Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination)

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 keep. Majorly (hot!) 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of apartheid

Allegations of apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was deleted at its second AfD nomination as violating WP:SYNT. DRV overturned, citing insufficient evidence of consensus on that crucial point in the debate. The matter is returned to AfD for further consideration. Please consult the AfD and DRV before commenting. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Nearly every statement in this article is sourced. This article does not constitute an original synthesis as there is plenty of coverage and discussion of "Allegations of apartheid". The fact that it discusses mentions of allegations in multiple countries is simply a matter of content organisation: this page (on the main topic of allegations of apartheid) serves as a gateway to the country-specific articles. Moreover, the allegation (pun intended) that this article exists "to advance a position", which is a condition of WP:SYNT, is dubious at best. -- Black Falcon 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Black Falcon RaveenS 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - that such accusations are made is a matter of fact, and that they play an important role in the political rhetoric should be self-evident. We probably need better guidelines for articles about political rhetoric, but that's another discussion. --Leifern 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Delete Rightly deleted the first time as a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. The sections on numerous different disparate topics on the same page are linked only by a rhetorical word, rather than by subject matter, makes it WP:SYNTH. Meaning that it is original research to combine and link these disparate topics, as they had never been studied as a collective phenomenon elsewhere. It means that wikipedia had effectively created and collectively studied a topic, "allegations of apartheid", that didn't exist in the outside world, and elevated a rhetorical descriptive term used in passing to the status of a topic in itself, which in reality it isn't. Individually, "tourist apartheid" in Cuba stems from a wider programme of policies initiated after Cuba's economic collapse of the early 1990s, "social apartheid" in Brazil relates to years of economic disparities in Brazil that can be traced back to the time of slavery, "Israeli apartheid" refers to a particular dispute in the middle east. None of these have any connection to each other other than one rhetorical term used in passing, and have never been associated or studied as a collective phenomenon elsewhere. Because they do not form a single topic or subject. Whatsmore, the surrounding activities on this and other apartheid articles, including Israel, Brazil and Cuba have been attempts by partisans to game the consensus system and utilise strategies regarding WP:ALLORNOTHING that go wholly against the ethos and spirit of the site. Many parties are guilty of continuing this unsavoury farce and these games should not be allowed to hijack content anymore. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete While I don't think the synthesis argument holds in this case, this article is unrescueable. All this is is a long list of countries, which I'm fairly sure anyone with time on their hands could expand to cover every country in the world. The single "general" paragraph consists entirely of a dicdef and a very misleading claim (yes, the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid was technically passed by the UN, but no major country other than the USSR ever ratified it, while most major countries - including the US, Russia & China - don't recognise the International Criminal Court). "Apartheid" in the criminal sense ("inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime") also bears no relation to virtually all of the examples cited in this article and its walled garden - "gender apartheid", "the apartheid of the rich", "tourist apartheid" et al (even "apartheid for terrorists" in the UK entry). Although, I would love to hear more on "Canada & New Zealand's well-known support for the practice of slavery". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The people who allege that a country is practicing apartheid do so for a reason; either they seriously believe that the country in question has practices that resemble apartheid, or they do so for rhetorical effect that they know their listener will understand. In either case, the accusations are often made by notable people, and the phenomenon itself is both widespread and notable. If this article shouldn't exist, then neither should the sub-articles, such as Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Yet those arguing vociferously for the deletion of the main arguably unfathomably argue that the sub-articles be kept; it's as if they imagine that the people using the term "apartheid" have no idea what it means, and that those hearing it similarly have no idea what it means. People use the term "apartheid" because it actually means a very specific thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I do imagine that the people using the term "apartheid" on this page are using it incorrectly. Allegations of Israeli apartheid is a keep because it's using it correctly ("inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime"), whilst almost every other entry on this list is using it as a synonym for "any kind of social divide" - tourist apartheid, financial apartheid, gender apartheid etc etc etc. I don't accept that use of it in the vernacular sense of "two groups of people being treated different for whatever reason" is an acceptable use of the phrase on this page, given that the page says from the start that it is using the term in its legal sense. And, as I say above, if the article is using the word in its broadest sense, I'm pretty certain I could write a plausible "Allegations of apartheid" page about any country in the world. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have it exactly wrong: Israelis and Palestinians are not different "racial" groups; on the contrary, genetic research indicates that they are closely related. In reality the article the term best applies to is Allegations of Brazilian apartheid; I recommend reading it. As for writing an article about "any country in the world", it's not as easy as you suggest; you'd have to quote reliable sources for a start. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Super strong easy keep - uhm, 73 sources? Well written? Encyclopaedic? ... I'm hard pressed to imagine how anyone could think this is appropriate for deletion. WilyD 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not only that, the sub-articles have an additional 143 references. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This is only half as well referenced as the sub articles? Maybe I was wrong - why have this if it's daughter articles are better??? WilyD 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The daughter articles are much, much longer. In some cases, absurdly long - Allegations of Israeli apartheid is almost 60k and has 89 references. This article was used for the Allegations that didn't necessarily merit their own articles. The longest one should be summarized and restored to this article, it's a shameful polemic. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Abundance of references does not make an article more worthy. We could source "Allegations of fascism" all night if we wanted to.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sure if you could get together a movement to delete all the related "Allegations of apartheid" articles, you might have more success. As it is, though, people who insist that the Allegations listed here are merely "ephemeral", "neologisms", and (my favorite) "invoked rhetorically" also vote Strong Keep when their own favorite rhetoric is put up for AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
        • As the sole author of all your favorite phrases, I'll take a quick bow and then politely point out how you've misunderstood them. I like rhetoric and neologisms as much as the next girl, and have no problem with well-sourced articles about or including such things. And if reliable sources house such rhetorical ephemera alongside sustained historical comparisons under the roof of a single rubric, then who am I as a Wikipedian to argue with them. But no such reliable sources have been provided in the present case, and I don't believe they exist. Again, WP:SYNTH is the relevant policy. It is gross misreading of that policy to argue that if a synthesis of topics X, Y, and Z must be eliminated, then individual articles on X, Y, and Z must also be eliminated, but this is exactly what you keep saying.--G-Dett 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Articles should be a study of the topic, not the rhetorical neologism and its use. There is nothing wrong with including such a neologism in an article, but making it the basis of the article is unhelpful in all cases. If we start doing that, then we may as well start creating articles called Allegations that certain people are moonbats, which could be sourced to nines but be of little value.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as long as the sub-articles exist. I find it puzzling how the arguments made for deleting this entry are withheld regarding some of its subarticles - lets try to maintain a consistent approach to the lot of them. Tewfik^Talk 21:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither puzzling nor inconsistent. I have argued repeatedly for the deletion of all the subarticles as well, while you have argued for the deletion of one article here and here, but have argued to keep others here and here. How's that for consistency?