Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Islamic apartheid


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete I note that a number of opinions also expressed that the content should be merged in to Criticism of Islam as the content appears to already be included in this article I have deleted and then created a redirect from this title.

A number of other articles were questioned in relation to a result here, they should be nominated with any issues addressed separately especially given the nature of the subjects and the obvious personal POV's that such discussions attract. Something that should be noted about some of these other articles compared to this, the article Crime of apartheid has the United Nations Definition of apartheid ''It defined the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." It mentions racially based acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial group from "participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country"'' under this definition an article where the allegations is a country ie Isreal, France, Saudi Arabia would fit within this definition. Gnangarra 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Islamic apartheid

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Some people are saying Accusations of French genocide against Algerians is not a neutral title and have nominated it for afd, allegations and accusations are both equally POV, I would like the community to debate this as well since both articles are based on recent opinions Bleh999 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge- Merge with article Criticism of Islam ChrisLamb 21:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge is there is any content that is mergeable. This article seems to be more of an essay than about specific Allegations that have been made. -- Jimmi Hugh 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  Comment-The section about discrimination against non-muslims should be merged with the Criticism of Islam article sine that articles section on the same issue simply has a sentence about "Islamic Apartheid" and the reader will undoubtly go to this article ChrisLamb 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, no merge considering the existance of Allegations of Israeli apartheid or delete all allegations of apartheid articles.-- Sef rin gle Talk 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sefringle. Jaakobou 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   — Sef rin gle Talk 02:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I now nominated Allegations of Israeli apartheid for deletion. (See here) If this article should be deleted, so should the other one.-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ALLORNOTHING? Why shouldn't each be considered on its own merits, especially since Israeli apartheid has already survived five deletion nominations. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is very POV pushing. Somehow it is neutral to have an Israeli apartheid article, but an Islamic apartheid article cannot exist? Either they both exist of they both don't. That is only neutral way to do it.-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget we still have Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid which is at least examining something specific rather than an entire religion --Bleh999 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I support keeping this article (see below), but it is absurd to say that either both allegations of apartheid exist or neither do. You wouldn't say that either both "allegations of Somali apartheid" and "allegations of Israeli apartheid" exist, or neither do...  If some allegations are notable and some are non-notable, so be it.  It's not our job to make sure both allegations are presented with equal force here if they're not presented with equal force outside Wikipedia.  Calliopejen1 09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Criticism of Islam per ChrisLamb. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete I'm not sure there is any useful material in here that isn't covered in other articles. It is ridiculous to say that if Allegations of Israeli apartheid exists, this should too; "Israeli apartheid" gets over 210k ghits, "Islamic apartheid" gets about 660. Whether you like it or not, one term is widely used and discussed, the other you need to look carefully even to find examples of people using it. Brianyoumans 05:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A better-constructed google search gets over 46,000 results, see below.


