Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Page re-organization 2 Comments 2.1 Targeman's statement 2.2 Quadell's statement 2.3 HongQiGong's statement 2.4 Mackan79's statement 2.5 Jayjg's statement 2.6 Thw1309's statement 2.7 G-Dett's statement 2.8 Ideogram's statement 2.9 Kurykh's statement 2.10 HG's comments and questions 2.11 Concerning WP:POINT 3 Proposal 4 The key question 5 Proposed steps toward consensus

[edit] Page re-organization

I've tried to put all the major standalone comment threads in a commentary section, so people can actually get navigate more clearly through this discussion. It really belongs on the Talk: page here, but people have objected, so I've left it on the project page. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed up the headers since they do weird things when transcluded. 132.205.44.5 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Given the length of the comments, I've taken the decision to move them here. The debate is long enough as it is even without the comments; quite honestly, they should have been posted here in the first place. -- ChrisO 15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the move to the talk page: since AFD is not a vote, but a discussion, the closing admin needs to read all the comments that were moved to the talk page as well, as they contain a lot of discussion directly relevant to whether the article should be deleted. I don't see that splitting up the discussion in this wholly arbitrary manner is helpful. --Ideogram 15:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors commenting here should do that succinctly. Long discussions belong in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi is correct. This page was nearly 200 Kb before refactoring - hopelessly long and difficult to follow. -- ChrisO 15:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The implication being, that this discussion will be easier to follow, because -- what was moved to the talk page need not be read? --Ideogram 15:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - it's simply a matter of practicality. !votes on this page, further discussion on the talk page. You should trust the closing admin to read both. -- ChrisO 15:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you appreciate how difficult it is for me to trust people. But I will. --Ideogram 16:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Targeman's statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Quadell's statement

• Comment I understand the political (under)currents at play here. I know there are people who want to see as many apartheid allegation articles as possible, to dilute the effect of One In Particular, and I know there are others who want to see as few as possible, to single out that same One In Particular. I'm really not a partisan in this, and I'm probably in the minority in that respect. I know there are sourced allegations that various countries engage in something various notable people have compared to apartheid -- but I don't think it serves the encyclopedia to have "allegations of X apartheid" articles. Not China, not the U.S., and not That One Country either. These allegations should be incorporated into "Human rights in X" articles or allegations of apartheid, and not create a WP:BEANS-esque attractor for collectors of scandalous-sounding quotes about a country. (I would compare this to a hypothetical Allegations that Paris Hilton is a slut article. One could be written to be factually accurate, well sourced, and made up of quotes by notable people -- but it still wouldn't be an acceptable article. But you've all probably heard this sort of simile before.) That said, I can't in good conscience vote to delete this page while other similar ones exist, and I can't vote to keep this page since it's existence is counter-productive to our encyclopedia's goals. So this is a comment, and not a vote. (Hopefully there are one or two people listening whose minds aren't already made up.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you Quadell, unfortunately the consensus is to keep these sorts of articles. I've made the same suggestion to merge everything into allegations of apartheid even though I think we could easily do without it as well. The problem here is that given that we do have these sorts of articles, there is nothing actually wrong with this one. It's properly sourced and written. <<-armon->> 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is a consensus "to keep these sorts of articles." In at least two of the AfD's on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid, more than 60 percent were in favor of deletion. I think it would be correct to say that there is no consensus to delete them as a group, nor any consensus to keep them as a group... and except in a couple of cases, no consensus to keep or delete them individually, either. That is why there is gridlock. 6SJ7 03:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HongQiGong's statement

• Comment - One look at the article and it's obvious that this is a gross violation of WP:Point. The article is extremely POV. I see exactly one sentence in the article that serves to provide a counter-argument. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that any editors who !voted Keep would be more than happy to see counter-arguments. It's still a young article. IronDuke 15:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • My comment goes more to the motivation of creating the article in the first place. There was no attempt to create something that was NPOV and encyclopedic. WP is not a soapbox for people to advance their political views. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mackan79's statement

• Comment A couple things: 1. For those interested in factual discussions about China, the existing articles on these issues I could quickly find include Hukou, Tibetan sovereignty debate, Human rights in China, and Censorship in China. So far, I've seen no reason why we would combine all these together, even where no reliable sources have done so, but solely where the word "apartheid" is invoked. 2. For those talking about other AfD's, please note that some of these articles have been deleted, while some live on but remain contested. Allegations of Australian Apartheid was deleted,[1] as was Allegations of Islamic Apartheid.[2] Allegations of American Apartheid was also deleted,[3] though it remains on deletion review,[4] despite the clear history of racism, discrimination and segregation in the U.S. While one has to look to each discussion for the specific reasons, I would hope per WP:ALLORNOTHING that a similar individualized and policy-based approach can continue here. Mackan79 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and Allegations of Jordanian apartheid was deleted as well. You might note I didn't object to a number of those deletions, mostly because the material itself didn't warrant a separate article. Regarding your other argument, though, it applies equally well to all of the articles in this series; yet some editors insist on inventing spurious reasons as to why one specific article should be kept, and all others deleted, and others are insisting the article should be deleted based on their theories about the motivations of the creator, or simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. None of these are good arguments for deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the special pleading argument is backwards, but I'll simply restate that I have not seen it in any of the arguments for delete here. As I've said months ago, an article on apartheid allegations clearly cannot neutrally discuss the factual conditions in any country. At some point, a discussion surrounding a concept/debate/controversy itself can reach encyclopedic proportions. When I've explained why the situation here doesn't meet this standard, and you haven't responded, I'm not sure how you continue to label this as spurious or special pleading. The idea of "comprehensive" solutions, meanwhile, meaning to find the same solution for a number of fundamentally different articles, is exactly what WP:ALLORNOTHING recommends against. This is not to ignore concerns with other articles, but to say they can't be resolved here. Mackan79 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Jayjg, this is not a legitimate series of articles that can be judged all together. Whereas the Israel article is an independant problem, the rest were almost entirely the work of the same group of people (largely you and Urthogie), in obvious response to the Israel article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Cuchullain, it's as if you didn't read a word I wrote. I'll repeat it: "Some editors insist on inventing spurious reasons as to why one specific article should be kept, and all others deleted, and others are insisting the article should be deleted based on their theories about the motivations of the creator, or simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. None of these are good arguments for deletion." Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Except that those aren't the (only) reasons for deletion, and you know it. The other violations (WP:OR:SYNT, WP:NPOV, etc.) just become clearer when you consider that these articles were manufactured mostly by you and Urthogie.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayjg's statement

• Comment. Based on comments here, I've significantly improved the article, adding material from new top-notch sources, and re-organizing, re-working and clarifying the rest. I encourage editors here to re-read the article, as I think it's rapidly approaching some of Wikipedia's best work. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Citing sources to make an analogy" is still synthesis OR. The topic should only be written about if or when sources make that analogy. And none of them do. The article compiles sources to create a topic, which is not Wikipedia's goal. We only report what other people say. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What on earth are you talking about? The sources explicitly make the analogy, not the authors of the article. They're the ones explicitly saying "apartheid". Many even explicitly mention South Africa, or draw explicit analogies to its apartheid laws, for example:
      • "As in South Africa under apartheid, households in China faced severe restrictions on mobility during the Mao period. The household registration system (hukou) system... specified where people could work and, in particular, classified workers as rural or urban workers. A worker seeking to move from rural agricultural employment to urban nonagricultural work would have to apply through the relevant bureaucracies, and the number of workers allowed to make such moves was tightly controlled. The enforcement of these controls was closely intertwined with state controls on essential goods and services. For instance, unauthorized workers could not qualify for grain rations, employer-provided housing, or health care." Wildasin, David E. "Factor mobility, risk, inequality, and redistribution" in David Pines, Efraim Sadka, Itzhak Zilcha, Topics in Public Economics: Theoretical and Applied Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 334.
      • "The application of these regulations is reminiscent of apartheid South Africa's hated pass laws. Police carry out raids periodically to round up those tho do not possess a temporary residence permit. Those without papers are placed in detention centres and then removed from cities." Waddington, Jeremy. Globalization and Patterns of Labour Resistance, Routledge, 1999, p. 82.
      • "I’ll be drawing some comparisons to South Africa’s apartheid system, not because I think the analogy is perfect but because it’s revealing. Many ruling classes in developing countries have approached broadly similar problems of labor regulation by adopting some strikingly similar measures to divide the workforce, even if the apartheid ruling class was unique in finding its particular racial solution to the problem of controlling its labor force." Whitehouse, David. "Chinese workers and peasants in three phases of accumulation"PDF, Paper delivered at the Colloquium on Economy, Society and Nature, sponsored by the Centre for Civil Society at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, March 2, 2006.
      • "The permit system controls [migrant workers] in a similar way to the passbook system under apartheid. Most migrant workers live in crowded dormitories provided by the factories or in shanties. Their transient existence is precarious and exploitative. The discrimination against migrant workers in the Chinese case is not racial, but the control mechanisms set in place in the so-called free labor market to regulate the supply of cheap labor, the underlying economic logic of the system, and the abusive consequences suffered by the migrant workers, share many of the characteristics of the apartheid system." Chan, Anita. China's Workers Under Assault: The Exploitation of Labor in a Globalizing Economy, M.E. Sharpe, 2001, p. 9.
    • Has no-one actually bothered to look at the sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no reason for the promoters of the AfD to check the sources, given the reasons for wanting to delete this article (non-encyclopedic, discussing the evidence instead of discussing the allegations).

