go the same way as Islamofascism (currently redirects to fascism and religion). We can discuss phrases like these in other articles (specific examples already pointed out above by other editors), giving them their own articles gives them unnecessary credibility and attracts POV warring. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    No Sam. It doesn't redirect to fascism and religion! Cheers -- Szvest 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
    Hmm, I could have sworn it did at one point but the history isn't bearing me out. Still, I think that's what should happen, even if there isn't precedent :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    True Sam. What do the voters suggest than? ;) -- Szvest 12:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - The stuff is a term which is not notable enough. I am neither for deleting it nor keeping it. HOwever, I must remind all of you that we had faced a similar situation in Islamofascism and both times the decision was to keep it and remove the (term) or (phrase) annotation 1st and 2nd. My question is is there any consistency over here? Cheers -- Szvest 11:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

*undecided : see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29/sandbox. The issue is: with such a title is there a way with text to NPOV such title and could wikipedia be trusted to get such article to an NPOV state ??? Zeq 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep and possibly rename as per Bless sins. Good and necessary article. I saw the phrase on the BBC website earlier today and it is unthinkable tht Wiki would lack an article about the phenomenon. --Guinnog 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's the problem with this article: it's not about a phenomenon, but rather about a political epithet used for vilification purposes. Leaving this article would be a violation of WP:NOT because Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political campaigns. Pecher Talk 13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Rubbish! It's a term in common use, and a fair and balanced article. No OR or soapboxing that I could see. --Guinnog 18:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, we have articles on nigger and homosexual agenda, so the mere title of an article cannot be sufficient basis for calling it POV. What matters is whether the content is balanced. In the case of "Israeli apartheid", the article is quite neutral and well-researched. Please don't jump from "It offends me" to "It's POV". Al 19:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
        • In both of these articles, the terms are immediately defined as "derogatory" and "offensive" in the very first sentence. The article in question presents it as a legitimate term. --CommonGround 19:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for bringing this up. However, doesn't that sound more like an argument for changing the first sentence than for deleting the entire article? Al 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Al, it's still a POV fork, however you slice it. The fact that it uses a derogatory name does not lend it any more legitimacy. --CommonGround 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
          • What article do you contend it is a fork of? The fact that it uses a term you think is derogatory is not grounds for deletion. I am sure if we had had wikipedia in the 70s or 80s we would have had people claiming the use of "apartheid" to descrive South Africa was "derogatory". They preferred to call it "separate development" after all. A thought experiment for you; would you object less if the article were renamed to something you found less derogatory, but with the same content? --Guinnog 21:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Guinnog, I understand that you want the article to stay. There are multiple reasons various people quoted for deleting this article (using wikipedia as soapbox, POV, pov fork, use of derogatory terms, etc.) You can see my reasons by my vote. As far as your name/content change thought experiment goes, if the article did not have the same name and had its content changed to avoid POV and soapbox issues, it would be a different article, wouldn't it? Likewise, if Pinto were designed like Lexus, I'd say it's a good car, but that wouldn't say much about Pinto at all. --CommonGround 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored this discussion from the talk page as it seems germane to the debate. Apologies if this offends anyone. Humus, I think we could compromise with the right rename. Common, I can't see any POV or soapboxing in the article. If you agree it is a valid subject for an article, but have criticism of the content of the article, that clearly isn't grounds to delete the article. Wiki articles aren't cars; they're a lot cheaper to make and a lot easier to change! --Guinnog 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Blatant POV title and subject. This information is already discussed in other articles. —Aiden 14:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep An appropriate terminology for a real phenomenon Amibidhrohi 15:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep with all due respect we are all adults and therefore we can all use our brains and judge this matter accordingly. Why should it be deleted? does it not go against the essence of free speech, i think it does, this is widely believed by many people and is wrote in leading articles, therefore i dont see why wikipedia can not do this as well, they cover nearly everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sudi a (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. As per Viriditas's excellent analysis. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Viriditas's analysis Avi 16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, the term is genuine and reliably sourced, and the article is painfully neutral. Also note that there are attempts being made at vote-stacking by User:Avraham, such as here. I question the legitimacy of this deletion attempt.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alienus (talk • contribs) .
/sigh Please check my talk page; Jay informed me that I had my vote in the wrong place. An ever so slight amount of research goes a long way in preventing oneself from 1) causing bad feeling 2) making unfounded accusations and 3) looking slightly foolish. -- Avi 17:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly so; see [9]. If User:Alienus would stop assuming bad faith he might find it easier to edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
When I make an error, I correct it. Al 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
In the sense that you then went and attempted to vote stack yourself? Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Viriditas and Humus. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. The article title is certainly a POV, using emotionally loaded terms. Wikipedia should not be used to promote the views of one group over the other by giving them legitimacy. Instead, an objective approach should be found - see analyis by User:Viriditas for suggestions. --CommonGround 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Viriditas and Humus. TewfikTalk 18:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Viriditas an WP:SOAP. Nandesuka 19:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Humus, CommonGround, and Viriditas Elizmr 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. gidonb 21:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ja, ek praat en skryf wel 'n bietjie Afrikaans ;-)
