User talk:Victor falk/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid

A Consensus?
Allmost all of the users that voted "keep" did so with the proviso that they could accept a deletion if all article in the series were deleted ( I will not make pithy comments on their... hrm, anyway ). To wit:

Beit Or, Urthogie, Sefringle, Carlossuarez46, Humus sapiens, Jayjg, IronDuke, ≈ jossi ≈, -tickle me, Taprobanus, Amoruso, ابو علي (Abu Ali), 6SJ7, altmany, Tewfik, Shuki, <<-armon->>.

Though I first voted DELETE, I think it would be an error to do so. They would only metastase to new nooks and crannies like Apartheid allegations against France or suchlike.

I think RENAME and REDIRECT is the way to root them out. This would also require some heavy copyediting of their tone, such as deleting "apartheid" where it is gratuitous, that is in almost all instances. A retitling would encourage editors to at least have a try to make them neutral, whereas the current one are just baits for disinformation wars.

I made some dummies to illustrate:


 * Segregation by country (now:Allegations of apartheid) The mother article, that actually contains some informative and helpful entries already (as you note, I've also made a "segregation by country" template to replace the apartheid allegations one).


 * Segregation in Brazil (now:Allegations of Brazilian apartheid) I found an article that contains some interesting material. Merging those two has a clear potential for a decent article.


 * 'Segregation in China (now:Allegations of Chinese apartheid'')


 * The content of Allegations of French apartheid should be split up between French rule in Algeria, Social situation in the French suburbs, and 2005 civil unrest in France. The current article would become a redirect to Segregation by country


 * Allegations of Jordanian apartheid should also be rolled back into the main article. The bulk of it now is: the Iraqi refugee situation, an extra-ordinary crisis, and the banning of the sale of property to foreigners, which is not exactly hard-core segregation.


 * Segregation in Saudi Arabia (now:Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid)


 * Allegations of American apartheid should be merged into Racial segregation in the United States


 * Tourist segregation (now:Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba) This is my favourite, now it's also about how Krazy Kim the Nork treats visiting imperialist lackey-dogs. Maybe there should also be a section about the limey ghettoes in Costa del Sol and Costa Brava?


 * Allegations of Israeli apartheid should be moved to Segregation in the West Bank and Discrimination in Israel (suggestion from User:Urthogie)
 * I thought of this, that maybe it should be split into Segregation in Israel and Segregation in the Occupied Territories, its current structure lends itself quite nicely to it, but I didn't dare propose it... so I'm glad you do! (:--Victor falk 15:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do leave some comments--Victor falk 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I find this to be an excellent suggestion. Congratulations. Rama 14:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I find this to be an interesting, but misguided suggestion. If you want to make a big change to all these articles, we can start a discussion on that.  Right now we're discussing only "France apartheid."--Urthogie 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which does not even exist as a myth. Rama 15:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we start a big discussion about all of these articles on someone's talk page. like User:Urthogie/allegations--Urthogie 15:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Victor's proposal is the place to start. It strikes exactly the right sort of balance between a comprehensive solution and a case-by-case approach.  An element of comprehensiveness is necessary when organized and relentless editors present one WP:ALLORNOTHING ultimatum after another, and use a spurious infobox/"navigation template" to consolidate and enforce their demands.--G-Dett 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Procedural proposal: If we are going to have a "global" discussion of the "apartheid" articles we can use the page that was created about a year ago for that purpose, Centralized discussion/Apartheid. I think this entire discussion could just be moved there, perhaps after archiving the rather old discussions that are on that page now. Unless I am mistaken, the ArbComm specifically suggested that discussions on an overall solution take place on that page. I believe there are existing templates that can be placed on the articles involved, and/or their talk pages, to direct people to the centralized discussion. The dummy articles can then be linked-to from the centralized discussion page. This sort of systematic solution seems more appropriate than using someone's user-space. As for the proposal itself, I am not sure that "segregation" is the correct word in all cases, and there already are segregation articles for some countries, so there needs to be further discussion and coordination. In the meantime, I think all the AfD's, merge proposals (like for the U.S. article), etc. should be dropped so that we can have a meaningful centralized discussion without the distraction of articles disappearing and reappearing at random. 6SJ7 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My (almost final) comment. I strongly oppose using the word "apartheid" as an article's title in any context other than South Africa. All the cited sources have been apparently chosen for containing the apartheid metaphor. I always assume good faith, so I'll put this one on the editors' lack of understanding of the word, their limited knowledge of France, and their limited experience of serious academic writing. You'll find many more good sources using metaphors such as segregation, ghettoization, etc, all of which are appropriate for the subjects here discussed. Secondly, a perfunctory glance suggests all of these articles need more balanced writing and more good (and on topic) sources. I'll be glad to help, drop me a note any time. Furthermore, references from any Saudi paper or website cannot be considered reputable or independent, I think that doesn't need explaining. Conclusion. I am not inherently opposed to the existence of any of these articles. The titles, however, are extremely misleading and if left, would result in continuous and absolutely needless edit wars/AfDs, and I have a feeling we've all had enough of this, haven't we? Finally, kudos to those who have refrained from personal attacks. Here's to more fruitful and honest debate in the future. --Targeman 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Victor's proposal is excellent.--Targeman 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like consensus, and won't certainly oppose this one. And I do agree with Targeman that comparisons with South African appartheid are misguided. But: there is nonetheless such accusation towards Israel, and a genuine debate about them. So, there should be a section in Segregation in Israel] like [[Segregation_in_Israel where the content of Allegations of Israeli apartheid should be merged and neutralized.Gedefr 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are dummy proposals forSegregation in Israel and Segregation in the Occupied Territories--Victor falk 15:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The second would have to be Segregation in the West Bank or something similar - there are no Israelis living in the Gaza Strip. Jayjg (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly think a comprehensive solution might help here; however, the solution will have to be truly comprehensive for it to be acceptable. Jayjg (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Jayjg, it'd be less creepy if you just stated what you mean clearly, like "it will have to address the issue of the article on Israel". For which I also find the term "apartheid" inappropriate, incidentally. But I am accustomed to people solving their problems, not exporting them to other realms. Rama 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You do realize that there is no substitute for AfD unless you believe that the other articles can be speedy deleted? Attempts to have an article deleted by voting keep on other otherwise blatantly POV articles like this one are futile because such deletions will end up at DRV as being out of process anyway. If this is truly going to work then we will need one mass AfD of all these articles once and for all. In order for that to happen you will need to be more specific Jayjg. I for one would love to see all of these "allegations...." articles and related POV pushing and political/religous manifests in disguise removed. Let's do this, Let's agree not to use Wikipedia as a battleground once and for all. The question is... are you ready to delete all of thse articles? MartinDK 17:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Response I agree that Victor's proposal is a good place to start.  For my part, I would have no objection to merging some of the current content from Allegations of Israeli Apartheid into new articles entitled Segregration in Israel and Segregation in the West Bank, which could be supplemented with further information from other sources.  (I could add that I do not believe the other proposed changes will be the subject of much controvery, one way or the other.)
 * I would also propose that we create a page entitled Israeli Apartheid Analogy (or something similar), to address occasions and contexts in which Israeli policies have been explictly compared with the experience of apartheid in South Africa. Would this be reasonable?  CJCurrie 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that approach. "Israeli apartheid analogy" is no different than allegations of Israeli apartheid.--Urthogie 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a much more appropriate title. More to the point, it deals with an analogy that's been been raised in a variety of contexts, and is entirely encyclopedic.  CJCurrie 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a priori very cautious with any article on a propaganda term (and if the introduction of "apartheid" in the context of the Middle East is not gross propaganda, I don't know what is). The fact that the term is used could be addressed somewhere, but this is a footnote in another article. I can't dream of a reason for having an article name with "Israel" and "Apartheid" -- unless the Knesset votes a law named "apartheid", which I daresay is unlikely to happen. Rama 17:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The analogy itself may or may not be gross propaganda, but the fact remains that it has been raised by diverse sources. It's hardly propagandistic or unencyclopedic to have an article about the term's usage.  CJCurrie 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest Segregation_in_Israel as per the suggestion of Gedefr 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC) --Victor falk 17:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of a propaganda term so important that it'd warrant its own article, and "apartheid" related to Israel is certainly not on the top of the list. Furthermore,
 * having the matter clearly identified and stated in a neutral way is a manner for Wikipedia to appropriate the subject without swallowing the rotten rhetorics with it (For instance we have 2003 invasion of Iraq, not "Operation Iraqi Freedom", in spite of the documents by the US Army beating the term over and over).
 * addressing the issue in the framework of a larger self-sustaining article is a way to refrain the debate from slipping, something to which is seems prone. Rama 18:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the issue isn't just "segregation," but a variety of others which unfortunately very specifically involve the comparison to Sourth African apartheid. Largely it is a debate about rhetoric, but a highly prominent one nonetheless. That's to say, it's not a debate between "separate but equal" and the opposite, but something completely different. Of course, the same is true in France; "segregation" may be one way of discussing the issue, but doesn't seem to be the natural way that an article on France generally would. Considering Israel, however, I simply have a hard time seeing how the apartheid debate can avoid an article of its own, considering the huge amount of material. Still, the question does remain finding an agreeable name for that article, though I'm also not sure that can be resolved here. Mackan79 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with Rama's position on all this, though simply substituting "segregation" for "apartheid" suffers the same problems and would be most unhelpful. What seems logical to me is a merge of all encyclopaedic information to "Human rights in X", with any forking only per policy as applied in the rest of the encyclopaedia. Perhaps maintaining something along the lines of the Allegations of apartheid entry for discussion of the term would be a good middle ground.  Tewfik Talk 19:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rama wrote "I cannot think of a propaganda term so important that it'd warrant its own article, and and "apartheid" related to Israel is certainly not on the top of the list". With respect to your first point, take a look at Zionism and racism allegations and And you are lynching Negroes. (Those are off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.) With respect to your second point, based on what I hear and read the charge that Israel is an apartheid state seems to be second only to the charge that Zionism is racism in terms of its "popularity". So yes, it is so important that it would warrant its own article, just as Blood libel against Jews, Zionist Occupation Government, Rootless cosmopolitan, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Jewish Bolshevism, The Cause of World Unrest, and The International Jew, (many of which are far more obscure than accusations that Israel is an apartheid state). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