But I started checking anyway - and discovered that the first significant reference in the first section(Jiang Wenran, Nov 2005) had been either abused or falsified. Our WP article reversed the sense of the BBC article. Hukou is apparently being abolished (at least in Eastern China). Our article made a historical comment appear to be current, leaving out the fact that arrest had been abolished and the whole system was falling rapidly from use. I made the changes 5th August, it's a little disappointing that an editor of your experience missed such glaring factual errors. PalestineRemembered 09:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment All the "new information" that you've given legitimately....belongs in the Hukou article. Apartheid is racial segregation, plain and simple. Isolating rural residents from urban residents is just setting a caste system, and has absolutely nothing to do with race. Because, you know, you can't exactly racially segregate (sure, you can segregate through other means = not apartheid) within any one race. Pandacomics 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Your disagreement with the thesis of the sources is interesting, but not really relevant. But if you strongly feel that "apartheid" is related only to "race", then perhaps you should put the Social apartheid article up for AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • WP is not a place for you to present your WP:Original research though. What this article is, is a hodgepodge of information about circumstances of seperate peoples, slapped together into an incoherent topic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • As explained, WP:NOR doesn't apply here since the sources themselves make the analogy, not the authors of the article. Reading previous comments (including the ones immediately above this), WP:NOR, and the article itself would be helpful; it's hardly "incoherent". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Sources who make the allegation are primary sources, Jay. I hope you're not up to some damn shell game with that basic definition.--G-Dett 23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Nonsense. In the case of hukou, for example, material that describes the hukou system in China, and material that describes the apartheid system in South Africa, are "primary". If a Wikipedia editor took those sources and created an article comparing the two, and saying that China practiced apartheid (or a form of it), then that would be original research. In this case, however, it is the secondary sources themselves that make these comparisons and analogies; the article, in contrast, just reports what they say. Similarly, regarding Tibet, one could take reports of the Chinese colonization of Tibet, and its impacts on native Tibetans, and compare it to the situation in South Africa, alleging "apartheid" - and that, indeed, would be original research. However, the article, in contrast, reports on secondary sources that make the analogy, and repeats what they say. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
              • What absolute rubbish, what a shell game. In an article on "allegations of Chinese apartheid," a source making the allegation is a primary source. A source discussing the allegations is a secondary source. Period. You have no secondary sources here, none, nada.--G-Dett 00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                • So if the article were renamed Chinese apartheid they would suddenly become secondary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • Exactly. And you'd be out of the WP:NOR furnace and into the WP:NPOV fire. You can't have an article on Chinese apartheid, because it's a loaded POV phrase, relatively few people use it, and there are much more common terms and subject headings for the disparate phenomena you've gathered here. You can have an article on the comparison, if it's a notable one, as established by sufficient secondary-source commentary about the allegation itself, per WP:NOR and WP:N. After all we've been through regarding the Israel article, it's astonishing that you'd forget all this, all the while talking about a "comprehensive solution."--G-Dett 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                    • Amazing. The secondary sources all miraculously turned into primary ones because the article name starts with "Allegations of". Remove it, and they all become secondary again. Talk about a shell game. Thanks for "clarifying". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                      • Jay, please. Your very basis for these articles has been that they are supposedly on the allegations as such and not on the factual situation.[5] We've discussed this many times before, as well as the relative status of primary and secondary sources. Have you now forgotten this? Mackan79 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                        • Interesting way you have of taking that statement out of context. The article in question was indeed about allegations of apartheid, as is this one; it's not a broader article discussing, for example, hukou in general, but rather, an article which reports the specific comparisons that secondary sources make between hukou and apartheid. Similarly, in the case of the other article, it wasn't a broader article discussing the social situation in the French suburbs (which would be a lengthy article indeed). Instead, it was an article which reported specific comparisons secondary sources made between the French treatment of Muslim and Arab communities, and South African apartheid. Secondary sources, not Wikipedians, have made these analogies and the articles just report what they say. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                          • Jay, your argument has been that the material can't go elsewhere, because we need to focus specifically on the allegations of apartheid. It's not about the underlying issues, you say, but only these "comparisons." Therefore it needs to stay here, and we need to discuss only people who talk about apartheid, because it's an article about allegations of apartheid. Now as far as I know, that means the article is about the use of the term, as otherwise I have no idea why we would limit the discussion in that way. But then you're also denying that we need any secondary sources discussing the use of the term. You're saying, rather, that anybody who makes the allegation is a secondary source and good enough. You're ultimately trying to have it both ways, by making the scope as if it were about the phrase, but then analyzing the sources as if it's about the underlying issues. If I'm misconstruing your comments, please let me know; either way your argument amounts to a complete circumvention of Wikipedia's policy on these issues. Mackan79 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                            • Mackan79, I've read your argument twice, and I honestly say that I do not understand it. All I can say is that the article contains only secondary sources discussing the comparison between China's actions and the South African apartheid policies, and an infinite number of shell games regarding the two words "Allegations of" in the title will not magically transform those secondary sources into primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                              • If you don't see the difference between an article about a thing and an article about commentary on that thing despite the longstanding discussions of this issue, then you should feel compelled to address why the article is not a POV fork. Is there a reason for an article to focus solely on sources who use the term apartheid in any particular context? Is this an encyclopedic basis to divide material? Since you keep asking for differences with other articles, I've noted that an article on a statement/theory/allegation itself can become encyclopedic if that s/t/a is extensively discussed as such by numerous secondary and tertiary sources. In such cases you can have a neutral discussion of the commentary, including all notable responses etc., since the debate has then grown beyond the issue on which it originally commented. If you merely have someone describing a thing as "apartheid," however, then you don't have a new issue; it's still the old issue, and one that can't neutrally be divided from the original subject. However you want to characterize the sources, I would think you could appreciate this point. Mackan79 05:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                                • Mackan79, I think I understand your argument, but it seems WP:POINTish to say I'm going to vote to delete the article because the title has "Allegations of" in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                                  • What a WP:POINTish attempt to distort a straightforward statement. What exact word is used in the title – "allegations" or "comparison" or "analogy" or whatever – is of no consequence. But there's a crucial distinction between an article about the comparison itself, on the one hand, and an article about foreigners and Tibet and religious minorities and rural workers and Google controversies, all dealt with through an incredibly loaded POV-lens, on the other. We've been through all this in the Israel article, Jay: the one thing everybody in that most fractious affair agreed on was that an article on the analogy was fundamentally different from an article about the phenomenon of Apartheid in X. How incredibly disingenuous of you to play dumb about that now. You can't have an article on the phenomenon of "Chinese apartheid," per WP:NPOV. You can have an article on the analogy, but only if the analogy's notability has been established by secondary sources, per WP:N and WP:NOR. This article lacks such sources, and the analogy appears to lack notability. Why do you keep playing silly games with these most elementary of distinctions?--G-Dett 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                                    • Comments that start with What a WP:POINTish attempt to distort a straightforward statement are uncivil and bad faith and are not conducive to further discussion, or even further reading. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I see a lot of complaints from you about incivility and bad faith, and not much answering of the question. Do you or do you not admit that there is a difference between sources making allegations of apartheid and sources discussing allegations of apartheid? Do you or do you not admit that there is a difference of subject between an article titled "Chinese apartheid" and one titled "Allegations of Chinese apartheid"? You were quick to criticize a lengthy statement at 900 words, but you have expended a few hundred of your own without saying anything. --Ideogram 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • • "[W]hether or not something is a primary or secondary source depends on how it is used. For example, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a primary source as discussed in that article; that is, it is a primary source which has been subjected to a great deal of secondary analysis." That's what you wrote on May 1 of this year, Jay. Forget, remember, forget, remember; that's the shell game.--G-Dett 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                        • I remember, but it's not relevant; the Allegations of French apartheid article isn't an analysis of Robert S. Leiken's article titled "Revolting in France; The labor-law protests pitted the privileged young against disaffected immigrants". Rather, it is an article that reports what Leiken (and over 20 other secondary sources) say about France's policies and their similarity to South Africa's apartheid. False analogies don't make good arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                          • You evidently don't remember, as you wrote that not in the French apartheid article but on the New antisemitism talk page. The point is, you understood then what you affect not to understand now, that "whether or not something is a primary or secondary source depends on how it is used."--G-Dett 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                            • Of course I remember, including where I wrote it. And I've never effected not to understand that point. However, I pointed out, using an example from the French apartheid article, that your quotation from me was entirely irrelevant to the point you were making. If we write an article about an article/book/paper, then that article/book/paper becomes a primary source. However, if we simply report on arguments made in that article/book/paper, then the article/book/paper is a secondary source. In the case of this article, or the French apartheid article, or others, the sources are used as secondary sources. If you need an explanation from this article, it is not an article about Au Loong-yu, Nan Shan, Zhang Ping's "Women Migrant Workers under the Chinese Social Apartheid"; rather, it is an article that uses their paper as a secondary source regarding Chinese apartheid. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                              • If you're saying this article is about Chinese apartheid, Jay, can I ask again why you think that is a good delineation of material? I would generally think if someone is making negative commentary on Hukou or the Tibetan sovereignty debate or Human rights in China or Censorship in China that we would discuss this in the context of those articles, not combine it into one topic even where no reliable source has done so. I thought you had addressed this by clarifying that the articles are about the commentary itself, but it appears now that your answer must be something else. Mackan79 15:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                                • I'm sure it's possible that the material could be delineated and organized in a different way, and who knows, there might even be some great ideas along those lines; but that's not what this AfD is about. More Talk: on the Central discussion page would have been helpful in this regard (and I've seen several interesting proposals for how these articles could be better presented), but the current process, which can only decide delete or keep, obviously must be completed first. When you use crude tools to force people to make a binary decision like that, you severely limit the options. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) This by the way is a lie, it is possible to recommend "Merge" this material to other articles, and several participants have done so. --Ideogram 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Btw Jay you seem to be playing with this. When I asked to rename/merge the French article yesterday, you answered me [6]. So one time an AfD is about merging/re-organizing(Fr), one time it's not(here). NicDumZ ~ 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • The fact that the hodgepodge of information was slapped together and thrown into one article is what makes this original research. This is an interpretation that there is a connected, coherent, and singular subject matter, based on sources that do not present this view and only present the circumstances of specific and seperate people groups. This is why it's original research. I fully believe that the content, if the sources are in fact reliable, do believe in articles like Human rights in the People's Republic of China, Tibet, etc etc. And the article was basically put together to advance a specific point. It's made to be POV and a violation of WP:Point. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm curious; do you think your argument applies to Allegations of Brazilian apartheid as well? How about Allegations of Israeli apartheid? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. I'm impressed by your tenacious reading of the sources. Do any of your sources mention all of the 5 topics together? Or: Which sources, if any, make a synthesizing comparison between apartheid and multiple (5?) aspects of Chinese policy? Thanks if you have a chance to answer. HG | Talk 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. When I tried to put two sentences about Michael Lerner next to one another in New antisemitism, Jayjg objected that it represented WP:SYN. I guess two sentences weren't enough; maybe I should have put together 15 or more. "Good for me, but not for thee", I guess. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thw1309's statement