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The "Delete" votes were many months ago, the "Keep" votes were very recent. Obviously he has come to realize that Wikipedia is the kind of encyclopedia that takes Allegations of apartheid seriously. Given that's the case, it shouldn't be favoring some Allegations over others. Of course, if Wikipedia were to come to consensus that these kinds of Allegations are not encyclopedic after all, I'm sure he'd apply that consistently as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • That is exactly right. Since we've decided that this sort of subject matter is encyclopaedic, which I didn't initially think it was, we must be consistent, as indeed you (Zleitzen) were. Tewfik^Talk 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious delete per Zleitzen. Those who invoke the need for "a consistent approach" and maintain that "if this article shouldn't exist, then neither should the sub-articles," etc. – need to review WP:SYNTH. There is not a single source – much less "73 sources" – for this article's brazen conflation of disparate subject matter and unrelated materials. The miscellany google-gathered here is united only by the use of a single word, sometimes invoked rhetorically and in passing, sometimes as part of a catchy ephemeral neologism ("water apartheid," "nuclear apartheid"), and sometimes, though only rarely, as the basis of an extended historical comparison. The "topic" that supposedly comprises all these things exists only in the minds of Wikipedians, and even then only Wikipedians bent on making a WP:POINT. It is as absurd as having an article on "allegations of ethnic cleansing," and including therein the Janjaweed's campaign in the Sudan, the aftermath of the Katrina disaster,[1] [2], Israel's military campaign in South Lebanon last summer,[3], and the gentrification of San Francisco's Mission District.[4][5] Enough already; let's get it out of there.--G-Dett 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone who was truly interested in getting rid of "brazen conflations of disparate subject matter", "catchy ephemeral neologisms", and "rhetoric" wouldn't have voted this way. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This is evasive sophistry. If Allegations of Israeli Apartheid contains brazen conflations of rhetoric, etc., it's the reliable sources themselves that have been brazenly conflating things. This article, by contrast, presents the brazen conflations of Wikipedians. WP:SYNTH is the issue, and it doesn't arise in the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article.--G-Dett 14:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no, G-Dett. In my mind, your vote demonstrates rather well (to me, in any event) that what you think are justifiable accusations against Israel should not be leveled against any other country, no matter what the facts are. --Leifern 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In your mind indeed. In reality, however I have not voiced any objections whatsoever, here or anywhere else, to anyone's invocation of "apartheid" in various human-rights contexts. What I've voiced an objection to is the invention, on the part of Wikipedians in a gross violation of WP:SYNTH, of a single topic with no RS-backing whatsoever conflating these disparate things.--G-Dett 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per Black Falcon, Leifern, WilyD, Jayjg, Tewfik. The term seems to be used by politicians/propagandists (rightly or wrongly, like it or not), so why not systematize that usege in an encyclopedic way. OTOH, if it is a proven neologism, delete the entire series. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, The allegations are a growing phenomenon. Keep per Jayjg, Humus sapiens, WilyD, Tewfik, Black Falcon, and Leifern. --Shamir1 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  "The allegations" are a growing phenomenon in the minds of Wikipedians, not any reliable sources.--G-Dett 14:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If the usage of apartheid as rhetorical device in recent political discourse was coined or discovered by wikipedians, the article should be deleted. Else, it depicts a political phenomenon as encyclopaedically relevant as others, whether its use is appropriate or not. --tickle me 22:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strawman argument. The usage of the term has not been coined by wikipedians and no one said it had been. It is just one of many terms used to describe various disparate situations that have no connecting thread, in fact, in many cases it only forms part of the occasionally used rhetorical device - see "tourist apartheid". To connect them has been an invention of wikipedians, that is the original research. Why not Allegations of fascism which carries every instance a person or group has been described as fascist? Allegations that nations are Police States? Allegations of Stalinism? Allegations of Nazism? Allegations that some nations are evil? All these are equally as worthy as this article.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This is merely a content organisation issue. There is no "Allegations of fascism" article because there are no individual country articles of the type "Allegations of fascism in Burkina Faso". Would you consider Category:1975 births an original synthesis? I'm sure that no one outside of Wikipedia has thought to lump together Salvatore Amitrano, an Italian Olympic rower, and Ramin Bahrani, an Iranian-American filmmaker. -- Black Falcon 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • 1) There are no Allegations of fascism articles, yet. But by supporting this article, editors are hastening the time when that article appears. 2)A category isn't an article, it is not a study of a subject.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
        • It is the people who use the allegation of "apartheid" who make the connection. It obviously means something both in their minds, and in the minds of their audiences. As for similar kinds of articles, see 9/11 conspiracy theories, AIDS conspiracy theories, Racism by country. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Racism is a defined topic. The study of "racism by country" has a legitimate background in academia and the media, "allegations of apartheid" in this instance is not a topic and has no precedent. The term "apartheid wall" or similar is used to refer to Israeli policies, or the term "tourist apartheid" is used in reference to Cuba, but there is no connection between the two concepts, and they have never been studied as a general subject. In contrast, your examples have been linked and studied in the real world (Although I haven't a clue what that AIDS articles is all about).-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Zleitzen on 11 April 2007: "Strawman argument. The usage of the term has not been coined by wikipedians and no one said it had been". Thank you. I think it has been said:

Zleitzen on 17:58, 11 April 2007: "Obvious Delete [...] It means that wikipedia had effectively created and collectively studied a topic, "allegations of apartheid", that didn't exist in the outside world, and elevated a rhetorical descriptive term used in passing to the status of a topic in itself, which in reality it isn't."

G-Dett on 21:50, 11 April 2007: "The 'topic' that supposedly comprises all these things exists only in the minds of Wikipedians, and even then only Wikipedians bent on making a WP:POINT."

--tickle me 00:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are badly misunderstanding this. Individuals describing various unconnected situations and using the term "apartheid" among others was not invented by wikipedia editors. Linking these completely different subjects and turning them into a general topic worthy of an article called "Allegations of apartheid" was created solely by wikipedia editors. This topic does not exist in the wider world.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely concur with Zleitzen's point above. The info in the article is sourced yes, but the title and its implication is not and is OR + the whole nine yards. Baristarim 02:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per Jayjg, Humus sapiens, WilyD, Tewfik, and others. The use of the term as a political tool is notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Black Falcon, JayJg, et al. Unless all the various "allegations of apartheid" per geographic region are likewise brought up for deletion simultaneously, it seems disingenuous and non-neutral to be picking out particular "apartheids" articles that don't match with one's ideological preference. --Leflyman^Talk 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and move the relevant information into "Human Rights in X" under a better and more serious encyclopedic format. The fact that the article is sourced doesn't mean much: the same sourced info can be in HR in X articles, that is not a valid argument for keep. It is time Wikipedia got more serious covering issues, really. There is no reason to keep this article except to give an opportunity to people to push POV and OR (OR since there is no concensus as to how those mentioned qualify as "apartheid", following the description of the word - they are sourced, yes, but the interpretation given to them is dangerously streaking on thin ice). Just because someone "alleged" something, that doesn't make it so - therefore the WP:WEASEL argument. I am aware that this is not a scientific topic therefore there will never be an absolute concensus on definitions, nevertheless it is better to cover these under the "HR in X" titles, for which there is a near absolute concensus on what they are.