 * Delete' - Not a notable allegation. The Behnam 06:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a notable term for Islam. per Brianyoumans]. --- [[User:ALM_scientist|A. L. M. 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Whether or not other articles exist, this is clearly not a keeper. -- Simon Cursitor 14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete — issues already covered in Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam. The term is not notable either. → AA (talk • contribs) — 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- For the treatment of non-muslims part the Criticism of Islam article simply has a sentence about Islamic apartheid ChrisLamb 19:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep if WP wants to continue to report "allegations" and to use the term "apartheid" beyond its application to South Africa, its use in regards to Islam's treatment of women has borne the term, which between "Islamic Apartheid" and "Muslim Apartheid" gets a few thousand google hits, and seems to be used as an allegation. Carlossuarez46 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We don't currently have Allegations of Christian apartheid, but I think such an article could be created, imho if this stays the door is open for one on every major religion, how do you feel about that? --Bleh999 23:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create it, if you can find WP:RSes that use that terminology. I don't feel bad at all about it, if it can be done. I don't have to defend Christianity from its critics. True faiths never need defending. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The international media coverage referenced in the article indicate a level of notability suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.  PCock 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per PCock Arkon 23:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Criticism of Islam. There's some good material here, but it's inappropriately cast as "allegations of apartheid". This has more to do with a POV-pushing effort to "contextualise" allegations of Israeli apartheid than it does with the material itself. &mdash;Ashley Y 04:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - just as notable as other allegations articles.--Urthogie 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly keep and rename? This article seems to be mushing together two entirely different things, only one of which may be notable. I'm not sure about this concept of treating dhimmi badly or how many ghits an allegation of apartheid has to have to be notable, but "gender apartheid" islam gets 46,100 hits on google, which seems like a notable allegation to me.  Major feminist organizations seem to be using this trope to draw attention to the status of women in Muslim countries. (See, e.g., http://www.feminist.org/afghan/facts.html.) I might delete the stuff about dhimmi and rename the article to "Allegations of gender apartheid in Muslim-majority countries" or something similar. I oppose a merge, having worked on the women and Islam section of the criticism of Islam article.  When I was reworking things, I actually tried to merge it all in but moved it back because it seemed unnecessary to have a list of people who have called it "apartheid" for its own sake, because readers of "Criticism of Islam" probably don't care.  On the other hand, readers of an article specifically about allegations of apartheid would care.  Calliopejen1 09:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Criticism of Islam. This article doesn't say anything that isn't said there, plus the soiurces it mentions are weak (a few journalists for the most part).PiCo 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, google hits generally aren't worth anything, neither are WP:ALLORNOTHING arguments. there doesn't appear to be specific unanimity on the meaning/usage of the phrase either. much of it is simply a replication of the material in Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam.  ITAQALLAH   23:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep at least as notable as allegations of Israeli apartheid, although it might get a lot fewer hits because it's a little-discussed topic unlike Israeli policies. However, gender apartheid in the Islamic world is a well-known subject to most people. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you won't have any objection to the creation of Allegations of Christian apartheid, because Israel is state whereas islamic refers to a religion the comparison is not entirely valid, there are enough sources to create similar articles for other major religions however. Bleh999 02:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge with Criticism of Islam. This article's raison d'etre is to mirror Allegations of Israeli apartheid, but there are no RS-foundations on which to build the comparison.  Casual journalistic pieces, interviews and so on have used the word "apartheid" passingly and rhetorically to describe oppression of women and non-Muslims under Islamism, but there are no sustained scholarly, historical, or even journalistic comparisons between Islam and apartheid – only passing mentions, so the RS-context couldn't be more different from that of the Israeli case.  To call the result a quote farm would be an unmerited compliment, because farms involve things which are rooted and substantial.  This is more like a quote bouquet.  Wildflowers gathered in this way may please the picker but they invariably wilt quickly and die off the vine.--G-Dett 17:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Criticism of Islam. Obvious POV fork motivated by the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid. An Allegations of Saudi apartheid and Allegations of Iranian apartheid, if properly sourced and notable might fly, but to allege a religion - not a State - engages in apartheid is beyond any logical reasoning.--Cerejota 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OOOPS. Allegations of Saudi apartheid already exists, sorry.--Cerejota 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: An obvious phenomena in Islam, documented as well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Well documented fact that the Islamic treatment of women and non-Musims has been described as apartheid. Article is well sourced. Epson291 06:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete:per Itaqallah.--Flamgirlant 06:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Deletion of this article would be atrocious. Gender apartheid is an institutionalized reality in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and formerly in Taliban Afghanistan. Seeing as women constitute half of the entire human population, their legal, social and political disenfranchisement should garner the same level of outrage as racial apartheid did in South Africa. Despite its obvious sameness to that regime, however, it does not, and gender is not even recognised as being apartheid in the definitions of that crime in international law. Deleting this title would be an affront to the half of the population rendered sub-human by these regimes. User:Thalgs 10:54, 2 July 2007