  • Strong Delete antisemitic baiting, leftwing style antisemitism should be treated equal with rightwing style antisemitism. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ek ook
  • Keep WLD 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep it is not our job to determine whether a topic belongs based on whether we personally like a term or phrase but rather to determine whether that term or phrase has entered either the academic or popular lexicon. Like it or not Israeli apartheid is a widely used term with a specific meaning. A google search of the phrase returns 258,000 hits [10] we also have "Israeli apartheid week" on many campuses and the phrase has been used widely in the media. Our job therefore is not to censor a phrase we do not like but to ensure that the article on that phrase is balanced and NPOV. Merging this article with Israeli-occupied territories as some have suggested is not viable since the phrase has also been used to describe Israeli policies within the Green line as well as in the Occupied Territories (even though some reserve the phrase for the latter. Merging with Israeli West Bank barrier is also not viable as the term "Israeli apartheid" predates that project by at least a dozen years and is intended to address much more than that. Instead of trying to ban the term opponents should be working to improve the article and make sure it's balanced and NPOV. Some who hate the term realise that that is not enough to justify deletion, User:IZAK for instance, no slouch when it comes to defending Israel, has posted the following on Talk:Israeli apartheid (phrase):
To Zeq: This phrase exists and is very "popular" today (in my view it's unfortunate, but what can you do, we cannot control the universe). The phrase is coming up more and more in the media, academia, and in political debates, so it is a valid Wikipedia article, no question about it. It can present all the views in the body of the article. There is nothing to fear. I think it is too early to ask that the article go to "Request for Comment". If you and Homey can calm down and debate it rationally then it can be resolved here. Let us ask other more seasoned editors to give their views here first. Stay calm, everyone. IZAK 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I urge those who are trying to delete this article to take IZAK's words to heart. Homey 21:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I put my comment on the talk page because it is so long:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)#A little research and comment on Google searches 6SJ7 00:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and if not, merge with Israeli occupied territories, not because I agree with the "apartheid" label, but because it's a term that's with us for better or worse, Wikipedia did not invent it. I do not agree that the article is original research, rather it presents the term in its current incarnation, both pro and con. Sometimes things that we dislike need to see the light of day, and we needn't fear that it will demonize Israel because Israel and what it symbolizes can withstand futile and false assaults against its good name. Let's face this head on, rather than run away from it. P.S. This phrase can join other slurs like kike or hymie -- no-one worth their salt takes them seriously, and the sky won't cave in. IZAK 22:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: As I said above, as the phrase has been used to describe Israel's policies towards Israeli Arabs as well as its policies towards Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, merging the article with Israeli Occupied Territories wouldn't work. Homey 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Homey: Your point is well-taken. Yet, I do not see the need for stridency. Israel is a democracy that allows freedom of speech and is mature and strong enough to allow people to voice their views, even when they are repulsive. So far, the only person they banned in Israel was Rabbi Kahane, because he was too "racist", but it seems that many Israelis can live with being tagged "apartheid this-and-that" by leftists and Arabs, so be it. Let's see what Arabs can live with in their "democracies". IZAK 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it is correct to use the term "Israeli apartheid" to describe the treatment of Israeli Arabs, personally I think the usage is problamatic. My point is that it is widely used in this way meaning that a merger wouldn't work. It's not for us to dictate how the phrase should be used though I think an article should be NPOV and not act as if the term is correct or accurate. Homey 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Viriditas. -- Karl Meier 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We need no seperate page on this term. It was invented by (and is promulgated by) the leftist media. It does not have independent notability, although the article does a good job at showing how presumably "objective" media prefer sticking to propagandistic terminology when it comes to the eternally sensitive Middle-East conflict. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge the informative sentences with anti-Zionism. Psychomelodic (people think (people think Baba Ram Dass write your own!) edit) 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Viriditas. "WHAT?!", you say? The fact that there are articles in the Jewish community that attack and denounce this phrase is evidence enough of its notability. If this phrase were dealt with in a NPOV manner, as all articles should, then it will not become a soapbox. WP:NOT a soapbox was intended to guard against people enforcing their own viewpoint on an article. In addition, Other phrases have been included in Wikipedia, as other editors have mentioned, and they have not become soapboxes for anti-Islamism, anti-Communism, etc. POV Magnet or POV Warring is not a reason to delete. All articles have the potential to become POV magnets, it only depends on the ferocity of the editors to push their own pov. "POV Title" does not apply because the phrase itself is POV, not the article. Policy says, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias." However, one must realize that certain titles will result in POV articles. POV Title is simply a simplified way of saying, "the article is POV because the title is POV." In this case, the title is POV but the article can be NPOV. The phrase was coined by a Jewish person, Uri Davis, and used by Desmond Tutu. I don't see how they are "leftist" media, nor nonnotable. Copysan 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • What do you think is the significance of Davis being a Jew? Does this make him not left-wing, despite his politics? Or does being a Jew show that he is automatically unbiased? Sheesh. And I don't know how being a pro-PLO Jewish professor and writing books makes someone notable. You'd also better look at Desmond Tutu#Political-views - activism for homosexual inclusion in clergy, activism against Guantanamo Bay detainments, etc. Looks leftist to me. HKTTalk 04:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well said. I have always liked how good Wiki articles on controversial topics were; proof that the Wikipedia process can actually work. Let's not shy away from having an article on an important concept because some people don't like the terminology. We have nigger, cunt and kike after all. A very important principle of freedom in Wikipedia is (arguably) being tested in this AfD process. --Guinnog 00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • By now, I was particularly careful in my choosing article titles to be NPOV. AFAIR, I have changed Arab anti-Semitism to Arabs and anti-Semitism and some other titles and no one protested. The words you mentioned above are stable common 1-word slurs found in dictionaries. The 2-word combination Israeli apartheid is a neologism slapped together and [ab]used as a political epithet in Cold War and antisemitic propaganda. What's next? Arab intransigence? French promiscuousness? German cruelty? (FTR, I have utmost respect to these and other peoples). I am sure you'll find a bunch of google hits for these. BTW, why is Soviet Canuckistan a redir? How convenient, "A very important principle of freedom" stops with Dirty Jews (why not create this for freedom's sake). ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I have suggested this many times. Why not move the article to Israel and apartheid? That shouldn't give problems since we already have Zionism and racism.Bless sins 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Because the article is showing the phrase as the object of discussion, not the elements of apartheid supposedly apparent in Israel's domestic policy. There needs to be a distinction between the phrase itself and the policies. They are two separate things to be discussed, and I think some of the editors here don't understand that. However, if a discussion about the elements of apartheid supposedly apparent in Israel's domestic policy were created, then I would support merging Israeli apartheid (the phrase) into a section in the larger article about the elements. Then, it would be relevent to the greater dicussion. Copysan 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Adding some: As of yet, I see no article, and have not read Uri Davis's book or other sources to know enough to make an article about it. Perhaps somebody has? Copysan 02:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I Googled these: Humus sapiens changed Arab anti-Semitism with 42.300 hits into an NPOV term with only 455 hits, mostly at Wikipedia. I think that this was a correct change. Pitty that not everyone follows such standards. gidonb 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Uri Davis is an anti-semite? Note that I am simply promoting an article of a coined notable phrase. Justify those phrases' notability, and then we can talk. I also agree with removing "(phrase)" to bring it into convention. Copysan 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Of course he's not anti-Semitic. The PLO is a highly philo-Semitic organization. Oh, yes - and Jews are incapable of being anti-Semitic or even of favoring and publicizing terms cherished by anti-Semites. Sarcasm aside - I am not determining whether or not Davis is actually an anti-Semite. But you are quick to interpret Humus' mention of "in Cold War and antisemitic propoganda" as "only in antisemitic propoganda." It's funny how people see accusations of anti-Semitism as extending beyond their actual target. HKTTalk 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - clearly notable, verifiable, and sourced. Remove "phrase" from the name of the article to bring it into concert with articles such as Islamofascism or nigger - we see no need to qualify those as "(term)s" or "(word)s." It seems that quite a few of these delete votes are based on the idea that any suggestion that Israeli apartheid is happening is offensive to them; I don't find that to be a valid reason for deletion. --Hyperbole 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"Remove "phrase" from the name of the article to bring it into concert with articles such as Islamofascism or nigger" - Done. Homey 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Umm Homey: Regardless if you are right or wrong -- you should NOT have made a change to the title of this article in the MIDDLE of this heated vote and debate as presumably people who have been voting, particulalrly in the early stages, did so with the original title "Israeli apartheid (phrase)" around. Your actions, as with blocking User:Zeq whilst you were having a discussion with him, are unbecoming of an admin and could be interpreted as both serious POV-pushing and an unfair power-play (having the buttons to switch around redirects and titles of articles) by an admin. You need to take a deep breath methinks and take a few steps back and let the debate unfold in full BEFORE making final changes. IZAK 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Izak, see my "Question" above. After Homey changed it, I changed it back, but he reverted it. Now, there is a discussion (mostly between me and him) on the article's talk page over what the name should be, at the same time as there is this discussion here over whether the article should exist or not. It didn't seem right to me, either. However, for the moment, I am leaving it as is, otherwise, it is heading toward a mutual 3RR violation. 6SJ7 04:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (Edited own comment -- 6SJ7 04:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
Fine, I've moved it back until the conclusion of the vote but note that the current name is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming policy and that advocates of adding "(phrase)" have not gone through the proper procedure of proposing a change to practice at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. When the vote is concluded, assuming the article is not deleted or redirected, I will rename it and I ask advocates of "(phrase)" not to change it back until and unless they've followed the proper procedure for proposing a new convention. Homey 04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Roger, thank you. IZAK 05:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys but i moved it back to its original name. Discussion about moving titles should be prior to the action itself. Discuss it first and decide what to do with the naming. Cheers -- Szvest 17:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Homey, I appreciate the action that you took here on the name (although I have since had to move it back since someone else changed it), but I do not agree with your intended action if the deletion request fails. I have read and re-read Wikipedia:Naming policy and there is nothing in there that prohibits a parenthetical to indicate that the subject of a title is a phrase as opposed to an actual thing, process, phenomenon or whatever. As I said on the article's talk page, the fact that parentheticals are discussed only in connection with disambiguation pages, does not mean that is the only time they can be used. Therefore I suggest that if this article is not deleted, you initiate a discussion of renaming the article, including your opinions about what the naming policy is or what it should be, before moving the article. Maybe that needs to be the next vote created by this ill-advised article. 