  As for the "others" argument - that argument is seriously bordering on disruption per WP:POINT: just because one thief got away, that doesn't mean another should also be set free. If there are other similar articles, bring them to AfD and I will also vote for a merge to HR in XYZ article and defend that position. Nevertheless, I am sensing that some people are voting keep because another article they wanted deleted was kept - that's WP:POINT. user:Leflyman's comments above is a prime example: no analysis de fond as to why this article should be kept, but rather "well, the other one got away, so this should stay" - that's a false a contrario argument.. This article is weasel, violates WP:SYNT and WP:OR (per my point about this above) and is nothing but an invitation to people to push a POV about someone they have got a beef with - move the relevant info to "HR in X" articles, and bring the rest of the articles to the AfD as well so that they can also be merged with their parallel HR articles. Baristarim 00:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's a mischaracterisation of my position; and I'd ask that you refrain from making such straw man argumentations. It's clear that the formerly South African-specific term "apartheid" has taken on a generic meaning as applied to numerous political/economic situations. This article does a good job documenting this usage phenomenon with appropriate references. The fact that certain "allegation of apartheid" articles by geography have been deemed notable enough makes this umbrella article similarly notable. If the consensus changes and decides that other articles are no longer fitting for Wikipedia, then this article would similarly not be. If you wish to see all such articles brought to AfD, please feel free to do a mass-nomination.--Leflyman^Talk 06:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I apologize - I didn't want to target only person in particular. I do understand your position, but I was only trying to give an example of the type of keep argument that was used, it was nothing personal. cheers! Baristarim 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and reform, or keep and reform the template that is currently undergoing an AfD. --GHcool 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is no serious prior research linking the quotes, which is why the sections are placed alphabetically rather than in order of importance. WP:SYNT forbids advancing new arguments even from well-verified raw data; the new argument here is that Israel has plenty of company. My impression that this article is a pawn in the battle over articles on Israel is bolstered by arguments here to keep this article because of the continued existence of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I sympathize with the pro-Israel editors for having had to deal with some maddening WP:POINT violations, however countering with your own WP:POINT violation is not the way to go. In addition to the WP:OR and WP:POINT problems, the individual sections of the article are each in blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Kla'quot 06:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Two, three or more wrongs don't make a right. This article should go, then the Israel article should be properly challenged and dispersed into appropriate articles, then others should follow. The Israel article can be covered in a paragraph or so elsewhere: Reading "Some people have described the situation as being similar to Apartheid in South Africa, others have rejected the analogy" etc. That's pretty much the crux of it and all we need to know, "apartheid" here is merely a description of events already covered in Wikipedia. Something like "Tourist apartheid in Cuba" is somewhat different as it is describing a particular set of policies initiated in the 1990s rather than a general overview of society. The present format of the allegations page doesn't really do it a proper service and the details should be covered in Tourism in Cuba, which they pretty much are already and which covers various other interconnected policies brought in during that time. At present these articles are content forks of other articles which serve to illustrate a WP:POINT, not the issues themselves. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Either Keep this or Delete all "Allegations of XXXXXX Apartheid" It is either encyclopædic or it is not, but we cannot start splitting hairs about various countries. -- Avi 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:SYNTH is the relevant policy. It's a gross misreading of that policy to argue that if a synthesis of topics X, Y, and Z is to be eliminated, then individual articles on X, Y, and Z must also be eliminated. Individual articles are to be debated on their individual merits (including the depth and range of their source materials), not on the merits of an umbrella topic invented by Wikipedians.--G-Dett 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:ALLORNOTHING Kla'quot 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - WP:ALLORNOTHING is at best a slogan, but certainly isn't a policy and not even a guideline in Wikipedia.
• Strong Keep - good article and organization tool for other similar articles. Racism by country is a similar one, it is not on AfD at the moment. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How is an actual established topic such as "racism", which is studied in the real world, similar and on a par with a rhetorical device such as "allegations of apartheid" which isn't studied in the real world, only here? Apartheid (outside South Africa) is not a topic, it is a rhetorical description of wildly disparate unrelated situations. Racism by country is what it says on the box and describes the established, defined topic of racism.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Needs some work but shouldn't be deleted. --Rayis 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Either Keep this or Delete all "Allegations of XXXXXX Apartheid" It is either encyclopædic or it is not, but we cannot start splitting hairs about various countries. Precisely. Gzuckier 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:SYNTH, WP:ALLORNOTHING.--G-Dett 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The issue of sourcing is not, in my opinion, the definitive issue here. No one is disputing that the word "apartheid" is being used in each of these contexts. The problem is in deciding which uses are appropriate to list in this article. The opening paragraph of the page even says that "its meaning has been extended to include any wholesale cultural, intellectual, religious, economic, or gender based discrimination." Apartheid has become so widely used as an epithet that we are left to determine for ourselves which uses really qualify and which are mere rhetoric. That's the original research problem. I don't see how that problem could be solved. Rossami (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I added that sentence; I don't believe it is OR, I believe it is calling a spade a spade, whereas the definition from the U.N. is politicized. The sentence I added truly reflects how the term is used on a daily basis. i.e. in the real world, which the sources in the rest of the article make clear. Some of these examples (cultural apartheid and gender apartheid) do apear in the dictionary definition of apartheid. By the UN definition, if you round up a group by genetics (i.e. race) and ghettoize them behind a wall, it's apartheid and a crime against humanity, but if you do it be someother definable characteristic, it's AOK. It completely contrasts with their definition of genocide, which can be commited on a wide range of characteristics beyond race/genetics. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no issue in deciding which uses to list beyond textbook everyday WP:RS usage. If reliable sources make the allegation, you list it. If not, you don't. There's no wiggle room. WilyD 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If your only standard is whether someone can be quoted as using the word, then you've turned the list into a mere usage guide, which Wikipedia is not. Rossami (talk)
• Delete. The article is a collection of miscellaneous allegations connected only by the use or misuse of the term "apartheid". There is not a single reliable source supporting any connection between the various usages of that term. That's why the article is an original synthesis. It's the same as if we had an article called Allegations of murder, in which were listed Son of Sam, O.J. Simpson, John Wilkes Booth, "Vegetarian activists sometimes use the slogan 'Meat is murder.'", "Some pro-life activists consider doctors who provide abortions murderers.", and "My Aunt Tilly once said she could murder a good steak dinner." All allegations, all using the word "murder", mostly reliably sourceable... but there's no source showing any connection, and placing them all together into a single article, at the least, strongly implies one. Treating these situations as if they're the same ("allegations of murder") in the absence of any sources claiming that is original synthesis. Allegations of apartheid has the same problem. It's weasel-ish and equates (and oversimplifies) a variety of different situations, even though it has no basis for doing so -- it's Wikipedia equating these usages, not any reliable source. Shimeru 23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• comment I don't think murder vs. apartheid is a good comparison because murder is far too general. Allegations of murder would be more like Allegations of human rights violations. The connection is the comparison/accusation of a specific form of human rights violation. <<-armon->> 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Right -- I don't think anyone is accusing Shimeru's Aunt Tilly of committing apartheid either. It's much more like claiming we can't have an article on history of genocide because no one's exactly sure how many people you have to kill for it to be called a genocide. These things require a dose of WP:COMMON. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment History of Genocide is a bad comparison, Kendrick. An appropriate comparison would be an article called Allegations of Genocide, gathering together various discussions of the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the "bloodless genocide" of the Pitcairn Islanders,[6] the genocide of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories,[7] the genocide of Tibet's indigenous culture by China[8] (and that of Cornish coastal towns by the United Kingdom[9]), the "cultural genocide" of the Welsh in the 19th century who were punished by the Brits for speaking their native tongue,[10], and the genocide of 8000 men in Srebrenica.