@Tewfik: That's too comprehensive. Wikipedia is not Amnesty International. And segregation is not a slur like apartheid is.

@Mackan: There will never be an agreeable name for all. Some will always wish it'd be called zionist apartheid pigs or baby-killing suicide towelheads. What's important is that the name neutral enough to be agreeable to the general community.

@Malik: Thank for you for your zionism and racism allegations! I think it would be natural for apartheid to be part of those more general ones!.... --Victor falk 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tewfik, I agree with Victor's point about WP not being Amnesty International, but my objection to Human Rights in Israel-Palestine is slightly different. What would happen, for example, to the Adam and Moodley material?  That has been regarded as one of the most valuable sources in the article, and one of the only ones respected by partisans of both sides.  Their book isn't about Human Rights, except quite indirectly.  Their book is about a broad historical, ethical, and pragmatic comparison between South African apartheid and the Israeli occupation, and an application of "lessons learned" from the successful South African peace process.  It is a book that takes for granted, as its very foundations, an extensive preexisting discourse likening the I-P conflict to the South African one.   And that's really the tip of the iceberg.  A lot of material has as its central subject not human rights per se, but rather this contentious issue: the validity and/or usefulness of the South African model for thinking about Israel-Palestine.  There is a lot of work of this kind, in which the comparison is examined from every possible angle ranging from the experience of apartheid to the historical roots of the conflict to the efficacy of international sanctions to the appropriateness of a South Africa-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the I-P conflict.  And this work in turn generates more controversy among pundits, activists, etc.; it generates boycott proposals and divestment campaigns and articles like Ian Buruma's "Do not treat Israel like apartheid South Africa" and Joel Pollack's "The Trouble With the Apartheid Analogy." This work, that is, along with the preexisting discourse/meme/debate/whatever that it builds on, as well as the further controversy it generates, together constitute a coherent subject which does not fit comfortably into the Human Rights in X paradigm.