6SJ7 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So why do you think that the procedure advised in Wikipedia:Naming of proposing a change of practice at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions should not be followed in this case?Homey 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Because as far as I can see, no change in policy (probably a more applicable term than "practice") is being proposed. You have not shown me anything that says that this parenthetical in the title is contrary to current policy. (And you don't need to refer to my quip about "maybe it's time for a new standard," that was based on your representation that the parenthetical was against the rules, which I believed at the time, but which upon actually reading the rules, does not appear to be correct.) 6SJ7 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As noted above, the phrase is POV but the article need not be. CJCurrie 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless, the term is an unstable propoganda neologism, despite its Google count. Thus, this article violates WP:NEO, and, consequently, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. Uri Davis (whose notability is doubtful and whose brief Wikipedia article was created two days ago by a participant in this AfD) writing a book doesn't make this term a non-neologism. Neither does the term's usage by Rev. Desmond Tutu. HKTTalk 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The term is nineteen years old - not a neologism - and is widely used not "unstable". If Tutu or Davis were the sole users I would agree but the Palestinian rights movement has picked it up and run with it as has much of the media outside of the US. Homey 03:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. For more, read WP:NEO. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC
          • And according to WP:NEO one can prove something is not a neologism if it is used by reliable sources. The term "Israeli apartheid" is used by reliable sources such as quality periodicals including the Nation[11], the International Herald Tribune[12], major news sources such as the BBC[13] and peer reviewed journals such as the British Medical Journal[14]. Thus, according to WP:NEO and WP:RS, "Israeli apartheid" is *NOT* a neologism. Homey 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Of course it is a propagandist neologism. Op-eds by pundits are not reputable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Your point would be relevant if we were endorsing usage of the term, but we're not -- we're reporting on usage of the term. CJCurrie 20:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
            • It continually surprises me how some people esteem the opinions of BBC editors as "reputable" or neutral. HKTTalk 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per above. heqs 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per above also, due to the imsense complexeity and conterviatalaity of this debate I request that this dicussion be kept open longer than the usual AFD time period, so that it can be fully resolved. Tobyk777 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Israeli-occupied territories; two perfectly good articles which covers the same concept from differing angles. This will make the end-result more NPOV. dewet|✉ 06:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Keeping the article does not mean implying the Israeli apartheid actually exists, only that the concept itself exists (as Google will prove). It does not matter whether it's propaganda or not. Loom91 06:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per above I have heard it many times in the English speaking world.75.2.106.46 07:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable term. Wikipedia should present the reasons why some people think it is a useful analogy and others believe it is propaganda. David Sneek 08:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly a notable expression, as the referenced article by Archbishop Tutu demonstrates. Moreover, this article has too much cited content to be simply merged to the logical place, List of political epithets. We have articles about epithets and vulgarities (such as nigger and fuck) not to encourage their use or to proclaim them as acceptable, but rather to describe them. --FOo 08:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Delete this term is a pure propaganda word and therefore pov per title. --Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 10:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • User's ninth edit. HKTTalk 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Viriditas. --tickle me 12:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The phrase is widely used in Israeli political discourse. Dr Uri Davis has published two editions of his book Israel: An Apartheid State, which explains and justifies the term. There is in Israel a Committee Against Apartheid [15], and the Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine [16]. We should also include a link to the article by Dr Moshe Machover, an Israeli exile in London, who argues against the use of the term because the situation in Israel is worse than apartheid [17]RolandR 13:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hyperbole and RolandR. --Alsayid 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a POV fork but create an article Status of Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories to discuss such issues. Fred Bauder 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: Serendipity (clicking the random article link) brought me to this article. Reading through it, I can't see any justification for it's deletion. The neutral point of view is admirabily adhered to, not least because the first line of the article concedes that the term "Israeli Apartheid" is contoversial to some. As for those who claim the article is original research; this is not so. Many scholarly articles by Zionists, Jews, Arabs or neither exist online and in print.
    • Unsigned comments by IP 82.37.180.176 (talk • contribs). Even if this would be valid, the next would be a double vote by the same IP. Ninth edit, as mentioned below by DLand. HKTTalk 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Earlier in discussion, it was described as a 'rabid, polemical, revisionist fringe term'. If this is true (and it may well be) It is perhaps inevitable that any article on the Arab-Israeli politics will attract controversy. But what is important is that we do not react to the clamouring of one group or another - down this route lies the dangers of revisionism and the erosion of Wikipedia as a valuable source. Wikipedia has rules. Let's simply stick to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.180.176 (talk • contribs).
    • This user's ninth contribution --DLandTALK 13:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - fine as a clarification of the meaning of a phrase, as long as we keep it short and to the point, not allowing it to descend into a debate. --Coroebus 14:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: For my part, I think apartheid has little in common with Israel and is grotesque oversimplification being used for dramatic effect, but enough notable people find some value in the term that is definitely deserving of an article. Besides which, it's well sourced and balanced. If you feel it is a purely propaganda term, this article would be the perfect place to debunk it using lots of sources. It will be a hotspot for vandalism and edit wars, but as long as everyone sticks to the facts (and doesn't delete any) we should be fine.