--G-Dett 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Exactly. But the murder comparison is also appropriate, because, while "apartheid" has a more specific meaning than "murder", many of the instances of its usage do not fit that meaning. ("Nuclear apartheid"?) If anything, those murder examples have more in common with each other than the various "allegations" in the article we're discussing do. And, yes, "allegations of apartheid" is rather different from history of apartheid. Among other things, anyone can allege something, and perhaps even get a reliable source to report on it. This does not make it a notable part of history. Shimeru 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and merge the various sub-article POV forks/polemics into this one. WilyD point about which uses to list via WP:RS makes sense. Anything more detailed regarding the human rights situation in various countries should be dealt with in the appropriate human rights articles. As for the WP:SYNTH claim, does this mean that the people arguing SYNTH therefore object to all lists? To my mind, this seems to be what the article essentially is -a list. <<-armon->> 02:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lousy idea. Should we merge all genocides into History of genocide too? Maybe the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide are just WP:POVFORKs? Obviously, in the case of apartheid, some allegations are more widespread in reliable sources than others. To not keep the articles separate without throwing away facts would cause a problem with WP:Undue weight not to mention WP:LENGTH. I would split out every country and put the articles in Template:Allegations of apartheid, which someone started doing and then stopped, after which point Austrailia's got deleted and Brazil's did not. No reason for all the sections not to have the same opportunity. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust is a defined topic, "Allegations of apartheid" is not a defined topic. An article describing a policy is a legitimate article on a legitimate topic. Allegations that this is just like South Africa (which in effect these articles are) actually makes it more difficult to describe the policy, and hence creates an unneccessary fork that does not serve readers. Only merging all these articles into legitimate areas where these topics are properly explored can end the sense that they have been created to make a point, and are merely POV/content forks of wider issues. Make these positive steps now rather than later.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid means different things to different people, just like genocide means different things to different people. No one is claiming all apartheids are just like South Africa. To say we can't have an article about a concept we don't have an exact definition for is just a Loki's Wager argument. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I had the time to peruse many related "apartheid" articles - and I have the impression (I might be wrong) that this whole debate is a ramification of the Israeli article - people who want the other apartheid articles kept seem to be the ones who wanted the Israeli article deleted and those who wanted it kept - there is no other explanation as to why so many editors who are primarily active in the Palestinian-Israeli pages would turn up in the "Brazilian" apartheid article. I am sorry, but that's really WP:POINT. In any case, see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - other articles are completely irrelevant: existence of A doesn't necessarily justify B. Many editors who voted keep here have argued how the Israeli article violated policy et al in those AfDs. WTF? So, even many keep voters accept that this article violates a whole bunch of policy, but argue that it should only be kept because the other one, which also violates policy, didn't get deleted. Since when do two wrongs make a right? I love this comment from the Brazilian AfD: "no cherry picking" :) I am still not seeing how this stuff cannot be covered under Human Rights in X articles - most of them are not that long anyways.. Baristarim 03:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct again. When a bunch of Israeli focussed editors turned up en masse to oppose merges related to Cuba, and one prominent Israeli focussed editor actually started reverting my routine efforts to make Tourism in Cuba into a good article to ensure some foothold in a strategy involving these articles, it became apparent that this game of WP:POINT had gone on far enough. When this strategy is actively interfering with unrelated legitimate content and the work of unrelated editors, its time to pull the plug.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• You are certainly correct that much of this content was eagerly created as a WP:POINT but that's not a valid reason for deletion; I too tried to fix the Cuba tourism article for a time and gave up. However, I think generally crimes against humanity rise to a level beyond mere issues of "human rights" which can mean a lot of various less serious infractions. I wouldn't merge the Armenian genocide into Human rights in Turkey as happy as that might make the Turks (though it would upset my grumpy old landlord; it's a tough call -- nah, I just couldn't go it to my grocer, my banker, my downstairs neighbors, and my barber – well... he holds a razor to my neck once a month, don't you know?). -- Kendrick7^talk 03:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Aha, that last comparison came out of nowhere, and the fact that I am originally Turkish has nothing to do with it, right? :) Find better arguments and avoid such straw mans, you are actually harming your position.. Talk on content, not the contributors. Baristarim 04:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oops -- I had no idea you were from Turkey; I do in fact live in Watertown, Massachusetts, "the third-largest Armenian community in the United States." -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Although I confess -- the part about the barber was for comic effect

Ok, no worries. I did have a feeling about that barber part now that you mention it :) Baristarim 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You see, now we're getting into a more complex issue, but the definition of "a crime against humanity" is open to vast amounts of distortion and political manoeuvrings and is itself a propagandistic phrase with little or no meaning. Interestingly, your Armenian Genocide is an excellent case in point (read the work of Niall Ferguson with a critical eye and you'll see what I mean). These phrases are used to channel sentiment towards a political point of view and hence are inherently misleading. Nevertheless, Armenian genocide is considered a fairly established title for the events in question, despite reservations from certain parties. Do you think that titling our various events "allegations of apartheid" is a fair effort to present a situation in as NPOV a way as possible? Which should be our goal. Or does it veer closer to channelling sentiment towards a particular POV? -- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that's fair. I'm reminded of the words of Dr. Homer Whipple: After all, it can't happen here. If there are allegations that "it's" happening, where ever "here" might happen to be, I'd want to know about it and be able to judge the allegations on their own merits. I'd love to live in a world where the worst thing that could ever happen is a POV article about something existed on the wikipedia, but I don't think I do. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Question There are at least 14 countries and 3 religious groups here with allegations of apartheid cited, and essentially zero representation of arguments against the allegations. For many of these countries, the idea that the country practices or has practiced apartheid is the POV of a tiny minority. I'm trying to imagine the amount of text required to put a comment like, "Canada and New Zealand's support for the practices of slavery and apartheid are well known" into properly-weighted perspective. So here we have a collection of massive WP:NPOV problems. Is there anyone volunteering to make each of these sections NPOV? Kla'quot 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Black Falcon, Jayjg and others, but I am "voting" that way mainly because I think the justification for the delete (WP:SYNT) is incorrect. I would love to see the day when this article could be deleted. However, if Wikipedia is going to allow itself to be an Encyclopedia of Name-calling, I don't see the fairness in keeping some "allegations of apartheid" and deleting others. Call that "allornothing" if you will, but I call it fairness. 6SJ7 05:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  It is not name calling and let's stop beating around the bush: I have never heard the word "apartheid" used in connection with New Zealand, but nearly always in connection to Israel (on top of RSA, obviously). Wikipedia only mirrors information that is already out there. It is not our fault if Israel has grave foundational issues with regards to its ethno-religious policies/history. Nevertheless I am still in support of merging the Israeli article with HR in Israel article. It is amazing, nearly all keep voters agree that this sort of articles shouldn't exist, but just because one thief got away they are seeking to break the doors of the whole prison!! How unWikipedian is that, really? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.. Baristarim 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Speaking of fairness, what do you think of the fact that Allegations of Israeli apartheid has arguments in favour of the term and arguments against the term, whereas Allegations_of_apartheid#New_Zealand only has arguments in favour of the term? Do you think that's fair? Kla'quot 05:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Fair should be fair, period. What we really need is an "Allegations-of-Apartheid-in-X" article for every country on earth. It's hardly fair to restrict these articles to those who've been accused of apartheid. These folks are getting reemed twice – first by being accused of apartheid, then by being singled out among all the nations of the world for an article in Wikipedia about how they were accused of apartheid. That's double jeopardy. Fair, anyone?! Jay raises moreover an important point that the bulk of the citations for this group of articles is in the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article. This is a serious problem: not only is Wikipedia not fair, but the actual state of reliable source materials in the real world isn't fair. Let's buckle down and fix all this at once. I suggest we set about creating 6.5 billion articles, accusing every man, woman and child on the planet of individually practicing apartheid. Sounds onerous, but if every editor in this debate wrote an article about him- or herself we'd already have thirty or so! Let's get cracking.