 * Urthogie, I see your signpost inviting us to discuss over at Centralized discussion/Apartheid, but I do not even agree with the framing assumptions of the question you've posed there. It begs the question.  It assumes that the articles grouped together without consensus in the "Allegations of Apartheid" template are equally legitimate, and form a natural family, rather than representing a species of hoax, whereby a heavy cargo of counterfeit goods has been loaded onto a ship in order to sink its legitimate freight.  This is one of the core elements of the dispute at hand.  If you'll rephrase your opening question/discussion rubric so as not to foreclose that important aspect of the debate, I'll be happy to post there.--G-Dett 20:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I disagree with most of what G-Dett has said here, I can agree that what is now on the "centralized discussion" page is not what I had in mind when I suggested taking the discussion there. What I thought would happen is to move this discussion there and let it continue and see where it goes.  I am not sure of the best way to do that, since a cut-and-paste move would wipe out the edit history.  Since this is not an article, I don't know if that matters so much.  I also don't know if this talk page can be renamed without also renaming the AfD page, which obviously shouldn't happen.  I do know that continuing a global discussion of the apartheid issue on the talk page of the AfD for the France article is not a good idea.  6SJ7 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion moved.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of AfD
Since there is alreade a centralized discussion for this at WP:APARTHEID and this is for the AfD of Allegations of French apartheid, I think this is innapropiate place to have such a wide ranging discussion.--Cerejota 09:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Me again. I followed G-Dett’s advice and I hade a good look at the Allegations of apartheid in Israel article. Thanks for pointing out a phenomenon I was unaware of, being a relative noob on Wikipedia. Let me voice my thoughts here publicly because I think they could be of general interest.


 * Dear Urthogie & friends,


 * From your edits it is pretty clear that you are ardent supporters of Israel/Jews/Zionism. That’s fine, I certainly have no problem with that. I understand the passion that drives you when you edit, it’s only human. However, do you really think that it serves any good to export the chaos of the Middle East to an encyclopedia? Do you honestly think that an encyclopedia article could help Israel in any way? Do you think any article on Wikipedia could change entrenched prejudice on both sides after 60 years of non-stop war? If you want to support Israel, don’t you think your energy might be better spent elsewhere?


 * Here is how I deal with my prejudice, for what it’s worth. I am an atheist and I strongly oppose any kind of religious interference in public life. To simplify, I dislike religion, all religions, very strongly. Now look at how many edits I’ve done in Atheism, Religion, Theocracy, etc. Yes, a big, round, zero edits. Why? because I know very well that reason has no chance when confronted with passion. And passion does not belong in scientific research. So I simply abstain from editing those articles. Now, you may think I’m some sort of cold, dispassionate, haughty and patronizing asshole. Hell no. I just wanted to drop a few lines of food for thought, do what you will with them.


 * So back to our AfD controversy, it has become rather clear for me now that G-Dett’s assessment of your apparently random article creation in order to have the Israel article ditched is quite accurate. (I may be of course mistaken, and I apologize if I am.) These articles are poor and the sources, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly above, don’t hold water. Some bits and pieces may be salvageable, but as obviously no-one really cared about their quality in the first place, I hereby propose to delete them all and concentrate on the core problem, allegations of apartheid in Israel.


 * I propose to take the article off line for some time and discuss its merits elsewhere. If the use of the word “apartheid” in the title’s article or body text is what you object to, and I can easily understand that, I’m sure lots of alternative synonymous expressions could be found. If after, say, two weeks of common efforts we conclude there’s no way any balanced article could result from our joint efforts, we could – I’ve no idea if this has ever been done, so please be nice and don’t flame me – ask Jimbo Wales himself for mediation. After all, this whole fantastic project is his baby.


 * I’m calling it a day. I’ll be back tomorrow. See you guys, and shalom/salaam. --Targeman 19:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Moi aussi. a+. *sob* Vhy, oh vhy can't eweryone yust get along?...--Victor falk 20:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Targeman, there seems no good reason to "take off line" only one "Allegations of apartheid..." article; perhaps all of them should be taken "off line" at the same time. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he's saying the seven fake ones created for leveraging purposes should be deleted outright, and the controversial original should be taken off-line and edited in a less volatile and more collaborative environment, until such time as it's in good enough shape to reenter Wikipedia. If I understand it rightly, the idea is that this would a) relieve the pressure of high-stakes edit-warring and leveraged-deletion strategies upon the article itself (for the time being anyway), and conversely b) relieve Wikipedia from the constant spillover effect of willful disruption and WP:POINT-making emanating from the I-P article into other areas of the encyclopedia, such as triggered this AfD and many others.  Makes eminent sense actually.--G-Dett 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to begin a process where its decided from the get-go that we will keep only one of the allegations articles and trash the rest.--Urthogie 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ... until you consider that (i) Allegations of Israeli Apartheid has already survived several afds and attempts at backdoor deletion, and (ii) all of the other articles in the series were WP:POINT violations. CJCurrie 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Other articles have survived AFDs. Less than "alleged Israeli apartheid" because they've been here for only a couple weeks.--Urthogie 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that Allegations of Israeli Apartheid has already survived several afds and a concerted effort to have it deleted by other means. The other "Allegations ..." articles are by contrast part of the concerted effort to have it deleted by other means.  CJCurrie 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Allegations of Brazilian apartheid has also survived AfD. It seems rather unusual to decide, a priori, that all "Allegations of X apartheid" are "fake", save of course, for the one article that the POV-pushers will not relent on. Isarig 22:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Allegations of Brazilian apartheid survived afd largely because of block-voting from the same people who are opposed to retention of Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. I stand by my previous comments.  CJCurrie 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * even if this was true, it would be irrelvant - AfDs are not decided by vote, but by a discussion based on arguments, and the survival of the Brazil article indicates that enough arguments were brought forth by its advocates to enable it to survive, putting the lie to the claim that all the articles but the Israeli one are "fake". But in fact, it is a serious misrepresentation to claim that the Brazil article survived 'because of block-voting from the same people who are opposed to retention of Allegations of Israeli Apartheid.'. There are numerous editors who voted to Keep that article who have not commented on this article or the Israeli one. Please do not repeat such baseless allegations. Isarig 23:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Brazil article was created by Urthogie, and the "keep" votes in the deletion discussion were: Jayjg, Urthogie, JoshuaZ, tickleme, Tewfik, Humus sapiens, The Behnam, Jossi, Ironduke, Shamir1, Gzuckier, Carlossuarez46, Dsol, and thewinchester. 10 of those 14 are Israel-focused editors, most of whom we've seen here, issuing the same ultimatum there that they've delivered here.    All of the Latin-America- or Brazil-focused editors voted "delete," though Carlossuarez46, who voted "keep," appears to be fluent in Spanish.  The money quote in the deletion discussion came from the ever-eloquent Latin-America-focused Zlietzen, when he was asked by Jay if he still believed the RS-material was inadequate:

Yes, I still do, Jayjg. You've just quoted a few people at length who have simply used a metaphor in passing whilst referring to a complex issue, solely to ensure the article remains as part of some strategy involving Allegations of Israeli apartheid. That is not an encyclopedia article. The group of keep voters below, who largely edit Israel articles and whom I have never seen before on Latin American articles or African-diaspora articles, confirms that this is an attempt to distort and subvert the consensus process in order to continue a game, which you yourself admit is a violation of WP:POINT. The knock on effects, which are subverting and damaging unrelated subjects concerning race relations in Brazil, or articles such as Tourism in Cuba reveals that this game does not have wikipedia readers' best interests at heart.