--Irongaard 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • An obvious keep: That someone don't like the phrase is not a reason to delete an article. // Liftarn 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Taking a propaganda expression and put it as a title of an article, will only make it another constant battlefield. The title itself says it all, no matter what is written inside the article. This AfD debate is just a "prelude" of what we gonna see around such title. Viriditas suggested already where relevant contents can be placed instead of openning another energy consuming non-encyclopedic title. Noon 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • White vote (not abstention: I cast a neutral vote). While the expression itself is definitely common enough (see comment below; Haaretz, Haaretz again, Gush Shalom: Israeli Peace NGO and 180 articles in Gush Shalom in English concerning the term "apartheid"; and also the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban: here NGO Monitor explains; Al Jazeera and Mordechai Vanunu here. I decided not to vote "keep" for the time being because I do not believe in polarizing Wikipedians like that, although that edit-warring has already started in other articles. I would ask those who ask for the "deletion" of this article to ask themselves why it was created in the first place, and if this was a response to genuine problems about editing? I refer anybody alien to the context to the Hamas article, where it is clear that NPOV is not respected simply because of the overwhelming number of presumed pro-Israeli users who are only intent on describing the movement as a satanist baby-killer movement, without any real concern for true geopolitics, political science and explaining where does this movement comes from, what has it done (bombings, but not only that), etc. The creation of such articles (as "Israeli apartheid" IMO appears inevitable as long as a whole bunch of users here — whom I completely respect the personal opinions — accepted to cease doing POV-pushing on some articles, in particular the Hamas which I can talk of for having contributed quite a lot and having discussed with various users of the page — globally they are only three or four people who are willing to do other things in this page than depicting it as an evil movement). Using Wikipedia as such a platform will only lead to polarization, which this page accounts for. Hence, BLANK VOTE! (I hope presumed pro-Israeli users understand that this is a concession from my part, which is probably doomed to failure for the most radicals of them... I hope pro-Palestinian users understand that we have to find the best way to solve this problem, which is mainly radical Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias since obviously most pro-Palestinians & people in the Arab world do not have such access to computers as the population here. Tazmaniacs 16:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - without addressing the body of your comment, the last presumption of obviousness that you make deserves a reevaluation on your part. I question whether it is the most constructive view of WP editing one could take. Cheers, TewfikTalk 18:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - I'm not sure having well understood, but in any cases I don't think this is the place to judge an user's contributions to Wikipedia (especially when I'm one of the only neutral vote here, thus indicating that I do not want to play this dividing game!...) Tazmaniacs 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - POV and inflammatory. Talpr
    • User's fifth edit. HKTTalk 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per Viriditas. IronDuke 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep the phrase has been established as notable. There is absolutely no reason this cannot be a neutral article. "Offensive" is not a valid reason for delete, the question is whether it is notable (yes) and verifiable (yes). Nigger, Kike, Raghead, (and Final Solution) are offensive phrases too (the last immensely so). As to Vriditas' "soapbox" argument cited by many, it seems to me that deleting this smacks of that more (in spirit) than keeping it does. Derex 17:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It seems that it is Viriditas' rationale, rather than policy citation, that is popular:
I've done a few hours of research on Israeli apartheid, and the term is nothing more than a focused, targeted propaganda campaign for a political platform that according to Abraham Cooper, is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state".
As such, I cited Viriditas' argument in that it expresses that this term is merely part of a targeted propoganda campaign. As such, the article is about a neologism (see WP:NEO), and consequently, it violates WP:NOT in that it makes WP into a publisher of what Wikipedia policy considers original thought. Wide usage among heavily political outlets doesn't stop this from being a neologism, nor does the fact that it was fabricated in the 80's. HKTTalk 18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Bwithh's links in the comments below go to notability, well established in my view. Neologisms are frowned upon because they are seldom notable. Reporting on something is certainly different than promoting it or from publishing it as original thought. This thought is quite well-established outside Wikipedia. As such, it is worthy of a neutral article. My take is that you are misinterpreting and misapplying policy. Derex 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear, without the word "(phrase)" in the title, it would be unacceptable. An article about the use of the phrase by others is fine and constructive. An article where Wikipedia itself uses the phrase in an ordinary context would violate NPOV. Derex 04:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Certain delete per Viriditas. -- Heptor talk 20:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I do not vote to delete because I consider the term too offensive for Wikipedia or something like that - but the content simply should be placed under more encyclopedic titles. -- Heptor talk 20:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that a deletion vote advocates removal of content, wheras a move vote advocates moving content. wow parallelism issues on my part Copysan 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It's completely unclear what, if anything, "certain