--G-Dett 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Still, the same arguments. It doesn't matter what other articles there are. And let's stop beating around the bush: In recent times, practically every single time I have heard the word "apartheid" it has been in connection with Israel - not about New Zealand or Brazil. Wikipedia exists to mirror the information which is out there, not to create it. As I have pointed out earlier, this sort of keep argument is really bordering on disruption in some cases: no there won't be an "Allegations of Apartheid in X" article for every country, not every country is similar, and in any case they all should be merged to "HR in X" articles. The "fairness" of outside material doesn't have a lot of bearing, really. As I have said, Wikipedia only reflects info - there is not much Wikipedia can do about the state of outside information. Baristarim 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  We have to think big. There are 6.5 billion people in the world. How many are Wikipedians? Probably twice that many. I'm already working on the article about myself. Here it is so far: Allegations of apartheid by user:G-Dett draw a controversial analogy from the policies of apartheid-era South Africa to the editing practices of user:G-Dett. Proponents of the analogy argue that G-Dett's editing demonstrates rather well (to them, in any event) that what she thinks are justifiable accusations against Israel should not be leveled against any other country, no matter what the facts are.[11] They point out, moreover, that she insists that the allegations listed in the umbrella article Allegations of Apartheid are merely "ephemeral", "neologisms", and (their favorite) "invoked rhetorically" but that she also votes Strong Keep when her own favorite rhetoric is put up for AfD.[12] Critics of the analogy have agreed to go into counseling to come to terms with their antisemitism.--G-Dett 13:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Still trying to figure out the finer points of your post :) Baristarim 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  If you can make heads or tails of it, please explain it to me.--G-Dett 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Here is my response to Kla'quot's question about the New Zealand section and "fairness." This sounds like an NPOV issue regarding that section, and it can be corrected by editing the article. If there have been criticisms of the "allegations" against New Zealand, presumably there are reliable sources that say so. And this assumes that the allegations against New Zealand are based on proper sources in the first place; if not, perhaps the whole section should be removed. (And it is a section, not a whole article.) But this is the regular Wikipedia editing process; there is no reason to refer to any other particular article to find out whether it is "fair" or not. 6SJ7 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Whatever the actual history, existance of the article has justification as a length-split (appendix) to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid after which, given the weakness of Wikipedia's structure in that kind of split, it must be allowed to evolve organically in accord with its title. I don't see that it causes a problem for any except WikiLawyers who are deluded about WikiLaw. Andyvphil 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  When I first came across this AfD, I had no idea how much of a stir this Israeli article was causing. Listen, is there any evidence out there accusing New Zealand of apartheid? Are we out of our minds? Cuba has a lot of problems, but apartheid refers to a specific set of policies. Cuba has a issues with freedom of speech et al, but I have never heard of it being engaged in a state policy and mentality of deliberate ethno-religious divisive politics. Nor have I heard it for Brazil or New Zealand. Again, it is not Wikipedia's fault if Israel has grave issues with regards to its ethno-religious history/politics. But nevertheless that article should also be merged to HR in Israel article. Wikipedia is really losing its touch and seriousness along the way with all this. This article is definitely OR - the info in the article is sourced, but their relation with the title is OR - that has nothing to do with WikiLaw. Anyways, I am personally getting quite tired of this.. Baristarim 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  "apartheid refers to a specific set of policies"? I think not. Mostly it's an epithet... And if it's news to you that New Zealand "has grave issues with regards to its ethno-religious history/politics", maybe you really need this article. You see, there's this indiginous population called Maoris... Andyvphil 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Though there is evidence of the word "apartheid" being used to describe New Zealand's policies, in the source I checked, the policy is also equally described as a "disaster". We could effectively create articles describing allegations that policies are a "distaster" that could include anything from the Iraq war to China's one child policy. And for Andyvphil, who describes this article purely as an (appendix) to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, how does that help the articles and editors concerned Cuba and Brazil? Are these expected to be ransomed and traded in a poker game to ensure some unconnected representation of Israel? Personally, I'm not very interested in the arguments editors are having about Israel, but I certainly don't like it negatively impacting on the articles concerning racial issues in Latin America.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Andyvphil is right about New Zealand, of course. But this goes to a persistent but utterly specious assumption (mis)guiding this whole discussion. Namely, the assumption that we should approve of articles on "allegations" that we believe are well-founded and accurate, and vote to delete those we don't. Note in this regard Leifern's absurd assumption that I am somehow opposed to people invoking apartheid to describe appalling situations in Brazil and elsewhere. I am not, but this is utterly beside the point. The key question for the existence of any article is whether there's a critical mass of RS-material defining it as a topic, not whether we find that defined topic offensive or important or trivial or libellous or diversionary or a mere epithet or whatever. In the case of allegations of Israeli apartheid, obviously there is a wealth of RS-material. With some of the other parallel "allegations of apartheid" articles, it is less obvious. In the case of the general article we're debating whether to delete here, it has become very obvious that there is no RS-material whatsoever. Anyone who votes 'keep' has to address this problem. The rest is just spin. "Consistency" and "fairness" apply to editing principles, not article content; to invoke them as a basis for insisting upon standardized templates and content prescriptions for a range of disparate articles, joined together by Wikipedians on debatable grounds without the backing of a single external citation, and each with completely discrete, independent and non-overlapping RS-foundations, is to engage in pure sophistry.--G-Dett 15:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  I can find a wealth of reliable sources that compare the Iraq war to a "disaster". But we don't have an article "Allegations that the Iraq war is a disaster". Nor should we. We cover these issues in an appropriate manner that does not serve to slant the presentation or lead readers. These article put the defendants on the back foot immediately and are not the best ways to explain complex issues.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  That's an illuminating comparison, and there's a case to be made (that has been made, cogently, by several on this page) that Allegations of Israeli Apartheid should be subsumed into an article on HR in Israel and the Occupied Territories, or something of the sort. I tend to disagree with that proposed move, and with your comparison, because the debate about whether Israeli policies constitute apartheid – unlike the vague proposition that "Iraq is a disaster" – is the focus of the wealth of RS-material I'm talking about; the comparison is a discrete subject in itself and has been for several decades, all the more so today after Carter's book. But what about something like, say, the Iraq-Vietnam comparison? That's become a topic in its own right. Has it reached a critical mass of RS-material to merit an article? I don't know; I'd say not at the moment (though there's a lot more on it than on most of the "allegations of apartheid" articles). But if it shows some staying power, becomes the subject of prominent and enduring debate, as well as books and articles both popular and scholarly, then maybe yes. What I'm saying is we should debate these things on a case-by-case basis, on their individual merits as discrete and well-defined and relevant topics, vs. ill-defined, amorphous or ephemeral grab-bags. We should not judge the article-worthiness of a comparison, however, on the basis of whether we find accurate or fair the political criticism embedded within it, and we should not chase after some chimera of "consistency" for a string of articles whose respective bedrocks of source materials are separate and unrelated. --G-Dett 16:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep, rename into Social segregation (which now is a useless redirect to a disambiguation term, segregation). "Apartheid" is a specific term applied to a specific political system. Its usage in other conext is a rhetorical devise. The neutral descriptive term is segregation (which AFAIK is almost literal translation of the word "apartheid"). My suggested title will cover the actual issues as actual issues, not as mere "allegations". Mukadderat 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd support that - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think we should confused using a more "neutral" term with a less accurate one. Segregation can be de jure or de facto (e.g. self-segregation), whereas apartheid is exclusively de jure.^* Segregation can imply separate but equal whereas apartheid is when one group maintains dominance over another so the first group can maintain their dominance over the society as a whole. Sure, it's less offensive to water it down, but the reason it's less offensive is solely because the meaning of "segregation" is so much more open to interpretation. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC) ^*Though where the executive isn't in any way beholden to a judiciary of show trails which may aim to give the appearance of equality, this may be actually of the form that might makes right; De jure of course has no meaning when there's no rule of law, or it doesn't actually apply to the oppressed.