 * Couldn't have said it better myself.--G-Dett 23:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should always care about the exact significance of words. Apartheid has a precise historical meaning (the political and social discrimination in South Africa that ended in the nineties) and it is the same for racial segregation (a system which existed in the US between 1896 and 1956).

Both words are used to describe situations that "look the same" in a very general way but rarely in an appropriate manner. South African appartheid and US racial segregation are not even alike. In the US, the blacks and the whites were supposedly "equals" in right but were not allowed to mix together (in reality, of course, blacks were less "equals" than whites). In South Africa, blacks had less RIGHTS than whites IN THE LAW.

If we really have to use these words in analogies, I would say that the Nazi system was an appartheid until the beginning of the "final solution" which has its own dedicated terminology; French occupation in Algeria was more like US racial segregation because Algerian and French had "nominally" the same rights despite a very different situation in reality (French born citizen owned good lands in Algeria, "overseas" deputies had fewer weight in the Parliament than "continental" ones, etc)- the only moment in recent French history which could be qualified as "apartheid" was the Vichy regime (during the second world war, the French regime of Petain and Laval set after France's defeat in 1940, decided to create a specific status for the jews, like what was existing in Germany).

Apart from that period, no one should use "appartheid" to qualify the French political and social system except in a metaphoric way (which is the case in the references of the article). And after the independance of Algeria in 1962, nothing come close to real "racial segregation".

Of course, racism exists in France, as well as social segregation. This can mistakenly be considered as racial segregation because most of the poors, most of the people who have to live in dilapidated suburbs, are immigrants. And most of immigrants in France come from its former colonies (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Western African countries). But what shows that France IS NOT a segregationist country is that whenever a black or an arab manages to get economic success (which is ten time harder than for someone from French ascendancy, see why below), he or she rarely stays in the slums but buys a loft in Paris or a house in a fancy suburb. The problem in France is about racism and discrimination (THE LAW is the same for everybody in the country and it does not bother about religion or race, but THE FRENCH PEOPLE much too often refuse to give a job or rent their house to someone who does not have the right colour).

About the "headscarf law", it should not be considered as a sign of appartheid.

1-this law, even if it was clearly aimed AGAINST THE MUSLIM GIRLS, says that NO blatant sign of religious belonging should be tolerated inside the schools. Jews and Sikh are also prohibited to wear kippas and turbans and Christians are invited not to wear large crosses. There is nothing racial in this because a girl of French ascendency converted to Islam will face the same problem than a religious Muslim Algerian girl)

2-only public schools and only until baccalaureat are impacted, which means that zealots can still freely send their kids in private schools. OK, it can be a problem for some of them because they do not have the financial means or there is no private school next to their home. This law definitely reduce freedom for one category of people. But it would be inaccurate to say its appartheid because its very aim is to make French children more alike not to separate them in different categories.

About the 2005 riots... the rioters were young unemployed people leaving in lousy suburbs. Some were blacks or arabs (most of them of course since the majority of the people leaving there are first or second generation immigrants) but some of them were "Gaulois" (a word used to speak about French from French ascendancy). It was not a racial riot. Not at all.

I hope these precisions can help...

Jeemde 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (response (mostly) to Targeman) Hey Targeman, let me first off say welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, you are a n00b, but you seem to be talking very sensibly, and are helping here, I think. (Indeed your prose is pleasurable enough to read that I suspected you could contribute with a professional level of English before I read your comment.) I think taking the whole group of articles “of-line” makes a certain amount of sense, but the way that would work would basically be to have us all vote a straight up or down “vote” on all the articles at once in an AfD, and let the closing admin see if s/he thinks they are worth keeping. I would support his, but I don’t see how, within the framework of how we operate now, put in, say, the IA article back “online” would work. A !vote? A DRV? ArbCom? (BTW, Jimbo doesn’t usually directly intervene in content disputes).


 * I think the best thing would be to vote for them all on an up or down vote, full stop. There have been good arguments put forward as to why the FA article should go, but they apply fairly readily to IA. Yes, there are more sources in the IA article, but I would have little difficulty coming up with an article entitled Allegations of Jewish Control of World Finance, with wonderful, comprehensive sourcing and arguments pro and con. However, the title here would be misleading, just as the IA title is. I’m happy to have IA redirected to an Israeli/Palestinian conflict, just as all non South-African apartheid articles could be. But imagine if we deleted all of them, but kept the French apartheid one in the mix. What would that say? That FA is somehow “truer” than IA. Unless and until we can remove the word “Allegations” from these articles and still have them withstand scrutiny, I think we should have none of them.


 * I might also say to you, Targeman, since you are new, you should also be aware that personal motivations for, say, adding content to WP are largely irrelevant—attacking those motivations is simply an ad hominem tu quoque attack, and is pretty easily batted away—the article either is or is not good, doesn’t matter who wrote it. I’d direct this comment at some of the more experienced editors weighing in here, but they have been told it many times and it doesn’t seem particularly to have sunk in.