 * Even on glancing at the other related pages referenced above, I think it's important to have this page as a stand-alone. Or, perhaps if there is to be any merge, the page should be retitled "gender apartheid". --[[User:Thalgs] 11:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment None of that is part of any Wikipedia criteria for deletion.--Flamgirlant 09:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - suggest you have a look at Sex segregation in Islam. Addhoc 11:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - a news search for Islamic apartheid produces 4 results, while a similar search for Israel apartheid produces nearly 400. Subject is covered adequately by Sex segregation in Islam, Women and Islam, Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam. If anything a new article on the Islamic cultural apartheid in France could possibly be created, however we already have sufficient generalist articles on this subject area. Addhoc 11:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge it seems like this is a touchy issue due to comparisons with other articles and the much more global turmoil in the Middle East. Some arguments above seem to touch on the idea of 'equality', in that since there is an article about Israel with the big "A"-word in the title, there has to be an article about the other side of the Middle East conflict that also has the big "A"-word in it or we aren't being "equal". However, wikipedia does not operate on the "give all POV equal weight" principle, we operate on the NPOV principle that says don't give undue weight. Unfortunately, the use of the big "A"-word in relation to Islam is less notable than the use of the big "A"-word with Israel. You can see from the Treatment of non-Muslims as alleged apartheid section that it is just a small collection of web links that happen to use the big "A"-word. (and come on, a blog is being used as a reliable source?) Plus, most of those stories are dealing with "Saudi Arabia" which, BTW, already has an article: Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. As for the treatment of women under Islam, this already has multiple articles: Sex segregation in Islam, Women and Islam, etc. I agree that the treatment of women under Islam is often criticized, and I agree that the term "gender apartheid" is used, however and article about the criticism of women under Islam should not be reduced to a single controversial term that not all critics use. I think we should discuss criticisms in the corresponding existing articles, in a neutral manner, and even mention the big "A"-word is sometimes used by critics. However, I do not believe a short list of people who use this word is notable enough, nor does it adequately cover the much more extensive treatment of the topic. Limiting an article based on whether a critic uses the big "A"-word or not is severely limiting the literature we cite. Finally, I also get a feeling that some editors do not want the Israeli apartheid article to exist, but since that has been unsuccessful 6 times in the past, it seems to them the only way to "get even" or "settle the score" is to keep this article. Look, we can all agree that the big "A"-word is used less in the criticism of Islam than it is in the criticism of Israel, and if you think the Israeli apartheid article should go, then there is no objective reason why this article needs to stay (sure, there are subjective reasons, but we should try to approach this situation individually, and not cite that "other crap exists" already). In summary, an article about Dhimmi can give more holistic coverage of criticism than an article that singles out critics based on the use of one pejorative term. I see no reason to fork out content based solely on the use of the big "A"-word, and therefore view this article as a POV fork.-Andrew c 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as all this info appears in other relevant articles, especially criticism of Islam, dhimmi, and Women and Islam. A comparison with the article on Israel is a canard because one is a political entity and the other is not. Jayran 06:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Articles should be about real things, not about political catchphrases or epithets (e.g. Flying while Muslim). And yes, the Israeli Apartheid article should be deleted for the same reason - although it is true, as observed, that in the war of epithets, this is more common. It is depressing to see that in so many of these AfD's so many (though not all) !votes are cast solely based on POV; this is easy to see by following a number of them and observing how editors effortlessly adopt the very same standards that their opponents used on the last one, and vice-versa. So long as the criteria remain so loosely defined, no doubt we will continue on this path of creating these articles and bickering about them as they are rightfully brought up for repeated deletion discussions, most of which will fail for lack of consensus, and persist as lasting reminders to readers that we aren't, after all, a serious academic resource.Proabivouac 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge POV forks are a bad thing. Jtrainor 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, no merge. Per Sefringle, and also, Islamic Sharia law and Dhimmi status, is indeed Apartheid for non-muslims and women. No one in his right mind can deny this. It's also a notable subject, and shouldn't be deleted due to religious censorship. EliasAlucard|Talk 04:22 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.