Comment You can't rename this article Social segregation partly because the subject of this article is not Apartheid. Again, you can't "move the relevant information into 'Human Rights in X'", as Baristarim proposed bucause the subject is not whether apartheid is practiced in the countries listed. If, pace Zleitzen, you have significant material "debat[ing] the intricacies of Maori disempowerment" that should be in a different article. As Leifern observed at the very top of this page, this is an article about the use of a political rhetorical device. It seems obvious to me that apartheid is alleged as a way of (simplifying slightly) capturing Mandela's moral weight for accusations of racism in disparate locales. It's tax day, and I don't have time to research quotes, but I don't believe that's an original observation on my part. So I'm alleging, without present proof but confidently, that the subject Allegations (better: Accusations) of Apartheid is notable and addressed by many published sources. So, at worst the present article is undeveloped (and slightly misnamed). But, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and flawed articles can be allowed time to develop, so long as the subject is encyclopedic. There is no problem here that needs to be fixed by deletion. Andyvphil 10:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This article includes "Gender apartheid", "Water Apartheid" and "Tourist Apartheid". None of these refer to "accusations of racism in disparate locales". And, of course, none of these have been studied as a collective topic elsewhere. You write "flawed articles can be allowed time to develop", this article has had nearly a year to develop and has only succeeded in setting a bad precedent that has caused numerous problems all over wikipedia.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 11:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's largely because of an earlier concensus at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid to merge topics like gender apartheid and global apartheid into one article, instead of a disambiguation page and this is the result. If the consense has now changed upon seeing the result, then it make sense to resplit these topics out. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to alleviate confusion, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid was archived from the version here, but the archive has gone missing. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Zleitzen, you're not following my point. This article does not (and should not) include "Gender apartheid", "Water Apartheid" and "Tourist Apartheid". It includes accusations of those things, accusations that implicitly assert that what is going on is akin to racism, and that fighting whatever is asserted to be going on is akin to the work of Mandela. A lot of the accusations and implicit assertions are ridiculous...but that doesn't make the meme non-notable. Andyvphil 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil, when you're done with your taxes if you can find some RS's who discuss accusations of apartheid generally, as a meme or a genre of rhetoric or whatever, please do come forward with them. That's the sine qua non here. I've searched casually and not thoroughly, but presently the only people I know of who discuss "allegations of apartheid" as a rhetorical figure are Wikipedians.--G-Dett 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, Andyvphil. Something like "Tourist apartheid in Cuba" etc has nothing to do with racism or "the work of Mandela", its merely a coined informal term to describe exclusive hotels and beaches for tourists, that exist throughout the Caribbean, but which are notable in Cuba because they compromise Cuba's egalitarian constitution. Ironically, Mandela would be furious at the comparison and I imagine would be pushing the delete button faster than anyone. Anyway, that should be evidence enough that the various sections are disconnected and are by no means describing issues that "are akin to racism". They are merely listing disparate situations that have had the word apartheid applied to them on occasion by various partisans. These things get thrown around by partisans all the time. Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state anyone? Allegations that Guantanemo Bay is a gulag? -- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Can someone please explain to me why it's seen as necessary to discuss all of these issues in the same article? It seems quite clear from all these discussions that we have 1.) countless sources alleging apartheid against particular countries and institutions, and 2.) no sources talking about this as a general matter. So why the combined article? Conversely, why do people consider it unfair to discuss them separately? I would think the presumption would be to discuss issues in the context that the sources actually discuss them. With so many of these debates here, I still haven't seen this point addressed. Mackan79 21:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point and one of the problems of this article itself. That there are simply too many wildly varying sub-topics to even have a comprehensive debate here, let alone appear in one article. How can one possibly debate the intricacies of Maori disempowerment, whilst simultaneously debating the policies of the Cuban government's adoption of "enclave tourism" circa 1992, and even attempt to retain some perspective. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Split into subarticles for each country/culture, relist each After considered thought, this seems the best policy. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning This article is comprised of subarticles which individually survived AFDs before (e.g Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global apartheid). But WP:CONSENSUS generated at WP:Centralized discussion was to WP:MERGE them. Now people, without knowing the history, are complaining that the consenus merge resulted in a WP:SYNTH and now want to delete the whole article. So this is going in circles. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep very notable topic and well sourced.--Sefringle 09:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for its notablity, sourced material and other reasons stated above. Amoruso 11:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep --Shuki 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Little or no arguments presented by the three keeps above (two by prominent Israeli focussed editors), and they only add to the "false consensus" contrived to slant this debate, that we have seen elsewhere. We just hope the closing administrator views these in the same light as the WP:ALLORNOTHING votes above, and understands that consensus can be subverted to suit certain agendas in the face of basic core wikipeida values. If, perchance, Israeli focussed editors succeed here in this effort to subvert content that impacts on content relating to many regions, then we've got serious issues. These issues are not going away, and will be hammered out relentlessly until some kind of acceptable settlement is established. Because to keep this obviously spurious article that impacts on African and Latin American situations - simply for strategic gains relating to some nation in the middle east - is not on.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - notable it may be, but a ridiculous example of POV if I ever saw it. These allegations could be leveled against any country in the world (as in fact, they have been). Brazil? Whoever created that article clearly has an agenda - there's no more apartheid in Brazil than anywhere else in Latin America. France? United Kingdom? This is pure POV, having allegations from a bunch of leftists in this manner, de facto makes the article look like the apartheid is real, not like it's talking about the allegations. A black eye on Wikipedia, unless the article is severely changed. Part Deux 12:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Per Zleitzen and, Allegations_of_apartheid#Sri_Lanka section depend on www.tamilnation.org which is an anti-gov POV web cite. So WP:ALLORNOTHING applies here. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Having a couple of reliable source from organisations with agendas (i.e. any sources whatsoever) is not a criterion for deletion. Agencies are reliable sources of their own allegations, tamilnation.org is a notable group. WilyD 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, that section also has an argument from the exact opposing view, by a group that opposes the Tamils. You didn't seem to have any objections to the latter, only the former. That will, of course, strongly discount the value of your claim here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't read Lahiru's comment that way. Pointing out a specific problem in an article, i.e. a case of reliance on a biased website as a source, is a good thing to do in an AfD. So he failed to point out two problems instead of one problem, big deal. The "exact opposing point of view" to "group x practices apartheid" is not "opposing group y practices apartheid." It is, "group x does not practice apartheid" and that POV is still absent from the article. Kla'quot 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • However, perhaps you weren't aware that Lahiru had, prior to his vote here, attempted to remove only one specific source from the article itself, and then followed it up by his confirmation here. Thus it becomes apparent that his objection is solely because he politically opposes one particular side in one particular section of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Zleitzen and iridescenti are correct, I believe. "Apartheid" is clearly a highly loaded term which has been routinely (mis)used to refer to episodes of actual and alleged discrimination elsewhere. That's literally the only thread which links all of the various rhetorical references in the article. For instance, to take a country with which I'm familiar, Allegations of apartheid#Bosnia and Herzegovina is literally nothing more than a description of one newspaper columnist's use of the term in one op-ed column. There's no context, no explanation of whether the term is applicable, not even any indication of whether anyone agrees with him. Almost the entire article is like this. It's as though someone has gone through Lexis-Nexis and picked out every reference to someone calling a particular situation an example of "apartheid", then cut-and-pasted the list into Wikipedia. The resulting article is a hopeless context-free mish-mash of random references. -- ChrisO 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merely being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. I suspect you are trying to elucidate another point, but I don't see it. This article reports statements from reliable sources I disagree with isn't a criterion, even if you think they're completely silly statements. WilyD 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • WilyD, though you have misrepresented Chris O's position, for the record, Allegations of Australian apartheid got deleted for just that reason. It obviously is a criteria for deletion.