 * And while I’m on the subject, I’ll also just briefly raise an eyebrow at these same editors complaining that other editors tend to have similar opinions on these issues, and to express them often across many articles. The most bitter denunciations seem to be coming from the editors who are the most guilty of single and bloody-minded editing on the “other side.” For myself, I’m glad to see the same old faces, on both sides. Eventually, if everyone who is pro, anti, and neutral talks enough, we may end up with a compromise that satisfies all. I think, actually, we’re pretty close right now. So maybe let’s ratchet down the rhetoric a few degrees, plan? IronDuke  00:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your welcome message :-). What took you so long? I've been around for 2 months! ;-)
 * As for my proposal, to make it clear, yes, I proposed we scrap all the "apartheid" articles, this one included, leaving only the Israel article on the table. I wouldn't normally advocate an en masse dumping of several articles at once but they're all so fundamentally flawed that they need rewriting from scratch if they're ever to be resurrected. At least, that's my personal opinion.
 * I hate to come across as a pontificating prick, but I'm sure I often do. That's the teacher in me. :-) I can tolerate any honest mistake, be it careless editing, bad grammar, even padded sources. But deliberate disruption really rattles my cage. Of course, as you say, the quality of an article is the only thing that ultimately matters, whoever wrote it and for whatever reason. My point is purely organizational: let's stop wasting our time on pointless editing warfare, fix the core problem, and move on. I didn't attack any person but rather pointed out the systemic flaws in their work; that, I would imagine, is fair game and not an ad hominem attack.  Now if they stole my car, or took a leak in my kitchen sink, that would provoke my personal wrath. ;-)


 * As for what kind of vote/arbitration/procedure is applicable in such cases, I'm happy to shut up and let experienced editors decide. :-) --Targeman 11:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment maybe we could have larger article called Allegations of apartheid in the European union, some of the accusations about apartheid apply to other countries in Europe too, although the situation is probably worse in France. For example those riots in Bradford UK in 2001, I remember reading about apartheid claims being made about the racial divides in the northern England, this should also be detailed.  I object to the fact that some are attempting using this article as a bargaining chip with the Israeli apartheid article, It is counterproductive to compare two unique and very different situations with a different history behind them. Bleh999 05:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably worse in France : ridiculous. Another guy who doesn't know what he is talking about. You should travel and live in these countries a bit before saying such things. Poppypetty 07:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no need to make personal attacks, we could debate facts and figures that paint a picture of disenfranchised minorities in France, and there is no doubt an institutionalized discrimination at fault among other reasons, still I think the comparison of France to apartheid South Africa is somewhat unfair, after all people get lynched in public in Russia for being a different skin color yet there is no apartheid article on Russia, yet Brazil has one even though it is the most multi ethnic nation in South America, that claim seems to be original research. Bleh999 09:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bleh999, if we adopt the title of "Allegations of apartheid" for any country where some sort of discrimination exists, we would have to have Allegations of apartheid in the Vatican, too. As I'm sure you know, women are banned from the Catholic Church's hierarchy. Apartheid in the sense of discrimination, as you seem to understand it, would apply to every country that has ever existed. --Targeman 11:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bleh999, I am sorry, but saying things like "there is no doubt an institutionalized discrimination" is really ridiculous, and it does not contribute much to make it look like you have the slightest notion of what French way of life and institutions are. Rama 11:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * a lot of countries have similar problems with race relations and such, from what I've read it's just worse in France (compared to the rest of western Europe), the minorities are more ghettoized and segregated (increasing in recent decades) than lets say neighboring Germany. It's debatable whether this amounts to 'apartheid' Bleh999 12:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, remember that the question for us as Wikipedians is not whether we think a comparison between France and South Africa is plausible or fair but whether for reliable sources outside of Wikipedia it has ever become a subject in its own right. It is quite clear that it has not.  It's a basic sourcing/notability policy issue, not a what's-fair type of issue.  Per WP:OR, you can't invent topics and write essays about them, as the creators of this article have done.--G-Dett 13:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bleh, be sure to check out Social situation in the French suburbs as well, which specifically discusses those issues in neutral terms. This seems to me the much better approach. Mackan79 13:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bleh999, please, you go read something about it and you come back when you've got information from other sources than Fox News pundits. The mere term of "race" is practically a taboo in France. There are contrasting living conditions among Frenchmen, and indeed some suburbs of Paris are shitholes. But people are there because they are poor, and they are poor because they have no jobs or cheap ones.
 * There are no laws, nor even official statistics which aknowledge the concept of "race" (you will kindly notice that this contrasts with for instance the USA, where you have to state your "race" to get medical treatement). There are of course cases of individuals who happen to feature racist bias, but this is generally not the case, and stating that there are official policies in this direction is pure lunacy, and proof that one doesn't have the slightest clue about the situation in France. Or I'd like to see you pointing to an article of contemporary French law that you could take as example. Rama 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have copied my comments from Centralized discussion/Apartheid

We can not put all the apartheid articles in the same box. First we had Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Apologists for the Israeli government tried to get the article deleted many times but they failed, because the subject is notable (Jimmy Carter even wrote a book with this title). So having failed to get Allegations of Israeli apartheid deleted they set about creating a series of articles on allegations of apartheid in Brazil, France, Cuba etc. These editors had not shown any previous interest in affairs in these countries, and created these new articles to prove a WP:POINT -- as bargaining chips. They tell us that they will agree to delete these articles if we agree to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid. It has not occurred to these individuals that in this way they will antagonize many editors who have up till now had no experience of Zionism and of the tactics of its advocates. This blindness to the unintended effects of ones own actions is something of a trend amongst Zionists.

There is no way a consensus will be reached to delete these articles, as the pro-Israel editors seem to have locked themselves into this suicidal course and are determined to go all the way. And they will attack anyone who tries to save them from their folly.

I say let these articles stay. An interested reader can see the history, find out who created these articles and examine their contributions and in this way discover much about their ideology and how this ideology manifests itself in their dealings with others. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Or the interested (intelligent) reader might recognize that every major country is accused of apartheid by some famous people.--Urthogie 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Will you two stop for a second and mind the people trying to make a neutral encyclopedia ? Rama 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A few facts about the debate
A number are by academics, and some are French sources; Le Monde Diplomatique for example

Fact: Le Monde Diplomatique is an opinion magazine with, let's say, far-left views. I suspect that they are often right on facts, but they also have a specific rhetoric. I therefore think that this magazine is not a good source for knowing whether such or such behaviour of French society is commonly called in such or such way; it is, though, a source for knowing how parts of the French far-left call these behaviours in their publications.