delete" means, particularly in light of Heptor's followup comments which suggests "Merge" or "redirect" instead of "delete". Homey 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Pardon confusion. While some of the content may be salvaged, the article is generally a soapbox. The salvageble parts should be put in other articles by the way of normal editing, but I do not want to vote merge to imply that all of the contents are salvageble. -- Heptor talk 12:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - the phrase is clearly notable enough for an article. I don't even know why we're having this discussion. Frikle 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep well known phrase. - Xed 00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - or redirect to Hafrada, the term that means "separation" or "apartheid" and is used in Israel by both adherents and opponents to the "politics of separation". In the same way we have "Hasbara" instead of "Israeli propaganda". -Dna4salE 04:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong delete. POV fork, original research, and utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- FRCP11 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Create claims of racial segregation in Israel or some similarly-named article, and merge articles like Israeli apartheid, apartheid wall, et al., into it. The title of this article is inherently POV, but the phrases are also notable enough for articles. What we need is an article with a POV title that presents such phrases as a claim. No opinion on a redirect. By the way, can someone tell User:Zeq to please stop spamming talk pages about this discussion? While I am interested in this AfD, I don't appreciate the advertisement. TheProject 04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this tripe per Viriditas and MPerel. This is just the latest in a long sad tale of POV-pushers attempting to use WP as a soapbox, and pointing to blogs to back up their claims of noteworthiness. Tomertalk 05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV soapbox.  Grue  11:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as there is useful information in the article, but the title is inherently POV. Aguerriero (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
While some of the info could be usefull much of it based on sources which are not relaible enough according to WP:RS and indeed many of the arguments and counter arguments do not hold water. The article has become a usenet news group in which both side debate the issue. The propsal above to "Create claims of racial segregation in Israel or some similarly-named article, and merge articles like Israeli apartheid, apartheid wall, et al., into it. " seems a solution. Zeq 13:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have articles on much stronger epitaphs (nigger, chink, faggot (epithet)), so the original complaints of "offensive" and "POV" don't hold water. I agree that the article should be cleaned up and checked for point-of-view statements, but it's certainly valid as an inclusion in the encyclopedia. - Corbin Be excellent 16:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. propaganda expression. RenyD 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: User's first edit was today.[18]
  • Delete. Indeed >> propaganda expression. Ariel C 18:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: User's first edit was today.[19]
  • Keep. The expression of Bantustans has been used by the United Nations itself! "In January 2006, a UN report by John Dugard of the Human Right Commission in Geneva, stated that "the three major settlement blocs - Gush Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel - will effectively divide Palestinian territory into cantons or Bantustans." See "Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine - Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 Satyagit 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This rambling show why keeping this article will continue to make Wikipedia what it is WP:Not Zeq 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This observation is entirely irrelevant to the phrase in question. Pecher Talk 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, Bantustans were a major feature of the apartheid system in South Africa so the relevance is quite clear. Homey 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, this discussion is about "Israeli apartheid" phrase, not about "Palestinian bantutans" phrase. Pecher Talk 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
          • This interesting distinction between a bantustan and the apartheid regime is all to your honour, Pecher. I totally agree with you: Israel has nothing to do with apartheid, it just has a few bantustans. So what? Who cares? Apart from the United Nations, that is... Satyagit 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per all the above.Timothy Usher 19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE as it is a neologism and per all above. Interestingstuffadder 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - "offensive" isn't a good enough of a reason. We don't censor things on Wikipedia. The question is: is the term notable? Yes it is, regardless whether it's accurate or not. —Khoikhoi 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • On second thought, Humus did provide a better reason. But the thing is, I think it would be a POV fork if it didn't have the ("phrase") in the title. The way it is now I think is fine. —Khoikhoi 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, this interesting. You vote to keep, making it marginally more likely that the article will remain, but you base that on the word "phrase" being in the title. Please note that if it does remain, the person who created the article says he will move the title to eliminate the word "phrase." At the same time, I, who think the article should be deleted, put "phrase" back in the title on the theory that if the article does remain, having "phrase" in the title made it less POV. It's all sort of ironic and confused. 6SJ7 03:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom. Gadig 02:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep BhaiSaab talk 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge with one of the articles about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. You can't really compare this with nigger or kike. Those words are epithets, but they're not epithets which purport to claim anything about the target group. The POV in those article titles is just a generic "this group is bad", but the POV in this one makes a much more specific claim. You can't really compare it with Islamofascism either, because that term isn't normally used to refer to the entirety of Islam the same way that "Israeli Apartheid" is used to refer to Israel. Something also very relevant is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(slogans) (an archived article, but something which nobody seems to have mentioned yet!) Keeping the article with the (phrase) or (slogan) on the end may be the best choice here. This comment is by User:Ken Arromdee [20]