• Question: Do I understand right? If I say that the Pope, the Dalai lama and Nelson Mandela meet once every month to to rape and kill children, get convicted for telling this falsehood, some cheap newspapers report this crime I committed, and someone creates an article [[Allegations of sexual abuse, committed by Nelson Mandela]], then this nonsense is a well-sourced good article, as long as the citations are correct? Next question:Does wikipedia still want to be an enceclopedia?--Thw1309 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have any reliable sources making that claim? Do you have two dozen of them? Let us know when you do. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn't understand the question. --Ideogram 07:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I clearly did. The hypothetical case Thw1309 presents could never happen in real life, because there isn't even one reliable source making such a claim, much less the two dozen found in the Allegations of Chinese apartheid article. And these aren't citations from "cheap newspapers" either. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not need any sources that this claim about the rape and murder is correct. By calling it allegation of... I only need sources, proving that I said so. That´s the trick. You can bring any furtiveness or lie to wikipedia because you do not have to prove your content, you only have to search for someone who told your lies in advance and make him your source.--Thw1309 07:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Provide me with two dozen reliable sources making that allegation. You won't be able to. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want to tell me, if two dozen reliable sources would have reported, that an unimportant schmuck like me made false claims and therefore was convicted, you would really make such an article and spread such lies. Oh my god!--Thw1309 08:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are pretending to not understand the question. The question is whether you would accept a Wikipedia article that had those two dozen reliable sources, and the implied answer is yes, but you refuse to admit that and change the subject. Here's another example: how many reliable sources do you think I can find documenting "Allegations that X is a Nazi"? --Ideogram 08:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pretending at all. It's not a real question, it's a fallacy of misleading vividness. Reliable citations for these outlandish examples could never be found in the first place. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of us are telling you what the question means. Questions cannot be fallacies, even if they are based on hypotheses that you claim cannot occur. And we all know what your answer is, even if you refuse to admit it. Your repeated assertions that the example cannot occur is a change of subject, and is also answered by my "Allegations that X is a Nazi" example. --Ideogram 08:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Living people are governed by WP:BLP. Anyway, you still wouldn't be able to find two dozen reliable sources supporting you, whereas this article discusses an encyclopedic, valuable, and interesting topic. You keep premising your questions on a faulty notion, your bad faith assumption that these articles were created for WP:POINT. This is a good article on an important topic. Feel free to create any articles you like, and think can stand up to the scrutiny of the ArbCom case you've started. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to take seriously the statement "this article discusses an encyclopedic, valuable, and interesting topic" when you've been trying to delete the much better "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". I like both articles, but then my loyalty to the project comes before any baggage I may be carrying. Perhaps you should explain why you like one but hate the other. PalestineRemembered 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah yes, the "and your shirt doesn't match your socks" argument. Scrambling for a rejoinder, you come up with forms of attack that have nothing to do with the question at hand. If you read and thought more carefully, you would note the example applies equally well to dead people. There's no way I can AGF about you when your many arguments for deletion of Allegations of Israeli apartheid are public record, and you keep asking people to comment on it. And as you yourself noted, the ArbCom case is not about content, but rather your tactic of creating disruptive deletion debates to draw attention to your pet peeve, which, although I threatened to use below, I will not resort to, because, you know what? I'm better than you. --Ideogram 08:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Since you love reliable sources, Jayjg, here's one from a VERY reputable publication that has the quote "Many equate Israel to Nazism, claiming that "yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators": last year, Louis de Bernières wrote in the Independent that "Israel has been adopting tactics which are reminiscent of the Nazis"". Wouldn't you know it, Israelis aren't Nazis! You know why? Because the "many" that are being mentioned here are anti-Israel people who feel that Israel is just being a dick to them. Does that make Israel a Nazi state? Certainly not. But by your logic, this is a reliable source, and I don't see why it would be neglected in, say, Allegations that Israel is a Nazi Nation. I could even dig up some more sources from Islamic News Sources, but as we all know, Islamic sources are written with an anti-Israel bias. Should we take things into context, like for, say, this article? Naw, so long as there are citations from reliable news outlets, we can trust them right? Pandacomics 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article says the exact opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! But oh, would you look at that, I can just very well use that quote to put in an article on Allegations that Israel is a Nazi Nation to support such allegations. Sound familiar? Pandacomics 08:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to create any article you like, if you think it's encyclopedic and of value. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But see, that's the catch. If I were to create an article on the allegations that Israel is a Nazi nation, I'm just finding sources just to synthesize a point that supports my point of view. (BTW, I don't think Israel is a Nazi nation.) Pandacomics 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep forgetting something; unlike you, and your assumptions, I actually think this is an interesting and valuable analogy. Whether it is a good topic for an article in general can certainly be debated, but that's a bigger question than just this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe if you had spent the last year editing China-related articles, as most of the delete voters here have, you would have some credibility here. Instead, you have spent that time trying to kill Allegations of Israeli apartheid and earlier versions, so we all know what interests you. --Ideogram 08:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what the article says? It is a reliable source documenting quotes that allege Israelis are Nazis. By your logic, and using your tactics, I should instantly rush off to create Allegations that Israelis are Nazis, filled with "over two dozen sources" and ask all the delete voters on the inevitable AFD what they think about this article here. Now, here's the part I want you to think about: would such an action convince participants in that AFD that they should run over here and take my side? Or would it make a bunch of new enemies? What do you think you are doing here? Yeah, feel free to piss off as many Wikipedians as you like, to prove a POINT. --Ideogram 08:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget to justify the encyclopedic value of your article with all those Guardian and Economist sources! Anyone who objects to such credible sources is just playing the emotional card! Clearly! Pandacomics 08:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you still wouldn't be able to find two dozen reliable sources supporting you, whereas this article discusses an encyclopedic, valuable, and interesting topic. You keep premising your questions on a faulty notion, your bad faith assumption that these articles were created for WP:POINT. This is a good article on an important topic. Feel free to create any articles you like, and think can stand up to the scrutiny of the ArbCom case you've started. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your words are not so precious that you have to repeat yourself. --Ideogram 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G-Dett's statement

What began as a slapdash WP:POINT violation has evolved into something of a grand hoax. There are two levels of deception to it, both involving serious misrepresentation of source materials (in addition to the violations of WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT outlined in the nomination). First, there is the shell game a key editor is playing with the topic of the article. As he knows very well from the prominent role he's played in negotiations over Allegations of Israeli apartheid, there is a fundamental distinction between having an article about the comparison itself (as a controversial piece of political rhetoric or "epithet" as he calls it), on the one hand, and an article about the political system of "Chinese apartheid" (or "Israeli apartheid") on the other. Virtually everybody involved in the disputes over these articles agrees that only the former is legitimate, because the latter would constitute an incredibly loaded approach to the subject(s) of this and related articles. He and I and just about everyone else involved has agreed to this: the comparison itself is the only legitimate subject in apartheid-outside-of-South-Africa articles. When the topic of an article is a comparison, or an "allegation" if you will, then sources making that allegation or comparison are primary. Period. Secondary sources would be those that discuss the background or political dimensions or whatever of the allegation. WP:N and WP:NOR require that an article rely on secondary sources. There's an excellent reason for this, and it isn't some legalistic technicality. To demonstrate that the comparison itself is significant, as political rhetoric or as an analytical concept or whatever, you need to have sources that have actually discussed the comparison. The distinction WP:N and WP:NOR make between primary and secondary sources is precisely what prevents articles like Allegations that Paris Hilton is a ho-bag from finding a toe-hold in Wikipedia. You could source such a thing to the nines, but all would be primary sources. The shell game the editor in question is playing consists of insisting on the one hand that the article is about "allegations" only, so that it won't run afoul of WP:NPOV, while insisting on the other hand that it's about "Chinese apartheid," the thing itself, so that he can claim these sources are secondary.

This source-laundering shell game is the first level of the hoax. The second level has to do with how the source material itself is presented. In almost every case the word "apartheid" is used in passing, with the Wikipedia article tendentiously elevating the metaphor to a thesis. Take a close look, for example, at the four sources that have been proudly presented above as "top notch sources." In the first, second, and fourth of these (Pines-Sadka-Zilcha, Waddington, and Chan), the block quotes offered represent the only passages (in works running to several hundreds of pages each) where apartheid is even mentioned. The third of these sources, by contrast, actually pursues the comparison as a thesis, so it's worth looking at more closely. The source is a six-page conference paper delivered at the University of KwaZulu-Natal by a Mr. David Whitehouse. Whitehouse is not an academic or a specialist of China; he's a writer for The Socialist Worker and an editor for the International Socialist Review. He had evidently planned to subsequently publish his conference paper (conference papers are not considered "published" work by the academic community) in the International Socialist Review, but has yet to do so. Whitehouse's magazine has published some 29 articles on "Israeli apartheid." Here's a sample quote from one:

Until 1977, when self-described terrorist Menachem Begin became Israel's first Revisionist prime minister, the Labor Zionists effectively represented "Zionism" in most people's minds. But Labor--the Zionist "left"--and the Revisionists--the Zionist "right"--differed on means, rather than ends. Both supported an exclusively Jewish state. Like apartheid South Africa's rulers, the Revisionists were willing to employ the native Palestinian population. Labor sought to replace Palestinian workers with Jewish workers. Both looked for support from imperialism.