This is, I think, an important distinction to make. I know far-left publications that explain that the Communist Revolutionary League (LCR) is a center-right party; and they actually have arguments for that, that make sense within a particular point of view on the world. Yet, it would seem totally out of place to list the LCR in an article "Center right parties in France". David.Monniaux 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The description of Le Monde Diplomatique as having a far-left opinion base is risible. I cannot take seriously after that comment. Certainly to the left, but "far left"? It is basically altermondialist, which is far from far-left, in particular in France, where altermondialisme spans the spectrum from far-right to far-left. However, even if oyur critique were correct, it would be irrelevant: we are for verifiability, not truth.--Cerejota 00:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean to say, "we are for wikiality, not truthiness", don't you?--Victor falk 02:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

proposal by Victor falk
This seems very wrong to mass rename a bunch of articles because of a deletion request for this article, is this even allowed by wikipedia policy? This kind of bargaining is wrong, debate the article being discussed for deletion, not the others. Bleh999 00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the people that voted "keep" that said "OK to delete French Apartheid if all Apatheid articles are deleted", not me.--Victor falk 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If they claim that, it's basically extortion, the articles are only remotely related and it violates policy to use one article as a bargaining chip in the fate of other articles. Bleh999

DRAWING TO A CLOSE?
Thanks, Sefringle. Finally, some straight talk from your camp:

 (...) why we created other apartheid articles. All allegations of apartheid articles are meant to antagonize people of that culture; the Israel one included. They are all POV forks. Their existance on wikipedia is proof that WP:NPOV does not apply to article titles or afd's. Since these articles cannot be balanced on their own, the only way to balance them is to create similar articles about other countries, thus making the attack page have less effect since country X isn't the only one being alleged of being an apartheid state. There is nothing encyclopediac about accusing somebody or some culture/country/religion of apartheid. It is all an attempt to push a POV. Anything legitimate belongs in an article like Criticism of Israel, or Human rights in Israel. -- Sef rin gle Talk 02:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC) quote from here

Now we may be going somewhere. So let’s get it straight: you basically opposed the word “apartheid” when applied to Israel. You saw it as inflammatory, provocative, what have you. So you created several other “allegations of apartheid” articles on randomly chosen countries for the sole purpose of lessening the pressure on Israel. OK. Now’s the time to untie this Gordian knot. Here’s my proposed list of things to do asap:


 * 1) Delete all articles about “allegations of apartheid in XXX”;
 * 2) Rename the Isreali article to something less outrageous;
 * 3) Re-think, re-source, and re-write the article on Israel.