    • Comment: I can live with the addition of (phrase) even though I think it's completely unnecessary. Homey 05:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The issue is not "what Homey can live with" but what Wikipedia policies are. read WP:RS. Zeq 05:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:RS has nothing to do with adding "(phrase)" to the title. Pay attention!Homey 13:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (slogans) is basically what I was looking for but could not find, I suppose that is because it is archived and not linked directly from the main "conventions" page. It says an article title "may" be tagged "slogan" (or by extension, "phrase") on grounds of offensiveness. What I cannot figure out is whether this statement is "in force" at this time; but since there is no rule that says this is not the case, I don't see why an article title cannot include "phrase." Ironically, as noted elsewhere on this page, the inclusion of "phrase" in the title evidently convinced at least one person that it is not POV! Oh so complicated. 6SJ7 17:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Serious POV pushing. Lancsalot 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It is a legitimate POV and a notiable phrase that represents the POV. It is only offensive to critics. There are critical of every possible POV and every POV is offensive to someone. If we are going to start to delete articles on this basis then this is tantamount to censorhip and suppression of certain POV's. There are many other articles with titles that represent a notable term or phrase, some of which are very offensive. Someone pointed out one such article is Tar baby. Are you going to delete that article too? This is a strong Keep and its a good, balanced article that is informative for the debates on both sides of the fence, and more imprortantly it passes the notablity requirement. I studied Pol. Sci. and the term is widely used in academia. The phrase is even widely used in Israeli political discourse. Take a look at the book by the title of Israel: An Apartheid State, which argues for the correctness of the term. There is in Israel a Committee Against Apartheid [21], and the Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine [22]. Infact it seems it just becaues the slogan so effective in capturing the image of this POV that critics wants to censor it all together. This is unacceptable. We report on all views and issues, provided they are notable. The articles on any subject should be balanced and present all sides of the articles subject given the same criteria.Giovanni33 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly notable, certainly a sensitive topic. There are verifiable sources to use and scope of the term. While there can be discussion, the article is written carefully to avoid strong POV. In fact, as of the version I read, it is very close to NPOV, unless the readers have very strong POV themselves. As for merging, it is too early to tell. It may very well become a subarticle for a more comprehensive look at modern apartheid. Ted 17:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Aw, I kind of liked the photo of the ship, it gave this page some eye-appeal even though you put it there by mistake. :) 6SJ7 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I do most of my best work by mistake. Ted 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- TheMightyQuill 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --K a s h Talk | email 18:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the term exists and is not a neologism (or very obscure), then Wikipedia should have an article on it. The article must be copyedited for POV concerns, but that doesn't mean it has to be deleted. ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable phrase, just like petty apartheid. --Ezeu 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep' as per User:Ezeu.--Zereshk 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - clear POV fork GabrielF 23:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Phrase is widely used - whether you agree or disagree with the term, this does not disqualify it here.--الأهواز 23:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Viriditas. AnnH ♫ 00:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per above. -- Chris Lester talk 06:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Viriditas. Note that unanalyzed Google hits are a very poor measure of encyclopaedic notability. There are 782 unique hits for American apartheid and only 736 for South African apartheid. Global apartheid has 718. In Google Scholar it's American 2650 , South African 1330, and Global 625. (Some other Google numbers: British 28, European 59, Indian 71, Israeli 477, Arab 116, Ethnic 165, Gender 726, Religious, 524, Sexual 536) --Denis Diderot 08:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Guinnog. -- Ec5618 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete What is this, Israel is not South Africa! Khorshid 11:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised there aren't more Merge votes. This is just another name for the Israeli-occupied territories. savidan(talk) (e@) 11:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not really, as the term "Apartheid" has often been used to refer to the situation of Palestinian Israelis as well. --Ezeu 15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge anything useful per Viriditas. Armon 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteThis is POV intended for propaganda Benvandal 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • NOTE: User's first edit was today[23]. Homey 19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Runcorn 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comments