Anyone curious about the extent of the editor's commitment to his new "top-notch sources" might try sticking that paragraph into Allegations of Israeli apartheid.

There you have it. There are no secondary sources that actually describe the topic of this article, naturally, because that topic is a species of rhetorical statement discovered and classified by two Wikipedians. The article consists entirely of primary sources who with one exception invoke the comparison in passing, as they pursue theses quite different from the one ascribed to them by this hoax article. The one exception – the only source in this entire article that actually pursues the metaphor – is a writer for two obscure socialist magazines to whom you can be absolutely certain neither of these two Wikipedians would ever grant reliable-source status in the context of the Israel article.

This article's radical distortion of source material may initially have been the inadvertent if inescapable result of its mode of creation (robotic assemblage of random quotes data-mined by a pair of editors with no knowledge or interest in China but an axe to grind about Israel), but the various obfuscations and wikilawyering defenses of the resulting rubbish have crossed over into outright deception.--G-Dett 15:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason this incredibly lengthy commentary belongs here, and not on the Talk: page? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you think you OWN this page? --Ideogram 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty incredible that someone as deep in this mess as you are thinks you have the right to make presumably "objective" judgments about what belongs on this page. --Ideogram 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ideogram, your posts are becoming increasingly uncivil. Please focus on the discussion, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jay, my post was absolutely relevant to the deletion discussion, addressing crucial sourcing issues as well as directly rebutting some of the red herrings and strawmen that have run riot over the discussion page. A great number of lengthy comments and back-and-forths have been posted here, many of which my post addresses. You've even pasted in a batch of four long block-quotes from the article itself. The talk page had not been in use at all when you moved my comment there; naturally I'd object. If you'd like to move everything to talk that isn't a straight Keep/Delete, I'd be fine with that.--G-Dett 16:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you created your own section for an incredibly lengthy (almost 900 words) re-hash of your views. This seems excessive. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A) This belongs on the Talk page. Nobody is trying to shut G-Dett down, Jayjg is merely suggesting that the article move to the right place. B) G-Dett, I think accusations of "hoax," "sophistry," are kind of ridiculous, given that everything that happens here is in the open. Anyone can read the arguments, check the history, etc. I can see why you're frustrated, but I think these attacks only bring the debate lower not higher. As an editorial aside, I just don't understand what upsets you so much about the addition of all articles except the Israeli one? Don't you think readers will be able to discern whatever meaningful differences there are? --Leifern 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, G-Dett, you did get an initial statement when you created this AfD, and it alone was over 500 words, one of the longest I've ever seen. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Leifern, my only position on the creation of "allegations of apartheid" articles is that they should comply with policy. Some of them have been up for deletion and I've never voted on them (Cuba, Brazil, and others) because, even though they are rather poorly written quote-farms, they may be potentially notable. In those two cases at least, there are one or two sources that actually discuss the allegation and suggest that it's a recognized concept. Not enough in themselves to establish notability, perhaps, but then the articles have been written mostly be Israel-focused editors making a WP:POINT. If more knowledgeable editors can do something good with those articles I would be pleased, so I've held my fire where they are concerned. With the articles that are obviously data-mined quote-farm constellations of primary sources, like this one, with no evidence of notability, and even evidence of non-notability, I've been fairly merciless. I do not like the deletion-by-other-means strategy they represent; I do not like the coy, insinuating way their creators try to recruit dissatisfied customers [7] into joining their campaign against the Israel article; I do not like the misrepresentation of source materials, of which the examples I've given are the tip of the iceberg; and I do not like the false and question-begging invocations of "consistency" and "comprehensive solutions," which speciously insinuate that if a series of articles share a title word in common, then they are perforce equivalent in all other ways, such as in their compliance with core policies and notability requirements; and last but not least, I do not like the strawman sophistry, borderline smearing suggestion that those who want all "apartheid" articles to be held to rigorous standards on their own terms with regards to policy, letting the chips fall where they may, are somehow "singling out Israel." The idea that "allegations of apartheid" articles are slapped onto a country for bad behavior is absurd ("...draw an analogy from the policies of apartheid era South Africa to those of Saudi Arabia" ? – at some point, South Africans will have a right to get offended). I'm not involved in apologetics for anyone. The reason "American apartheid" isn't a notable concept is because we've got our own legacy of racial oppression and few have felt the need for an imported rhetoric. Why isn't "Saudi apartheid" notable? Gee, maybe because Saudi Arabia's human-rights reputation is so appalling that the comparison doesn't resonate? Comparisons between Israel and South Africa are notable because they've been enormously and prominently controversial, and because they've become a focal point for ethical, historical, strategic, and pragmatic debates about the nature of the I-P conflict. If "tourist apartheid" in Cuba is also notable, then let's keep that article and improve it. But enough of this passive-aggressive subterfuge and childish manufacturing of endless bogus quote-farm articles to create negotiating leverage, or to create a spurious "template" that makes its none-too-subtle point.--G-Dett 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideogram's statement

Jayjg has tried to remove material he didn't like here and here. There is nothing POV or false about the removed commeents, since in fact there are sixteen editors voting Keep here who are from Allegations of Israeli apartheid and have never been involved with China related articles. And facts are only disruptive when you don't like them. --Ideogram 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Oh, and here. I love how Jayjg abuses the term "falsehood" by throwing it at every statement he dislikes. Kind of like "apartheid". Readers are free to examine the contributions of these editors and decide for themselves what is "falsehood"; there is no need for Pravda tactics. --Ideogram 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your POV, incorrect attempts to influence the decisions made here by labeling editors who voted in opposition to you are entirely unwarranted. I notice you didn't apply that label to any of the "Delete" voters, though it would well have applied to editors like User:G-Dett, User:CJCurrie, User:Mackan79, User:PalestineRemembered, User:Victor falk, User:Tiamut, User:Bless sins, User:Tarc, etc. It is you who has attempted to control this discussion, by increasingly disruptive actions, including various attempts at AfDs, all in order to get your way on this. The discussion is supposed to be about the merits of the article, and whether or not it complies with various policies. It is not supposed to be about other editors; in fact, that is a violation of Talk: page guidelines. It is unpleasant, unseemly, and unhelpful to do these things. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First, that doesn't change the fact that you have NO RIGHT to remove comments from someone you are heatedly arguing with, since you are obviously not neutral. Second, there is nothing POV or incorrect about a direct statement that these sixteen editors are involved in Allegations of Israeli apartheid and have little or no contributions to China related articles. And I also noticed that I didn't label the "Delete" voters, and you know why? Because that's your job. Third, it is childish and pointless to revert comments on a wiki, where everything is visible in the history and you can't pretend to "unsay" something.

And I'm not controlling you. A chess player does not force his opponent to make bad moves. You reap what you sow.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideogram (talk • contribs)

It's not "my job" or "your job" to place pejorative labels on anyone. In fact, it's not anyone's job; rather, it is actually against Wikipedia guidelines. And this is not a game. Please be civil and treat this page with respect. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing pejorative about noting that sixteen editors who were all involved in Allegations of Israeli apartheid and never in China-related articles suddenly showed up to vote "Keep". Or are you ashamed of that fact? --Ideogram 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review that article yourself. In particular, what fact does my question presuppose that has not been proven? Are you disputing the fact that sixteen editors involved with Allegations of Israeli apartheid and never with China-related articles showed up here to vote Keep? --Ideogram 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Or are you ashamed of that fact?" = "Have you stopped beating your wife?" See fallacy of many questions. See also special pleading. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You know, repeating yourself doesn't answer my question. There is only one fact presupposed by my question, and it isn't that you are beating your wife. Whether you are ashamed or not is the question. How exactly can I tell you that your logic is abysmal in a civil manner? --Ideogram 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Compare the sixteen editors identified above with the Keep votes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba. Nine are the same. --Ideogram 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So? Many of the "Delete" votes on these recent AfDs are identical as well. The articles are all linked by a template, and the big grey AfD box at the top of the article is a dead giveaway that there is an AfD going on. It unsurprising that people who feel this article should not be deleted feel the same way about the others (and vice versa). Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there is not a large and active Cuba-related WikiProject so your little clique, none of which cares the slightest about Cuba, can display an impressive but false "consensus" there.

Oh, and this lovely quote was found by a participant in the French article, it's a pretty damning indictment of your mindset. --Ideogram 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It seems a pretty sensible approach to this issue, not a "damning indictment". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see that making a big messy discussion and directing people who try to fix it to your pet peeve looks bad, you really are deluding yourself. --Ideogram 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I think the problem with your inconsistency in arguing with Ideogram and, as far I can see from here, evidently losing this match, lies here: Ideogram has never before visited any articles concernig Israel/Palestine (see his last 500 entries, almost anything on China but nothing on Israel). Now, China is not a sandbox like Saudi Arabia or Israel you can play in, about 1,6 billion people, you better don't mess around with. You just made the stupid mistake to trespass on their backyard, and I'm pretty sure they don't like it. I wouldn't too. I always say to trespassers on my property: "My house is no bullshit". Jay, find smaller country for fishing or hunting, not this one. Uncle the Good Advise. greg park avenue 20:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

> about 1,6 billion people, you better don't mess around with

Hard to believe that someone would resort to such a silly, utterly non-encyclopaedic argument. Reminds me of 1,3 billion angry Muslims, supposedly milling around any time someone dares to enter open debate in other quarters of the world. Better WP editing by vigorous arm-twisting? Greg, could you be bothered not to sell "bullshit" related barnyard triteness for wisdom to be heeded? --tickle me 06:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a matter of speech. You guys ain't got even one valid point on this one. I'm not in the league of the "allegation series" supporters, just a passerby who tries hard to be neutral, but sometimes it's like offending everybody. I voted to keep France and even forwarded tips how to retain Saudi Arabia on the list without facing an evident POV. And now, you call me an arm twister. But I heard worse names. greg park avenue 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurykh's statement