Who’s with me? --Targeman 02:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree Corpx 02:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Moi aussi. I cannot think of a less objectionable solution.--Victor falk 02:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Small correction. I did not write the other articles, but others with similar views to mine did. Secondly I do not speak for all of the zionists on wikipedia; I speak for myself only. Anyway, I'll support the proposal depending on the name.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree in principle, I just don't believe the two suggestions solve the problem. Unfortunately, these have both been discussed before; the problem with the first is that it would set the precedent of the first "Criticism of country X" article, would be hugely over-broad, and would likely result in the same idea of a "series" as the article here.  In terms of "Human rights," the problem is also scope, which would prevent any real discussion despite the huge amount of material on this subject.  Ultimately it gets back to the fact that while every country has its controversies, they're not all the same controversies, and one of the hotter ones in Israel is this particular comparison.  I do agree that finding the right name is what's necessary.  I simply tend to think it won't happen in time for this AfD, since it's something that's been discussed several times before, while the whole idea of trying to resolve it here seems problematic for several reasons. Mackan79 03:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose It sets an unhealthy precedent to give in to ridiculous demands, if they created these articles as WP:POINT violations thats what they remain, the fate of the articles should be debated on each article individually, not as a grouping. The fact is that these articles are only remotely related the title is only a small part of an article, in each article the users should discuss name changes or content changes even if they survive deletion, deciding the fate of that many articles here is against consensus and circumventing policy. Bleh999 05:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply:While I do not share your level of vitriol, and while I do not accuse people of doing WP:POINT with out pointing (he-he) out their actual disruptions, I do agree issues for an article should be dealt with in the article. Allegations of X in Y might be notable, verifiable, and well sourced, so it could be included while Allegations of X in Z might not, and I see no reason to include. All of this reminds me of the objections of what remains probably the most directly relevant of all of these articles: Allegations of Brazilian apartheid. It is basically people who do not want their country insulted, but while I am not a heartless bastard and totally sympathize with the sentiment expressed in a personal level, all of it stinks and reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't care if it insults and offends three quarters of the world, we do not censor. If it is verifiable, if it is well sourced, if it is notable, and a wikipedian collects it, then it stays. For example, I hate fascism with a passion, but this is not a reason to AfD Tricolour Flame, even tho it is basically propaganda for a fascist party. As I have said before, the Law of unintended consequences is at work all over this place. The anti-Israeli pov pushers on one side thought that Israel was a unique case of a country with polices that are analogized to apartheid, but they are obviously wrong. Then the pro-Israel POV pushers thought to get cute and ad infinitum extend the analogy, but many of the pages have been deleted because they are not good, and others are actually of equal and even more value than the Israeli one. So in seeking to invalidate the allegations of israeli apartheid, they have actually validated an entire range of articles. Then every time a new country with a significant number of english wikipedians gets added we get WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In fact, almost all of the delete votes here are invalid because they are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. People are drowning in a storm in a tea cup and forgetting we are here to build an encyclopedia of a new kind, one that is both interactive in nature, and that instead of generating original content, is actually a reflection of the original content of others. If we treat these series as a single entity, and if we insist they are titled wrong and POV forks, without looking at their individual merits, then we are going against everything a free encyclopedia is about: bring information to our readers so that they can decide for themselves. Of all of these whole series of the debates, the most insulting to me of all things is that we are ultimately not trusting the intelligence and capacity of our readers to discern opinion from facts. We all die a little inside when we mistrust our readers in such a savage fashion. --Cerejota 06:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no vitriol in my comments, if you noticed I haven't been editing the Israeli apartheid article and I would rather not get involved. However it is a matter of principle that we can't start mass renaming articles because of attempts at deal breaking going on the talk page here, even if it is in good faith (and I believe the proposals above were made in good faith, but still misguided)  Bleh999 08:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're for principle, all the apartheid articles are de facto nominated for deletion. To do so de jure would only result in disruption very much against the "Do not disrupt Wikipedia" policies--Victor falk 09:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if all of these articles are disruptive, hence the reason why they should be discussed on a case by case basis on their respective talk pages, if you notice this is a talk page for the AfD for Allegations of French apartheid, I reject any discussion about other articles here or any comparisons, delete or keep, it shouldn't effect the outcome of the other articles. In fact I find it extremely disruptive that many users are using this article space for discussions about other articles. Bleh999 11:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it possible not to like an article and still have valid reason for its deletion?--Victor falk 09:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, don't know about motivations (as in "every French here can't be neutral" or the opposite "French express here because they have more clue on the subject", or even "many Americans have a higher tolerance to French bashing than to any other xenophobic wording and are, hum, not so well informed about us thanks to Fox news ",...) but let's focus on actual arguments please. I find very unfair to reduce our arguments to IDONTLIKEIT because of our origins (while we can otherwise say that the counter arguments like "delete as per jossie" etc. are quite WP:ALLORNOTHING rather than intellectual food). My arguments have nothing to do with my origins. It boils down to :
 * - Apartheid as precise meaning and definition. It's related to officially segregating policies (there's no such policies in France, and the article don't pretends so) in South Africa (only).
 * - All the content and the sources of the article about france are about unrelated randoms catching journalistic metaphors about how there is some "urban apartheid" (sic) or "quasi-apartheid" (sic), etc.
 * - So the article doesn't tell anything about "Allegations of apartheid in France", but collects "Allegations of apartheid analogies in France". The present title is just wrong. It doesn't match neither the reality, nor article's content, nor article's sources.
 * - Aggregating every occurrence of such a metaphor from primaries sources (used for very different and unrelated aspects of french society and history) just constitute an WP:Original research. We can do this for every large country and with every sounding word like "nazi", "apartheid", "dictator", "fascism",... and it would be nonsense in all cases. That's why, for such topics, secondary sources (this article has none) would make a difference, and should draw the line between a notable subject and pure WP:OR.
 * - As stated by many "nationalists pov" frenchmen during the discussion, we can (should !) have articles about Social exclusion in France, Colonial history of France, Discriminations in France, etc., all with tons of serious secondary sources. So much for the nationalistic pride and blindness.
 * - I stated several times that I oppose all "Allegation of xxx apartheid" for the very same motivations (so much for the nationalistic focus).
 * So I support (but would prefer all articles deletion). Remember the example ? if we collect every press articles talking about "USA + fascism" we can do such an Allegation of USA fascism article with many many sources from serious newspapers. This is because journalists have a special rhetoric, not because the subject is notable.  But if we want to write something correct about that, we will choose a neutral, precise, factual (not metaphorical), fair and exact title about a related subject for which we have secondaries sources, rather than choosing the more catching inflammatory rant from an opinionated journalist.  That is encyclopedic to start with. Benjamin.pineau 09:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose What you are suggesting is surrender to the dictates of the Zionists in order to get them to agree to stop creating ideotic articles in order to prove a WP:POINT. I say once again let's keep these articles, in order to discredit their creatores and defenders and to expose their dishonest methods.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Each article should be dealt with on its own merits. Saying all should be deleted or none is not a valid argument. In fact, agreeing that the others were created to make a point against the creation of Allegations of Israeli apartheid shows the fallacy of this argument. If there is a problem with the Israeli article, then fix it but to create 10s of articles on other countries to try and find a way to delete the Israeli one is not the correct process but if it has been done then each one should go through AfD on its own merits → AA (talk) — 07:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd like to make a few comments regarding the "Strong oppose" comments above:
 * Bleh999, if I understand your point, you are mixing two different problems: on one hand we have a bunch of inherently POV articles which are a disgrace to our project (the "Apartheid in Switzerland" series), stemming from a conflict on "Apartheid in Israel"; on the other hand, we have a bunch of users who behave in a disgraceful manner. Te two problems are to be addressed independently. There are unquestionably problems with "apartheid in Israel". That these problems were brought to attention by unacceptable means does not alleviate the fact that they are problems. If you are uncomfortable with "giving in" to such behaviour, you can always open a WP:RFA on the affair to make it clear that we are acting upon the state of the articles, and not upon the shameful actions of few bullies and their stooges.
 * ابو علي (Abu Ali), I kindly suggest that you refrain from editing political articles on the Middle East. They obviously bring you to such a heat that you engage in statements which cannot possibly do you justice to your intelligence (unless you are a lemming).
 * You, your fellows and your pro-Israeli counterparts are one living incarnation of the problems with the articles on Israel. I really don't see why we Wikipedians should host the same hatred that is tearing the middle East apart.
 * Dear Rama, thanks for you comments. No one has ever accused me before of possesing any intelligence! And your observation explain why the pro-zionists have never gone through with their threats to ban me from wikipedia. They probably decided that I was such a liability to the anti-oppressors that I was worth keeping on.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * AA, most like with Bleh999, I mostly share your assessement of the situation, but I draw the opposite conclusion: all the dummy article are crap and should be deleted, whatever the circumstances of their creation. And of course the initial problem should be solved if we do not want the wiki-intifada to keep expanding to other articles (bring in Wikipedians in Leclercs with UN markings ?). Rama 08:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While in disagreement with your position in this issue, I can't help but laugh out loud at your highly evocative, incredibly witty comment: "Wikipedians in Leclercs with UN markings". LOL!--Cerejota 09:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tentative support. I believe this proposal has both merits and problems. On the merit side, I believe it would be a good idea to rename and refocus the Israel article to something more neutral - I'd suggest Segregation in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The other articles should not be kept, but they should either be renamed to something more neutral or - preferably - their content should (where necessary) be merged into other articles. However, the big problem with this is the nature of the objections to the Israel article. If you review the five previous AfDs on it, you'll see that its opponents oppose the article's subject matter, not just its title - they plainly regard the apartheid analogy as being so illegitimate that it shouldn't be discussed, regardless of how well documented or how prominent it may be. It's essentially a denialist position. They will no doubt continue to resist any efforts to discuss the apartheid analogy in a new article, even if it has a less inflammatory title. The root of this problem is that a group of editors have systematically disrupted Wikipedia for POV reasons and violated a slew of core policies - NPOV, OR, etc - then protected their own backs through acting as a block on AfD. There's absolutely no guarantee that reworking the Israel article will cause them to stop their misconduct. Ultimately this is something that's only likely to be fully resolved through an RfC and RfA to put an end to the disruption, in parallel with an effort to fix the Israel article. -- ChrisO 08:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well guys, whatever you do, I'm not interested any more. I'm amazed that I let myself be dragged into this cesspool in the first place. I've wasted countless hours on research, arguing, persuasion, and it took me a while to realize I was talking to a wall. (Wailing Wall?) I'm going to unwatch all related pages right now, and leave you play till Armageddon. This has been enlightening, however: for months on end, political cliques are allowed to create bullshit articles to prove a point, finally admit it, and they don't get outright banned? This shakes my faith in Wikipedia's self-correcting mechanism to the core. Looks like Stephen Colbert was right. Bye. --Targeman 11:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I too wish I hadn't got involved here, what a mess this page is. Bleh999 11:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Zionists have won the battle to keep this page, but at the expense of loosing the war by alienating increasing numbers of people. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason they haven't been banned is because it's not the kind of thing for which individual admins can block someone (see WP:BLOCK); it's a decision that would have to be taken by the Arbitration Committee. Also, don't lose faith in Wikipedia's self-correcting mechanism - it hasn't yet been fully utilised in this case. The next step will have to be an RfC and then referral to the ArbCom, as I can't see this being resolved without firm action being taken against the clique. Sefringle's uncharacteristic attack of honesty will at least make that easier to justify. -- ChrisO 12:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can believe I feel the same; as I said earlier in the discussion, *sob* Vhy, oh vhy can't eweryone yust get along?... Article is nominated by some passerby, editors focussed on that country rally and argue the article is a patent joke, the apartheid gang defend their turf, helped by editors that cast a casual glance blinded by the blizzard of sources, but offer to cede if "they all go". Eventually, the  "Brazilian", "Cuban", "French", and "Neutral" editors tire of the stalemate, and the article stays, continuing to increase the white noise background. I must say I admire their skills at disinformation warfare. –- Yeah, this is the wikiality and we have to face it. But I, for one, think we should not believe that debates about segregation/apartheid/ethnic separation in Liecthenstein or Iceland are as serious and equally merit their own articles and are the truthiness. As Rama says, the real world needs to send the White Leclercs!  --Victor falk 13:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Targeman's suggestion, I would happily revisit the title of the Israel article. I disagree with ChrisO that it could be renamed Segregation in Israel and the Palestinian territories, because it's not about that; it's about the highly prominent, multi-faceted, and ongoing national and international debate about a controversial comparison. That debate is not primarily about segregation. It's about everything from historical and ethical understandings of the conflict to the question of legitimacy and efficacy of boycotts and other grassroots activism to the pragmatics of international peacemaking (Adam & Moodley, et al). It's a topic unto itself, a remarkably coherent and self-referential one at that, and I don't think there can be any serious claim that it's non-notable. I would have no objection to using scare quotes or other well-poisoning words in the title, if that would satisfy those opposed to the article on ideological grounds. We could call it "Israeli apartheid" controversy for example, or even something cumbersome but perhaps reassuringly decorous and hand-holding like Controversial analogy between Israel and South Africa.