[edit] Comment

I've moved the above comments from the voting page to the talk page, which is where extended discussions belong. Pecher Talk 12:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little research and comment on Google searches

As some others have said during the course of this discussion (either on the article's talk page or here, or both) there is too much reliance on Google searches to "prove" the notability of a term. Google hits may be indicative of something, but I am not sure what, and the other question is, where do you draw the line? How many Google hits are "meaningful"? Just as a little experiment, I decided to plug various terms followed by "apartheid" into Google and see what happens. All of the phrases I put in were in quotation marks, for example "israeli apartheid," "islamic apartheid," etc. (I think the absence of quotation marks is what results in statements on the main AfD page that a certain search revealed millions of hits.)

Please be assured that by "testing" any particular term I did not mean a slur against that group, religion, or whatever. I just typed what popped into my head. So don't anybody be offended. It's just a little experiment.

Here are the results, which are grouped together in what seems like some logical order and in numerical order within the groups:

  • "israeli apartheid" 247,000
  • "american apartheid" 84,700 (note, "u.s. apartheid" got 2,250)
  • "arab apartheid" 334
  • "palestinian apartheid" 270
  • "indian apartheid" 117
  • "serbian apartheid" 37
  • "chinese apartheid" 23
  • "russian apartheid" 5
  • "bosnian apartheid" 1
  • "jewish apartheid" 2,010
  • "islamic apartheid" 735 (note, "muslim apartheid" got 458)
  • "christian apartheid" 24

And here is one I was surprised by because I thought I was making it up, but obviously I wasn't:

  • "sexual apartheid" 17,100 (apparently most refer to bias based on sexual orientation)

Now, what does all of this prove? I am not suggesting it proves anything, other than that you can find just about anything on the Web. So, where do you draw the line? "American apartheid" sure does get a lot of hits, so why isn't there a Wikipedia article about it? (At least, I did not find one.) I am not suggesting that there should be such an article, but does that mean that there is some "magic number" between 247,000 and 84,700? Or, does it mean that 247,000 hits, by themselves, do not justify a separate article? (Somewhere a lightbulb turns on of its own volition.)

Maybe Wikipedia should not aspire to be a reflection of the informational chaos of the Web, but rather an oasis from it. (Hey, that was pretty good, can I copyright that? Not if I post it here, I guess. Oh well.) 6SJ7 00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because Israeli apartheid is around 3x more than American apartheid. Also, note that people use Google Test in addition to the Scholarly Article-test and notable person test. Desmond Tutu, presumably a first hand experiencer of apartheid has used the phrase. I think he would konw about apartheid. Copysan 01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
No argument that Tutu knows about apartheid, but (with all due respect) what does he really know about Israel? Elizmr 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To 6SJ7: see Global Apartheid, Sexual Apartheid and other Apartheids. Homey 01:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I find the author's introductory paragraphs interesting and correct, and his conclusion laughable. What he is saying is, the use of this phrase is intellectually lazy except when he thinks it is applicable. And then, by denigrating the use of the phrase for any purpose other than what he wants to use it for, his use of it as an epithet becomes that much more powerful. I think a similar attitude went into the creation of the article we are talking about on this page. Fortunately, some people can see through things like that. 6SJ7 03:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"Dirty Jew"+ produces 57,700. Desperately need an article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we should have an article on: "Palestinian Death Cult Lynchings" . After all much like Homey took a web apge from "globalexchange.com" one can use this as a source : http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20829_Palestinian_Death_Cult_Lynchings&only .

after all the argument of google hits is a two edge sword - this search give 720,000 (6 times more than "Israeli aparthide":

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=Palestinian+%22Death+Cult%22+OR+Lynchings+OR+Lynching&btnG=Search

For now, I will not be dragged down to this level. Zeq 10:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Your search - "Palestinian Death Cult Lynchings" - did not match any documents.". No Google hits at all. Clearly not notable. // Liftarn
Google hits is obviously not a proof for anything, since it only directs to sources, some of which are reliables, others no. These are the real things to base themselves on. For the expression "Israeli apartheid", a simple search leads to find it being used:

I also noted that we already have articles for global apartheid, gender apartheid and sexual apartheid. // Liftarn

Which for some reasons have all of a sudden all be listed for deletion... Tazmaniacs 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)



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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29_ccaf.html"