• Comment Before anyone further comments, may I comment on the definitions of the word "apartheid" according to dictionary (in no particular order):
  • Merriam-Webster:
    • racial segregation, specifically a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa
    • SEPARATION, SEGREGATION <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>
  • Oxford:
    • the official system of segregation or discrimination on racial grounds formerly in force in South Africa.
  • Cambridge:
    • (in the past in South Africa) a political system in which people of different races are separated
  • Collins:
    • (in South Africa) the official government policy of racial segregation; officially renounced in 1992
  • American Heritage:
    • an official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites
    • a policy or practice of separating or segregating groups
    • the condition of being separated from others, segregation.
  • Wiktionary:
    • the policy of racial separation used in South Africa from 1948 to 1990;
    • By extension, any similar policy of racial separation.
  • Reference.com:
    • (in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid policy of segregation of the nonwhite population
    • any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.
• Scant research done by Kurykh 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop refactoring the page. Now. --Ideogram 19:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume this is to Jayjg, not me. —Kurykh 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I want to Jayjg to not touch anyone else's comments, since he is an involved party. --Ideogram 20:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HG's comments and questions

Why don't I vote here? I sense that my votes could be interpreted in light of internal Wikipedian politics. I gather that opponents of the article see the article as WP:POINT, a subterfuge. Since this allegation concerns ulterior motives and does not assume good faith, then probably any keep vote looks suspect. On the other hand, a delete vote appears to puts me in the camp of those accusing others of bad faith politicking. In addition, there seem to be tensions around issues of racism, Zionism, anti-Zionism, etc. Not a nice pool to wade into. Nonetheless, I would like to evaluate the article both in terms of the alleged POINT tactic and the usual WP policies on article deletion. Hence, I have some questions that will seem hopelessly naive:

1. I am highly sympathetic w/the nom that WP:POINT may well characterize the motivation behind the article. Still, are those sufficient grounds to delete the article? For instance, let's say you oppose my Mozart article by setting up a Bartok article. Should your Bartok article be deleted due to POINT? Or should your article be kept thanks to NOTABILITY? Or, should your article be deleted, and then another Bartok article be created by somebody who doesn't have an ulterior motive?
2. If the above reasoning has traction, who thinks it would make sense to somehow discipline those who violated WP:POINT? Perhaps this would make it easier to evaluate the merits of the article itself. If so, what disciplinary action would be suitable?
3. One strong argument for deletion seems to be: delete because the Article string together (synthesizes) a series of allegations. Conceding that each allegation is notable, this argument is that the synthesis itself violates WP:NOR. Did I characterize this argument correctly? Ok. Now to counter-arguments. (a) I suppose one could say that synthesis is not original research (thus, many lists and categories); however, given my training, I am sympathetic to the view of synthesis as serious research. (b) Another counter-argument: If we find the article is original synthesizing, then would it be ok to divide the article into #N separate articles, e.g., Allegations of Chinese apartheid re: Hokou/Tibet/etc? If so, then what would prevent future Users from re-combining the articles? At that juncture, wouldn't it then be less (alleged) synthetic research and more a simple editorial judgment? (c) Another counter-argument. Doesn't the term "apartheid" itself refer to a synthetized govt effort? That is, even if any given allegation may sound granular (e.g., only about Tibet), wouldn't it be necessary to interpret these allegations as all referring to systematic and linked policies?
4. Are there any reliable sources that do synthesize the (arguably) unrelated allegations of Chinese apartheid? In google scholar, I see many articles about (alleged) Chinese apartheid. Is each one only about a single topic?
5. Another strong deletion argument is that the title itself violates POV. I ran into this question trying to mediate an article on (alleged) cults. If Paris Hilton says that the Marriott Hotel Chain is a cult, surely it's notable! <laughter> Ok, but once we start writing about the "alleged Marriott cult" then the encyclopedia weighs in on the validity of the designation. The term "allegation" is dicey to work with. We need to avoid FRINGE allegations, qualify and contextualize, etc. Worse, "cult" now has a negative connotation (like apartheid) and we struggle over finding NPOV substitutes. It's very hard to handle such allegations in the title. Isn't that why we aim for more innocuous, neutral titles, like "IQ test controversy" rather than "Alleged IQ racism"? (But I now realize that this question reflects the (alleged) WP:POINT of the article's instigators. Sorry.) Besides South Africa, does NPOV policy mean that to avoid "apartheid" in the TITLE? Would "alleged" make it sufficient neutral?
6. Anyway, have you all discussed compromises? Among those who vote keep or delete, who objects to an article entitled Chinese segregation policies controversy?

Thanks for reading and esp answering questions. Given that I'm a novice here, as I learn answers I may want to edit my own writing so as to appear better informed. Is that ok? Good luck. HG | Talk 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG, your questions are all excellent and to the point. I'll try to answer them very concisely. 1. No, a WP:POINT violation isn't grounds for deletion. The only reason the WP:POINT violation has been discussed is for background, i.e. so that editors wouldn't just be scratching their heads wondering why on earth someone would type "China AND apartheid" into Google and present the search results as a Wikipedia article. 2. There is a link to the arbcom case at the top of the page. 3. Synthesis is one part of the original reseach policy that this article violates, insofar as it stitches together sources and subjects that no reliable source has ever put together before, under the heading of a "topic" no reliable source has ever discussed. It's also original research to classify all these different verbal and rhetorical acts as "allegations." No reliable source has ever called them that, and these authors, if asked, might well say, "no no no, I meant that figuratively," or "I was just using the word in its generic sense, I wasn't thinking of South Africa in particular." It's Wikipedians and Wikipedians only who've identified and classified any use of the word "apartheid" in its generic (i.e. non-South-African) sense as an "allegation." 4. No, apparently not, and that's one dimension of the WP:NOR violation. (The other is the lack of secondary sources discussing the allegations qua allegations). 5. If there is a controversy about the comparison, or if the comparison is shown to be an analytical concept widely recognized and discussed as such, then an article on the comparison/controversy needn't run afoul of WP:NPOV. If however an article merely assumes the concept and discusses rural worker issue or the Tibet issue as "apartheid," on the basis of a handful of sources who use that term, that of course would be a violation of WP:NPOV. This article is playing a shell game between these two categories: it pretends to be about the phenomenon itself in order to dodge the notability and original research issues that arise when you write about an analogy/allegation/comparison that itself has no reliable sources discussing it as such, and hence no intrinsic notability; and at the same it pretends to be about the analogy/allegation/comparison in order to dodge the WP:NPOV issues that arise when you write about the phenomenon of "Chinese apartheid" as if that loaded term were widely accepted. 6. There is a "centralized discussion" of the "allegations of apartheid" problem here.--G-Dett 17:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks G-Dett for such a detailed reply! Follow up q for you or others:

You said: "It's also original research to classify all these different verbal and rhetorical acts as "allegations." Also: "It's Wikipedians and Wikipedians only who've identified and classified any use of the word "apartheid" in its generic (i.e. non-South-African) sense as an "allegation." But: Isn't it our role as editors to judge when as statement has WP:FRINGE acceptance and when a statement needs to be qualified as alleged? It is common sense to know that apartheid is a loaded and POV term. What WP Policy requires editors to find a source in order to classify a statement as "alleged"? Are you arguing that every use of the word "alleged" itself in Wikipedia ought to be verifiable from an outside source?

5. Let me clarify this question. Your replied about the article, can it handle controversial concepts. (BTW, articles don't "pretend", only people do.Your shell game analysis is terrific, but it's about POINT again not NPOV.) My question is this: Do we have a policy responsibility to use TITLES with the best possible NPOV language? Thanks again, G-Dett! HG | Talk 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. To the new question: Yes, it's common sense that "apartheid" is a loaded term, which is why we can't have an article on these phenomena (rural workers, Tibet, etc.) that just uses this term and assumes its legitimacy. But assuming that it's a loaded term is one thing; assuming that the use of a loaded term is perforce notable enough for a Wikipedia article is quite another. Again: you can't have an article that assumes the analogy's legitimacy, because of WP:NPOV. You can however have an article about the analogy itself, but only if there are sources discussing the analogy and establishing its notability. This is all that's meant by "secondary sources" – sources discussing the analogy. No, of course it isn't important that they use the exact word "allegation" – that's totally inconsequential.

I think that may have answered your reformulated #5, but just to be sure: Should we use TITLES with the best possible NPOV language? Yes. But Wikipedia is to Britannica what 178-channel cable television is to network TV. It's incredibly, baroquely specialized, so we have things like Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. Dan Quayle & co. probably don't like that one at all. And we have articles on phrases that some people think are apt or witty, but others find propagandistic or even offensive: Pallywood, Axis of evil. And we have theoretical formulations many consider loaded or contentious: New antisemitism, Islamophobia, etc. But in each case that's the common term for a topic that's objectively attained notability, so those articles are appropriately titled; all we need to do is ensure that they present their controversial topic in a neutral fashion. For more on titling controversies, see Wikipedia:Naming conflict. You're right that "articles don't 'pretend', only people do." That was a figure of speech. My point was that there is some equivocation about this article's raison d'être – i.e., whether it's about a phenomenon or a comparison. If the former, it has an NPOV problem when it uses the word "apartheid"; if the latter, it has a notability/original-research problem when it makes a fuss over "allegations" not noticed or discussed or identified as worthy of attention by any reliable sources. This equivocation is not a WP:POINT issue, at least not primarily; rather, it goes right to the heart of whether this article is policy-compliant and should exist or not.--G-Dett 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer to #6: I think we would all like encyclopedic titles to topics like alleged apartheid in China or France, but no one so far has been able to come up with something acceptable to both sides. For example, your proposal, Chinese segregation policies controversy, may be taken to imply that Chinese segregation policies are fact, but they are controversial (i.e. some support them, some oppose). However, in truth, many claim that these segregation policies do not exist at all (especially evident in cases like France and Israel), therefore the title may also be misleading. I invite you to think of a better title for the benefit of the encyclopedia. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider how to arrive at a better title. Key question:

1. What terms, if any, does the Chinese govt or pro-govt Chinese scholars use to describe the segregation or separateness aspects of their policies? This should help us find candidates for NPOV terms.HG | Talk 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG, thanks for your questions.