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course, I can't see the Allegations of Australian Apartheid article, so I can't tell exactly what happened, but the delete arguments seem to be either about the quality of sourcing, or the applicability of sources (i.e. they should be allegations of apartheid existing, or commentary thereon or such), and some stuff about POV forking, which was probably rubbish. What is clear is that the keep arguments didn't hold the kind of water they do here. Here we're looking at extremely well sourced, encyclopaedic and verifiable and the only delete argument I can see is fails WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or Needs a cleanup, which also isn't a criterion for deletion (though it may be true in this case). WilyD 17:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • User:WilyD, in every debate I have had regarding these types of afd's, you have appeared to argue against their deletion. In every one of these debates you have apparently misunderstood and hence misrepresented other users reasons for deletion and ended with the phrase "...isn't a criterion for deletion". In every debate I have had with you on these articles I have been successful in arguing for the removal of obviously disruptive material, and the articles were removed by agreement to the benefit of wikipedia. The articles in question were generally those which forked content already covered elsewhere and which failed to address complex issues in the NPOV manner outlined by our guidelines. Either my judgment is completely awry, or yours is. You wrote that this article is encyclopedic. If you believe that an article titled "Allegations of apartheid" is encyclopedic - ie. the type of thing one expects to find in an encyclopedia - I think I will continue to trust my own judgement rather than put my faith in yours. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Of course, when users make unclear arguments for deletion, I may not understand them correctly. Which is why I employ the tested and true method of repeating someone's argument back as I understand it, so any flaw in my understanding in what they've written. As for my AFD judgement, I've run comparisons of my arguments with the final outcome in AfD, and by and large my judgement is mirrored by the community - you can take that for what you will. Of course, I always argue on AfD only from policies and guidelines - on contentions articles Admins may choose to ignore policy and exercise their own judgement instead - in which case the direction I argue in won't be the outcome. That's fine. As for encyclopaedic, Wikipedia (nor real life) doesn't have an exact definition for it, but I would say that in the Wikipedia context, it means roughly covered by independant sources in such a style and manner that one could write a quality article on the subject, that would pass and all policies and guidelines on article writing. One may have much more subjective definitions, which I can't comment on. WilyD 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I think it is more likely that the policy reasons put forward for the deletion of various articles such as "Anti-Americanism in various countries" and "List of dictators" were too subtle for you to understand, but were understood by the closing administrators who deleted them. Like those aforementioned articles, the subject matter of this article is complex, its relationship to wikipedia as a whole is complex, and the reasons why they fail policy and are damaging are complex. Those who understand that these articles are complex (such as those previous closing administrators on those other articles you defended) realise that merely writing anything up that we can source, and then defending it on the basis that it is "verifiable" and claiming it to be "encyclopedic" is not what we are here to do. They realise that articles can be inherently POV and can slant issues via a manipulation of WP:SYN. They realise that there are issues that supersede the mere need to be verifiable, or else we'd have articles like Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state, Allegations that Guantanemo Bay is a gulag, Allegations that Iraq was a Stalinist state, Allegations that Venezuela is an emerging Communist dictatorship. If you don't understand the tangible problems that can be created by articles that attempt to slant complex issues from their inception, then we're not in the same business.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Of course, articles with very subtle problems which can easily be written to high standards don't need to be deleted, they need to be cleaned. Any article can be inherently POV or not, and any article can be manipulated through synthesis. In fact, I'd go so far as to say every article is POV, and every article is manipulated through synthesis - I'm not sure anyone is so naive as to believe this kind of stuff can be eliminated, rather than just reduced to some acceptable level - which (empirically) is going down with time. Generally, the allegations articles are kind of sillily titled, but that seems to be because they (problematically) attract the people who care the most. If the question is Are the articles worth the time and effort to write? then the answer is pretty clearly no. If the question is Should these articles be deleted because some editors don't like the conclusions of reliable sources? then the answer is no. Of course, everyone will say they don't have infinite effort, and I know I've let articles sit in ugly states because I didn't have time to deal with them. But the kind of whimsical deletion you propose doesn't serve any purpose, except to alienate editors and make it harder to bring Wikipedia up to quality standards. I'm not sure why one could ever endorse that. WilyD 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
                • "Should these articles be deleted because some editors don't like the conclusions of reliable sources" is yet another misrepresentation of a position and I don't believe anyone here has suggested that. What people are suggesting is that this article is a contrivance created by wikipedia editors that serves to slant the representation of complex issues. The solution is that references to the use of the term "apartheid" applied to these situations would be found within established Human Rights - Racism - Tourism etc... etc... articles, which do not attempt to slant the representation to the detriment of wikipidia. I have yet to meet anyone in the real world has has not guffawed at the hopeless intentions of these articles. That is not a good sign. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) The title is simply a NPOV compromise inherited from debate over the article entitled Israeli apartheid, which everyone thought was POV, so it was prefixed with Alegations of. The title of this article here could just as easily be Apartheid, but consensus had become that that should remain a redirect to the historical meaning, as long as there's a dab-link at the top of that article. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Incidentally, the only AfD I've found where we both commented is this one, in which we both argued keep (and me on essentially the same grounds I'm using here). Just out of curiousity, which AfDs did you think I was crazy on? WilyD 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