Because we're dealing with an organized disruption/disinformation campaign, we will almost certainly need some sort of "comprehensive" solution. Any proposal however that involves a straight up-and-down vote on all eight articles (or twelve, or fifteen, or however many it is that trolls will have created by that time) should be categorically rejected. Articles on Wikipedia are preserved or deleted based on their compliance with policy. They are not grouped into blocs based on irrelevant and idiosyncratic criteria like common use of a certain word in their title, and then forced to sink or swim together. Such an approach would be a monumental abuse of Wikipedia policy and an affront to common sense..

A "comprehensive solution" would mean one that acknowledges the proliferation of "allegations of apartheid" articles as a phenomenon, and codifies basic rules and standards about how to deal with them in keeping with basic WP policy. It would basically be a rearticulation of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV (esp. WP:UNDUE), etc., as well as relevant behavioral guidelines like WP:POINT, all with explicit reference to "allegations of apartheid" articles. It could settle the sorts of questions that formed the core of the debate in this AfD, such as for example whether an "allegations of apartheid" article, to be legitimate, needs to cite secondary sources establishing the notability of the allegations (as with the Israel article), or whether it's sufficient to weave a narrative around primary-source materials (as with the France article) – or even, at the lower end of the spectrum, whether it's OK to build an "allegations of apartheid" article entirely around sources that never mention apartheid or South Africa at all (as with the Jordan article). This sort of comprehensive approach would not say categorically, "only the 'allegations of apartheid in X' article is valid"; it would just lay down very explicitly what the bar of legitimacy is, not in terms of ad hoc or idiosyncratic criteria (such as what sort of subject matter is acceptable or whether a given word can be used in article titles), but in terms of core policy.

If a comprehensive approach like that fails, then I agree with ChrisO that the next step would be an RfC or an RfA in order to confront more directly the behavioral issues and gross violations of WP:POINT that have precipitated this crisis.--G-Dett 14:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take your word for it on the article scope - I'm not involved in editing it, so my own knowledge of it is limited. Your concept of a "comprehensive" solution with an agreed bar for inclusion is sensible. However, I'm afraid that by itself is unlikely to resolve this conflict, which is rooted in ideology. The clique responsible for these articles has already systematically violated core Wikipedia policies - what makes you think that they will respect, or even agree to, an informal agreement with no consequences for violating it? Recall also that in the previous AfDs on the Israel article, the clique has voted consistently to delete it - not merge, rewrite or rename, which is what the proposals above amount to. The bottom line is that they do not want any discussion of the Israel apartheid analogy, no matter how notable or how well-documented that meme may be. It's akin to global warming deniers wanting to delete the global warming article because it doesn't fit their ideological framework. There is simply no way of meeting that objective without accepting the proposition - completely antithetical to Wikipedia's goals - that some topics are taboo and mustn't be discussed. The only way around this is to address the behavioural problems at the outset, in order to ensure that the comprehensive solution you rightly call for can actually be enforced. The position we're in is essentially that a small number of extremists are systematically blocking the moderate majority. The extremists need to be sidelined - forcibly if need be - so that a good-faith solution can be found. -- ChrisO 14:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I keep hoping that because the notability of the analogy is copiously supported, that some naming tweak will satisfy the opposition, but you are probably right Chris that it won't. Your global warming analogy will raise hackles; my only objection to it is that it may reintroduce red herring/strawman arguments about the legitimacy of the apartheid analogy in the Israeli case, since most people acknowledge global warming.  I pointed out in a recent post that even if we take the dimmest view of the analogy, say, Jay's – that it's a mere epithet – then it's still notable, just as nigger is notable.  Simply put, with regards to the concept of "Israeli apartheid," the spectrum of legitimacy to illegitimacy runs from global warming to nigger, but where one places it on this spectrum has absolutely no bearing on its notability.  But you are probably right, a serious engagement with policy has been notably absent in the furore over Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and we may well need to approach this differently.


 * A clarification: the Israel article is wildly volatile and protean in form. My description of its scope was something of a Platonic ideal – that most un-wiki of things.  What I described is what the article's relatively stable sources support, what it has been at moments in the past, and what it could be in the future if it ceased to be a battleground.--G-Dett 15:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)