1. In the abstract, the article needs to be judged on its own merits, not on the motivations of those who created it. However, there are some Wikipedia rules to prevent manipulation of the AfD process to generate the false appearance of consensus, such as regarding canvassing, meat-puppetry, and single-purpose accounts. None of those rules apply directly here, but their intent should be kept in mind.
2. Wikipedia does not believe in "punishment", it believes in prevention. However, I believe a behavior that is rewarded with a desired outcome is likely to continue. Therefore it should be established that this behavior will not result in a desired outcome.
3. What is being synthesized is the concept "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" as a notable subject. Our notability rules require us to find reliable sources discussing a subject to support having an article on that subject. We don't have an article listing random invocations of the Nazi analogy, but we do have Godwin's Law, which discusses the use of the Nazi analogy. If this article is split up and merged into other articles and a user reconstitutes it, someone will bring it back to AFD and all the arguments made here will be referred to. As for a synthesized government effort, first, the article would have to be titled "Chinese apartheid" or something similar, to talk about the hypothetical government effort and not the allegations, and second, there are no reliable sources discussing this hypothetical government effort so creating an article discussing one would be original research. You yourself use the word "interpret"; Wikipedia does not interpret, it only reports what others have said.
4. It is the responsibility of those voting Keep to find reliable sources relating all the allegations of Chinese apartheid together.
5. The title comes from the original article in the series, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and was itself the result of a compromise move from the title Israeli apartheid. The controversy stems from the word "apartheid" but there is no way to avoid it because that is precisely the only thing linking together all the material in the article, the use of the word "apartheid".
6. My objection cannot be addressed by changing the title. I object to the presumption that this collection of material all belongs in one article.

Your follow up question does not address my objection. There is no discussion, no description of the various segregation or separateness aspects of these policies together. There is literally no word for it. This is the presumption that cannot be supported, and you should not swallow it. --Ideogram 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, thanks for the detailed (and time-consuming) reply! And I think we are quite close regarding POINT. I hear you objecting to the article as WP:OR because of how the material is linked, collected together. So, if you don't mind, please look at my 2.b. On what grounds would you object to a disaggregated article, entitled, say, "Allegations of Chinese apartheid toward Tibet"? I'm guessing you'll object. Still, if you would't object to the content, would this title need to be changed? Thanks again for your time. HG | Talk 21:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to discuss with you. I have admitted that the quotes individually are interesting. They could be split and merged into other articles. The best example is "Treatment of rural workers" which belongs in Hukou. "Treatment of Tibetans" could go in Tibetan sovereignty debate or perhaps Chinese treatment of Tibetans. Obviously the latter would need to include much more than quotes including the words "China", "Tibet", and "apartheid", which is all we have here.

I am really not interested in trying to find less controversial titles for controversial material. If there indeed were reliable sources discussing the use of the epithet "apartheid" regarding China this would be the correct article title. However, the key point, which has never been answered, is that sources making allegations are not the same as sources discussing allegations. Simply moving this material to an article about "Allegations of Chinese apartheid toward Tibet" does not address this objection. --Ideogram 22:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, pleasure is mutual. Am I right in understanding, that there are no sources that discuss the the use of apartheid in discourse about China. Instead, you do say there are notable sources making the analogy. By making, I think you mean doing substantive analysis of China policy as comparable to apartheid, right? This fits with your openness to a Chinese treatment of Tibetans article. So let me move to where you think the evidence is best, Hokou. Though it wouldn't be your favorite choice, could you live with an article entitled something like -- "Analysis of Hokou as apartheid"? Or, what title would you accept with both Hokou and apartheid in the title? I look forward to your response. HG | Talk 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is an interesting point raised by this discussion. There is in fact very little "analysis" in the quotes, how much analysis is usually involved in calling someone racist? This part of the article is revealing:

• A report by the Heritage Foundation discussed some of the reasons for the use of this term:

If the matter of Tibet's sovereignty is murky, the question about the PRC's treatment of Tibetans is all too clear. After invading Tibet in 1950, the Chinese communists killed over one million Tibetans, destroyed over 6,000 monasteries, and turned Tibet's northeastern province, Amdo, into a gulag housing, by one estimate, up to ten million people. A quarter of a million Chinese troops remain stationed in Tibet. In addition, some 7.5 million Chinese have responded to Beijing's incentives to relocate to Tibet; they now outnumber the 6 million Tibetans. Through what has been termed Chinese apartheid, ethnic Tibetans now have a lower life expectancy, literacy rate, and per capita income than Chinese inhabitants of Tibet.

There is no "discussion" of "reasons" here, there is a simple note of the usage of the term. The quote itself does not discuss the term or list reasons for choosing this term rather than similarly loaded epithets such as "racist" or "Nazi". It is a rhetorical device with no analysis, for example no mention of specific features of South African apartheid. This confusion is central to this debate.

Your questions are getting increasingly hypothetical. It is conceivable to me that an article about "Analysis of Hokou as apartheid" could be written, but I haven't seen it yet. If it happens, I will discuss it, but I prefer not to speculate. --Ideogram 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ideogram, you make a key distinction, I think. On Tibet, the sources merely support allegations and speech acts. Whereas on Hokou, the source might be reasoned analysis. Anyway, you are correct that my q's go to they hypothetical. Yup, that's partly how I think about policy, and process. I don't want to wear out your welcome. I do hear that you are open to the TITLE of "Analysis of Hokou as apartheid" -- but you do not speculate whether about its contents would be acceptable. Thanks again for your patience. HG | Talk 23:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I also object the section on Taiwan, which is sourced by a single article from NY Times that's not online and hardly verifiable. It also roughly follows the format of Mr. So-and-so says that country X is doing shit to country Y and that's apartheid in his opinion. In addition, the PRC government has NEVER governed the island of Taiwan, so I find it perplexing as to how China institutes apartheid over Taiwan. If anything, it's Taiwanese businesspeople who treat Chinese people like shit on the mainland. The most likely message from the NY Times source is China's heavy handed approach to isolate Taiwan diplomatically, and anyone would find it a stretch to call this policy "apartheid". Again, this information should be moved to political status of Taiwan or cross-strait relations, not misconstrued and taken out of context to become another "evidence" of any sort of Chinese "apartheid". This is BS at its worst. Blueshirts 22:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning WP:POINT

By now, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point was mentioned on this page about 3 dozen times. IMO, this behavioral guideline is not a valid reason for deletion. Many WP articles are listed as part of some series. As I said elsewhere, was it a POINT to follow Anglophobia with Francophobia, Indophobia, Sinophobia, Russophobia, etc? I don't think so. BTW, speaking of behavior, when was WP:CIVILITY cancelled? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Humus_sapiens, thanks. I agree. Since you voted to keep, how do you justify the article's Title? Specifically, WP Policy NPOV on Article Naming, and WP Guidelines on controversial names, would seem to be a prima facie objection to at least the Title. Or maybe you would support a name change? HG | Talk 22:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how your argument may support those who vote to delete it, especially using WP:POINT as a reason. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

POINT is not a reason for deletion, as many Delete voters have stated. Referring to other articles in the series is not a reason for keeping, an objection you have not answered. You claim POINT is not relevant, yet you want to go on and argue that, in fact, it is not POINT. What is POINT is not the creation of more articles in the series, it is arguing that the Israeli article should be deleted, then going on to create a dozen articles modeled on the article you want deleted and generating huge deletion debates with countless references to a "systemic problem" (which you created), telling people their objections apply equally to the Israeli article (which we don't care about), asking people what they think of the Israeli article (which we still don't care about), and directing people to a centralized debate, which is almost entirely about the Israeli article. Leaving completely aside the question of whether it is POINT, you are wasting the time and attention of a huge number of people out of the arrogant belief that your priorities should be their priorities. If this results in some incivility, you should not be surprised.

An apropos quote from WP:POINT: "This neglects two important things about Wikipedia: it is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone." Don't waste your breath asking for "consistency". --Ideogram 22:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are taking that quote out of context. The guideline is "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point." What we have here is different people creating a relatively small number of articles, and in the accepted procedure for seeking deletion of articles, some of them have been kept. By definition, that cannot be "disruption." 6SJ7 01:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me pleasantly ask you to read more carefully. The quote is directed at Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) specifically for his habit of repeatedly asking for "consistency". It has nothing to do with my argument that you are engaged in POINT, which I have stated quite clearly. --Ideogram 01:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, let me put it this way: does (or did in the past) China commit human rights violations? Yes. Did scholars call some of those violations "apartheid"? Yes - see the refs. Why should the article Allegations of Chinese apartheid be deleted when there are others similarly titled and similarly referenced articles in the series? If the arguments for removal work, they should work _consistently_ across WP, whether you or I like/care or not. And being uncivil won't win you much sympathy, I suggest you review that WP policy. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is inconsistent. I'm not going to waste more of my time explaining it to you. --Ideogram 02:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there some WP policy unknown to me that states that if one article is deleted, all similar article ought to be deleted as well? Please tell me because I would love to read about this policy. Have I missed an essential AfD criteria all this time I've been editing on WP? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says that? Please stick to the topic, which is: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is not a valid reason for deletion because there is no disruption in sight here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not going to clutter up this page repeating my answers to you. Read what I wrote. --Ideogram 03:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To Ideogram: There is no doubt that Wikipedia is often inconsistent. WP:POINT says, among other things, that you should not disrupt Wikipedia in order to seek what you believe to be consistency. It does not mean that you cannot create an article, which otherwise satisfies Wikipedia's policies, in order to try to achieve consistency. It also does not mean that you cannot use the pursuit of consistency as an argument in favor of, or against, the deletion, merger or renaming of an article. (There is an essay that says you should not do so in deletion discussions, but it is only an essay.) I myself have mentioned the need for consistency in my comments on some of these AfD's. Wikipedia is inconsistent; that does not mean that inconsistency is its ultimate goal. 6SJ7 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat my earlier statement on this subject:

You guys asking for consistency just don't get it. When I was struggling to establish consistent usage of "Taiwan" versus "Republic of China" in article titles, where the hell were you? Oh, I see, you want consistent treatment of "Allegations of apartheid" but when it comes to consistency elsewhere, you don't care.