              • List of dictators was one, Anti-Americanism in various countries was another if I recall. Allegations of state terrorism by United States is a similar article that I have argued to delete elsewhere see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (second nomination). The State terrorism series is just as messed up as this one and will need to be looked at in time. It was only at the stage when this article was deleted that the deadlock was broken, and it became apparent that it was possible to end this whole "allegations series" and begin editing actual encyclopedic articles that met policy again.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Zleitzen, I just can't agree with labelling this article as a true WP:SYNTH when it started as a WP:MERGE to begin with. If the wikipedia fruit-centered editors woke up tomorrow and decided to merge Apples and Oranges, sure, Apples and Oranges would be a WP:SYNTH, but it wouldn't be grounds for deletion -- it would be grounds for a re-WP:SPLIT. I am pleasantly amused by your preemptive praise of any closing admin who, through his or her sheer brilliance, will side with your arguments though. If you truly believe that, you'll be less disappointed in the future to just WP:Assume stupidity. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Kendrick7, Apples and Oranges are categorised as Fruits, an established topic . If you can show me a source that covers "Apartheid" in similar terms that includes Israel, Cuba, Brazil and New Zealand etc you might be onto something. But as no such combined analysis has ever been made outside wikipedia, then WP:SYNTH comes into play. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, unlike fruit, we don't have a good working consensus definition of what apartheid is and is not; that's why this went to WP:Centralized discussion before. I don't believe that means we can't have an article on it, nor do I think it means apartheid can just be anything we want or anything someone claims it is. In the long run, common sense will prevail. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
          • We do know what apartheid was. Apartheid was a policy that governed relations between South Africa's white minority and nonwhite majority and sanctioned racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against nonwhites. That other situations have been informally termed "**** apartheid" is of note, but this can be covered in the articles which cover those situations without any trouble at all, and without the inherintly difficult POV scenario to overcome that hampers these articles and keeps them almost perminantly in dispute.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Jayjg for once. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Having reviewed the article, it's thoroughly sourced, balanced, and is emphatically not OR by synthesis. The article doesn't make new analytical claims beyond those supported by sources. I really see no good reason for deletion. I don't like the light bandying about of the word "apartheid" either, but that doesn't change the fact that it's been happening a lot. Mangojuice^talk 03:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hello Mangojuice. Sourced = We could source anything from Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state to Allegations that Venezuela is an emerging Communist dictatorship to Allegations that Belgium is boring. Balanced = Do you believe that an article that accuses a party of mistreatment in its title is "balanced"? Afghanistan = no alternative view. Brazil = no alternative view. Bosnia and Herzegovina = no alternative view. People's Republic of China = no alternative view. Iran = no alternative view. Kazakhstan = no alternative view etc etc etc. The reason why there are no alternative views there is largely because this article sets up a near impossible task for editors to find counterpoints, and skewers the issue from its inception. This is because the premise is inhernintly unbalanced, especially against non English speaking nations. In the case of Kazakhstan, the term is used once by someone called James Oberg on a website called "The Space Review". How on earth is an editor expected to find sources to counter that and remain within NOR? Israel focussed editors have had to scour for many hours to come up with counter arguments to find balance, and that is for a nation that carries a healthy English speaking media. I spent months digging for sources to discover some kind of counterpoints to make the Cuba article more acceptable to rightfully disgruntled editors who were adding POV tags. This is poor practice. Not synthesis? Please show me a collective study that treats racism in Brazil and legal property rights in Kazakhstan as being under the same umbrella outside wikipedia. If you can, then maybe I will agree with you. Cover these issues in a neutral fashion on appropriate neutral pages with appropriate neutral titles and end this poor advert for wikipedia. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• This section of Tourism in Cuba is balanced
  Whereas
  
• Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba is not balanced.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I consider it balanced because of the word "allegations." It's understood that these are just allegations, that the accusations aren't necessarily true or fair, just from that word. If there are places in the text where this isn't clear, {{sofixit}}. As for other articles, their POV issues are not the discussion topic here. Mangojuice^talk 10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that solution or analysis makes any effort to address the many major problems that have arisen from this article as outlined above, nor the potential problems that will arise from it in the future. It seems to suggest that it is acceptable to just content fork any allegations to a separate article. Since creation, the negative impact on wikipedia caused by the precedent set by this article has escalated month by month. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - While I think good arguments have been raised on both sides, I am asking myself "is the article informative?" and I think it is. For one thing, I very much doubt I would have known about many of these controversies if I had not come across this page. But what the article basically does is elucidate the many uses that the word "apartheid" has been put to in recent years, which is of interest in itself, and I think that function alone would probably qualify it as "encyclopaedic". In fact, I might even support the article being renamed "uses of the term apartheid" or some such.

Or better still, I think perhaps this article should be renamed simply "Apartheid" with a leading link to the "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" page. IMO With all the uses of the term that are extant today, it might be the more logical approach. Gatoclass 11:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid is an Afrikaner word and was the official policy of the National Party in South Africa. These other uses are not the same. They are informal, coined rhetorical references made in passing. No one would seek out apartheid and expect to find information about legal property rights in Kazahkstan. To use a comparison, when people look up Gulag, should they be faced with sections about Guantanamo bay, simply because some groups have rhetorically described it as a "gulag" in passing [13]? In fact, here is someone calling the whole of Israel a gulag [14], here is someone calling New York's treatment of the disabled a gulag [15], and someone else describing a "Chinese gulag" [16]. These types of rhetorical expressions made by partisans occur all the time. Should we disambig Gulag and have spin off articles named Allegations that New York is a gulag and so on? -- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's how Merriam-Webster defines the term:

1 : racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa
2 : SEPARATION, SEGREGATION <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

So if even the dictionary definition includes the broader uses of the term, such as "cultural" and "gender" apartheid, why shouldn't Wiki cover these usages in its own entry? Gatoclass 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This dictionary also defines Gulag as "a place or situation of great suffering and hardship" [17], which essentially means that a sourced Allegations that Israel is a gulag remains on the table if the rationale provided above is applied. Anyway, there is a difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, and this is outlined in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It explicately explains why a wikipedia article about an octopus describes the animal, whilst Wiktionary has an article about the word "octopus": "its part of speech... its usage". If you look octopus up in a dictionary it has an alternative definitition "Something, such as a multinational corporation, that has many powerful, centrally controlled branches states" [18]. But an encyclopedia does not take that usage and create the article "Allegations of octopus" that has Allegations of octopus practices by Coca Cola, Allegations of octopus by Disney, Allegations that Packard is an octopus - all have been referred to as "like an octopus" and all of these could be sourced to the nines if need be. This is because we are creating an encyclopedia, not a usage guide. There is fundamental difference between the dictionary definition of "apartheid" or "octopus" that appears in the first listing, and is covered in that manifestation by encyclopedias such as Britannica etc, and the alternative usage that is applied in the second dictionary listing that is covered in dictionaries.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's just say for a moment you are right. If this one goes, then all the articles dealing with such allegations should go. Quite frankly, the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article is such a battleground, and hence such a convoluted mess, that I can't see much point in retaining it anyhow - except maybe as a means to keep the more zealous editors away from more important pages :) Gatoclass 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's one of the fundamental arguments, Gatoclass. That these articles have failed to address complex issues in a satisfactory manner.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Black Falcon, Jayjg and others RaveenS 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You've already voted once RaveenS. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake did not know that this was going on for this many days, I thought it was some kind another nomination. Will be careful next time :-( RaveenS 18:06, 18 April 2007 (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.