Your calls for consistency are a transparent attack on the Israeli article, by either getting it deleted, or creating enough similar articles that it doesn't stand out. Your creation of this article and participation in this AFD are a blatant attempt to use me and my time as a tool towards your goals, whether you realize it or not. There is no way I am going to reward your manipulation by helping you. Your lack of self-awareness is appalling. --Ideogram 05:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice, Ideogram, if a little blunt. Let's keep in mind that these numerous articles are in fact disruptive to the project, just judging by the time they have required in the AfDs and the centralized discussion, when the real issue has always been the Israel article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, my opinion about the Israel/allegations article has been clear from the day the article was created, as stated in the earliest archived talk pages. And of course my call for consistency is related to the Israel article; it was the first of these "apartheid" articles to be created (as far as I know), I stated why I thought the article should not be on Wikipedia, and now I simply want the same standards applied to all the articles. Since the Israel article is still here, I believe that applying the same standards means that some of the other articles should be retained as well. That's some, not all: I agreed with the deletion of the Jordan article and with the merger of the U.S. article into "Allegations of apartheid." As for "Your creation of this article...", I haven't created any articles on this subject, in fact I believe that all (3 or 4) of the articles that I have ever created have been about baseball. As for my "participation in this AfD", what's wrong with that? AfD's are centrally listed so that editors may see what is listed and participate, regardless of whether they are involved with editing the article. 6SJ7 16:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should I help you? --Ideogram 17:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Because you are here, presumably, to help write a better encyclopedia, not to push a certain POV. But I could be wrong about that. Isarig 17:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Life is a little more complicated than that. --Ideogram 17:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So you are not here just to write a better encyclopedia? Do elaborate, as it might provide some insight into this AfD. Isarig 17:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I really don't think it would. --Ideogram 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

well, why don't you just spell it out, and we'll see. Perhaps it won't provide any insight, but I am very curious as to what you mean by your previous commnets. Isarig 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hard to believe I would pass up a chance to talk about myself, but this is really not the time and place. --Ideogram 22:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not? You have been accused of making this AfD nomination in bad faith. Your comments here seem to give credence to that charge. here's your chance to dispel any notion that you are acting in anything but the project's best interest. So, what did you mean by the 'Life is a little more complicated than that' comment, and your refusal to help another editor? Isarig 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You need to read and think very carefully about this. --Ideogram 22:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting exchange, but entirely irrelevant to what you and I are discussing, which are your motivations for the AfD, and what seems to be an admission by you that you are not editing to make this a better encyclopedia, but from other motivations. Isarig 23:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I should discuss my motivations with someone who is trying to discredit me. Oh, and perhaps you should take the time to figure out who filed the AfD. --Ideogram 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding this logic that these "allegations of apartheid" articles must either all stay or they must all get deleted. This particular article being discussed here should be kept or deleted based on its individual standings, on whether or not it, by itself, fills the criteria for deletion. Whether or not other articles get deleted is irrelevant to this AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone saying "all must stay". See comment above. 6SJ7 16:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A minor correction here. While Ideogram is certainly correct that Wikipedia is inconsistent, and disrupting it in the name of consistency is a violation of WP:POINT, it's also important to realize that the talk of "consistency" is a red herring to begin with. Neither 6SJ7 nor any of the Israel-focussed supporters of the "allegations" series is asking for consistency. On the contrary, they're asking for an exception to be made; a little one-time inconsistency in the name of justice. Their sense of justice demands that if there's an article about the enormously prominent and controversial international debate regarding alleged parallels between apartheid South Africa and Israel's occupation, then dammit there should be an article about everyone who's ever been accused of "apartheid." Consistency means, as 6SJ7 put it, having "the same standards applied to all the articles," but of course this is the exact opposite of what he's asking for. The Israel article clears the bar of notability by a mile; there are literally hundreds of reliable sources discussing the allegation itself, naturally enough as it's a major motif in historical and ethical debate about the I-P conflict, and one that many Israelis and their supporters have chafed against. The Cuba article clears the bar of notability by a few inches, because the phrase "tourist apartheid" apparently has some vernacular currency, and has been recognized and discussed as a meme or motif or whatever by at least a few reliable sources. Most if not all of the rest of these articles, however, get nowhere near the bar of notability, because there are simply no reliable sources discussing the allegations qua allegations. "Apartheid" is a common enough term of art in human-rights discourse, and yes it's appeared here and there in discussion of China, just as it has in discussion of the United States, Saudi Arabia, France, and everywhere else on planet Earth, but its occasional use with regards to various unrelated things in China has never become a topic in its own right. Articles with titles like "The Trouble with the Apartheid Analogy" and "Do not treat Israel like apartheid South Africa" and "Israeli apartheid: Time for the South Africa Treatment" are a dime a dozen; but absolutely nothing of the sort can be found for this article. Nothing. A consistent application of policy to "all the articles" in the "allegations of apartheid" pseudo-series would result, of course, in a speedy deletion of most of them, with the sole retention of the Israel article and probably the Cuba article. 6SJ7 & Co. don't want consistency, however, they want justice.--G-Dett 17:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. --Ideogram 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I actually want both consistency and justice. 6SJ7 17:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't have both. You want consistency of outcome, as in, dear God, don't let the Israeli article be the only one. Consistency of rules would, in fact, result in the Israeli article being the only one. The bias you are fighting exists in the world of reliable sources, which Wikipedia is obliged to report, not to fight.

I couldn't help you even if I wanted to. You have been looking for a rationale to support a desired outcome. G-Dett has been giving you the answer to your question all along, but you could not hear it because it led to a conclusion you could not accept. --Ideogram 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A nice little exercise of your sense of justice would be to fight the special place the Holocaust holds in the public eye compared to the many under appreciated genocides the world has seen. If you don't want special treatment for Israel, start there. --Ideogram 18:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, I was going to say "You're entitled to your opinion" and leave it at that. But now that you've chosen to bring the Holocaust into it, I think our conversation is terminated completely. 6SJ7 02:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There was never any chance for a productive conversation between us. There is no way you will ever accept a solution that requires you to keep the Israeli article and delete the rest, no matter how consistent it is with Wikipedia rules. You are willing to bend or break any rule to get the desired result. --Ideogram 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I believe that "Allegations of XXX apartheid", is a system-wide issue, and as an ArbCom member commented in the rejection of the arbCom case, an article that starts with "Allegations of", forfeits any possibility of NPOV. My proposal stands:

• Redirect all articles named "Allegations of XXX apartheid" to Allegations of apartheid, where all such articles can be summarized and read alongside allegations of all other countries about which these allegations are leveled. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an unnecessary proposal. Let's just evaluate the articles on a case-by-case basis for their compliance with policy. WP:N and WP:NOR provide a very clear and well-lit path out of this mess. Articles that describe allegations that have themselves become notable, as is the case with the Israel article and the Cuba article, will remain. Articles build around data-mined collections of primary-source instances of the word "apartheid" being used for various things, with no evidence that these disparate allegations have ever been collectively treated as a topic, much less a notable one, will be summarily deleted. The WP:POINT violations involved in the serial creation of hoax articles constitute a behavioral issue that can be dealt with through other channels.--G-Dett 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hoax articles? I do not think so? Primary sources? Which? Behavioral issue? The fact is that the "apartheid" term is used as a political tool in all cases. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, No article in Wikipedia gets "summarily deleted". That is what AfD is about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll be interested to know that one of the people voting to KEEP this article sent us to look at this. The BBC article he finds supportive puts the word "apartheid" in apostrophes (ie it's a neologism contained in a primary source, not a secondary source as required by policy). Read the article in question and you'll discover it's announcing the demise of this official system (at least within 11 of 23 Chinese provinces), making the potential notability of our WP article even more marginal. I'm still technically on your "side", I read the article, found it interesting and voted "KEEP". Little did I know it was history masquerading as current affairs! PalestineRemembered 20:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi's proposal sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. It probably ought to be discussed on the centralized discussion page (if it isn't already), as this page is likely to become inactive when the AfD is closed. The size of "Allegations of apartheid" when all the sub-articles are merged would also have to be addressed, but I don't think that should be too much of a problem. Some of the current standalone articles, particularly the original in the series, could stand to be cut down considerably. 6SJ7 00:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't intent to support this. The "general" article is a spectacular piece of original research, a data-mining extravaganza which should be sunk at the earliest convenience.--G-Dett 00:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The key question

Jayjg has still not answered the key question, in fact, has not posted to this discussion at all since then, although a glance at his contributions will show he has posted elsewhere.

The question is unanswerable, and Jayjg knows that. A strong leader would inform his troops so that they could withdraw in an orderly fashion. Instead, you have been left without direction and are getting cut to pieces. I suggest you choose more carefully who to follow into battle next time. --Ideogram 19:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Name of editor removed from heading and placed in comment, see edit summary -- 6SJ7 04:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg is an exceptionally experienced administrator, having made some 40 times more edits than I have. We're certainly not expecting him to stop editing or cease to have particular interests, but we do expect him to be something of an expert on Wikipedia policy, to explain it to us less experienced editors, and to help us to produce good work. I'm sure he will want to answer your question about the difference between making allegations of apartheid and discussing allegations of apartheid. PalestineRemembered 20:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg doesn't post on a Shabbat. Hopefully he will answer your question when he gets back. -- ChrisO 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed steps toward consensus

Hi. Though the vote looks polarized, there may be a way to work to consensus. Regardless of our stated positions (vote), our common ground is that we each have an interest that articles either meet WP Policies or be deleted. So our policies can serve as the framework for working to consensus, I believe, if we can do it in an orderly fashion. However, many people (esp "delete" voters) believe that the article was made to prove a point. To prove a point is -- or could be -- to pursue an interest that conflicts with usual WP interests. Rightly or wrongly, this belief about POINT has made it hard for them to trust certain editors, rely on their reading of the sources, and assume good will. In order to reach compromise, therefore, I recommend that we take a few discrete confidence-building steps.

On the other hand, the process has already taken up so much time, people may be impatient. Plus, there's a chance that somebody will close the AfD before we have fleshed out the grounds for consensus. So, at the risk of rushing the process, I'd like to recommend a process with multiple steps. By rushing with untested ideas, I will probably make mistakes, sorry. Here's the proposal.

Procedure: On this talk page, ask users to say whether they would support this proposal, or identify minor changes that would enable them to live with this proposal. If the amended proposal looks like it could be reasonably supported by both delete-voters and keep-votes, the nom and maybe a few other key parties would place the proposal on the voting page. Voting and discussion would continue -- maybe the proposed consensus would carry the day.

• Overview: Step 1 is based on NPOV. Step 2 is based on NOR. Step 3 is probably SOURCES, including UNDUE and FRINGE.

The first step would be based on WP:NPOV, perhaps the most foundational policy relevant to this AfD. This step would be limited to the NPOV of the TITLE (name) of the article. "The topic title, far from being unimportant, is often the main tool used to ensure the topic is contextualized appropriately." Here's the text of the grounds for Title-NPOV step:

• G1. We agree that WP Policy requires Article Names to meet NPOV. We agree to "choose a descriptive name for [this] article that does not carry POV implications."
• G2. We agree that NPOV for names for groups of people, including Chinese government people, should aim to reflect this self-identification. This aim may be related to the fundamental justice of self-determination.
• G3. Finding of fact: The Chinese government people do not identify themselves, their actions, or their beliefs with the term "apartheid." Rather, 'apartheid' is from a point-of-view they do not share. Presumed: We are unaware of a neutral, specific "separatist" term that reliable Chinese govt sources use for the articles subtopics.
• G4: We agree that "allegations" is not the most neutral language we can find for this article. Allegations are unproven claims facing counter-claims.
• G5: Without prejudging whether the Article Content has any merit, or should be split due to NOR, or should be later merged into other articles, the following Delete and Keep votes could be predicated on basically the same conditions:
• (H1.a) Delete and (i) approve as neutral the new Article Name "Controversies regarding human rights in China" [or a variant], and (ii) affirm that any content transferred from the Deleted Article to the New Article would be subject to WP:NOR (Step Two) and then WP:N and other policies (Step 3).
• (H1.b) Keep and (i) Rename to the more NPOV name "Controversies regarding human rights in China" [or a variant] , and (ii) affirm that content in the renamed Article would be subject to WP:NOR (Step Two) and then WP:N and other policies (Step 3).
• (H1.c) Delete, and failing that, then (H1.a) or (H1.b)

(Yes, it's a vague name. For the proposal to work, it must be a new article name and not a merge vote. My intuition about this name is partly to finesse the discourse/policy divide. I can explain later. We can entertain vague titles, since NPOV is more crucial than naming style for this step than vagueness.)

Step Two is limited to WP:NOR concerns about possible synthesis of the Content. Rough idea of the text:

• H2: Agreed that the Content must be NOR. If the grouping of topics cannot be reliably sourced, then such synthesis may be grounds for splitting up or merging article Content, in ways to be discussed.

Step Three -- additional review of Content.

• H3: Agreed that the remaining Content needs to be reviewed for reliable SOURCES, UNDUE weight, and FRINGE claims.

Thanks for your patience. Since this is so long, I'm open to deleting it if there's no interest. Thanks HG | Talk 02:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not have any input to give here, since I do not categorically object to using the words "Apartheid" or "Allegations" in a title. You will need input from editors who do. From my perspective, starting with a collection of material that doesn't belong together in the first place and trying to find a title for it is backwards. I won't be participating in debates about the title, and you can be sure changing the title will not affect my belief that this material does not belong together in an article. Thank you for your efforts. Shalom. --Ideogram 04:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, Ideogram. I esp had you in mind in choosing Step Two, based on your earlier comments the collection as original research. So I do appreciate that you might not need to discuss the title. Still, for other folks, please let me note that the wording of G2-4 is intended to leave room for many uses of "Apartheid" or "Allegations" in Wikipedia titles, only saying that (G3) the word Apartheid is not verified specifically for China, and (G4) let's try to find a more neutral word than allegations in this case. Best wishes. HG | Talk 05:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Ideogram here - it's not so much the title that presents a problem, the problem is that the content in the article was slapped together into an article when the sources themselves do not categorically group those seperate topics together. This is original research, an attempt to make an interpretation of the sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hong Qi Gong, for your feedback. It sounds like you and Ideogram would prefer to move right to WP:NOR (the proposed second step). I can respect that. I've suggested Step One (NPOV of Title) because your WP:NOR concerns have been contested and require interpretation. Still, if I'm wrong and Step One is unproductive, then I would be with you in asking that NOR be judged. Here's the reason I prefer to deal first with the neutrality of the Title:

As I wrote in a note to the Admin, I've looked over the vote page. A number of voters question the Article Name (Title) on POV grounds, several concluding that the Article Name/Title violates WP:NPOV. Here are selected statements. (Also, I've redone emphases, added ellipsis when omitting their full text, sorry!) Please note, I am NOT claiming that any of these Users supports the above proposal, nor do I feel any need to ask them to do so. I am merely showing how strongly people question the neutrality of the Article Name itself:

Delete as WP:POV. Any useful information better placed elsewhere. I'm reminded of the old political tactic Let's make the bastard deny it. (Johnson, I think). The heading is phrased to give an appearance of neutral examination of "allegations", but serves as WP:POV advocacy for them in my humble opinion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep ... Apartheid is a dumb title to use because (a) it's as unique to South Africa, as "Jim Crow" is to the USA; (b) apartheid and Jim Crow referred to laws on the books directing segregation, not policies that had that effect; and, last and least, (c) hard to spell, hard to pronounce, and as loaded a term as can be. Mandsford ... Reply I completely agree with your views, without reservations. Thanks!--Cerejota

Delete If it's a loaded name,and each of the sections are talking about different phenomena discussed in other articles, and no sources tie these things together, I don't understand why this article exists or how it should be improved. Per WP:NPOV#POV_forks, "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." Is there an argument for why these issues should all be discussed in this article under the name "Allegations of Chinese Apartheid"?

Delete The title is inherently POV. There is no need to cover the underlying issues in this way, and it is invalid to do so. No article should begin with the word "Allegations" unless it is the title of a published work. Casperonline 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Human rights in China. It's an unnecessary content fork; the relevant material, including allegations of apartheid, could and should be incorporated into the human rights article. ... MastCell

Allegations of [controversial entity] [universally abhorred phenomenon] tend to be a random collection of quotes... ObiterDicta [Strong delete - ObiterDicta took the words out of my mouth. Will (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)]

Delete or move this to "demographic problem of China" or a page with similar title. Apartheid sounds more incendiary than anything else. ... Blueshirts

• Additions:

I would not oppose renaming the article ..... Jossi

Keep, and rename to "Controversies regarding human rights in China" or something similar. ... xDanielx

Delete, an encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< (HG:may include title)

Apartheid is a specific system, which only existed in South Africa. Use of it in this way is perpetuating a POV-forced neologism ....Crockspot (HG: presumably objects to title)

Delete If it's a loaded name, .... tied together under a title that stunts any discussion of the entirely distinct issues discussed in the article .... Mackan79

• Not voting on AfD but responding to Article's Requests_for_arbitration: [8]

For my part, I would think that any article entitled "Allegation of X" has forfeited its claim to neutrality from the outset, and that any content therein could be discussed more usefully in an article which has a wider contextual foundation. Mackensen

All "allegations of" articles are crap, but that's not for ArbCom to determine. --jpgordon

(analysis cont.) Conversely, so far no Users have even tried to defend the neutrality of the wording of the Article Name. (Some mention its consistency with other Article Names, but not neutrality per se. It is unknown which Users may tacitly deem it neutral.)

Under current policy, if there is an implicit consensus that Article Name does not satisfy NPOV, is that a necessary and sufficient condition to at least Move the article? ............. If so, then this may not require a judgment call on WP:OR due to WP:SYNTH -- proposed Step Two, given that such a judgment of article content is disputed. Likewise, there is not need yet to fully analyze the heated arguments about disputed sources and WP:N -- proposed Step Three -- since such Content may be adjusted in the renamed article. Thanks very much for hearing me out! I welcome constructive criticisms of my analysis. Take care. HG | Talk 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a centralized discussion for this, but since we are already here, I definitely agree that "Allegations of" series is not the best example of encyclopedic article. But if we allow one beyond S.A., it is only natural that more will be created.

About the title. "Allegations of apartheid" is both neutral, and the only proper title, since the articles in question are, in fact, about exactly that, allegations of apartheid, rather than the other articles some editors are trying to bury material they find offensive in. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people (including myself) have voiced the opinion that "Allegations of apartheid in X" is a non-neutral, POV-fork title, regardless of the X. The content from this article should therefore be folded in Human rights in China. That's the scope of this AfD. If Allegations of Israeli apartheid comes up again and I'm aware of it (I avoid these topics for reasons that this AfD should make obvious), I'd !vote to merge it into Human rights in Israel or some such more neutral title. I'm fine with consistency; what I object to is this AfD being used as a platform to argue the fate of an unrelated article. It goes against all "rules" of AfD. If this article is evaluated on its own merits, and the stuff about other "Allegations" articles is disregarded, you'll see a general consensus to either merge its content or delete it outright. MastCell ^Talk 15:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I really wish the ArbCom had accepted this case, because I think there are real issues of integrity here. Failing which, if they're not prepared to defend the encyclopedia, and (in JPs words) won't deal with crap, then I'm not sure I want to bother my pretty little head with it either. PalestineRemembered 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)