Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic


 * 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. Mr.  Z- man  05:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Here we go again. Just when Wikipedians had reason to believe the "apartheid" gamesmanship was finally over, along comes this page. This page was obviously created in response to the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and there isn't anything here that can't be covered under Antiziganism. Speedy delete, the sooner the better. CJCurrie (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Further Comment I would request that readers that note of the precedent set at Allegations of Chinese apartheid.  CJCurrie (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What precedent? There is no precedent. --Leifern (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that's an odd thing to say. In the case CJ mentions, there was an admin (who appeared not to have written many articles himself) who closed against the wishes of the majority of !voters, then offered no comprehensible rationale. Not something to emulate, on any level. IronDuke  01:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll admit that had some influence, but I found this in the news when I looked up Slovakia. Possibly I should have simply made an article on the European Court of Human Rights verdict. Or it could be a redirect or some such to Relations between ethnic Czechs and Roma, but that is specific to one nation. The situation in both nations is at times discussed simultaneously in the news due to historical relations. The dropping of "apartheid" would be fine, except that was the word used by some outlets.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Or you could have added the information to Antiziganism. There are any number of steps you could have taken, rather than re-opening the "apartheid pages" discussion.  (You are familiar with prior controversies on this front, correct?)  04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That refers to all Romany prejudices or concerns. I think there's enough specific to Romania or Czech or Slovakia to warrant some separate articles.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete & SALT: To avoid the inevitable problems that will surface. This is POV/OR.  Both countries already listed here and that is just fine.  Also, per the previous consensus on this sort of thing, which is here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above --lk (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Didn't arbcom already deal with this? Delete, salt, and refer the editors to the arbcom decision in question.  It could be a good-faith creation, but people need to be reminded of the recent mess articles like this have caused.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  07:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Arbcom did not "deal" with the issue. All kinds of accusations were made against certain editors, but none could be sustained. --Leifern (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not fully aware of the history. I knew of the Israeli article and that such articles were not to be done in a "tit for tat" manner. However this is not an allegation on an enemy of Israel or anything. In addition I assumed such articles would be allowed if reliable sources alleged a nation committed the "crime of apartheid" and that it's not purely as "revenge." (I am not particularly pro or anti Israel. I find comparing them to apartheid rather disgusting, but their government does many things I dislike and in some respects I think Zionism was a bad idea) The news article used the word "apartheid", as do others, and this seemed to be an allegation of a system of institutionalized racial/ethnic discrimination. I don't think the allegation sounds fair, in fact I think it sounds rather hyperbolic. Still that's the word they used and if apartheid is okay to allege of one nation I'm not sure why two is going beyond the pale. I might prefer "ethnic relations in the former Czechoslovakia" or something, but maybe that's too wordy or something.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleteand incorporate any relevant material into other articles. As I note on the article's talk page, the main source cited, a report by the Czech government to the UN Committe on the Elimination of Racisl Discrimination, does not even make, let alone establish, any such accusations. This article seems like a POV fork, and should be removed in this form. RolandR (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I was about to nominate this morning, glad to see it is taken care of already. This appears to be another point-making exercise, but also this time this info can already be found in a variety of places such as antiziganism, Allegations_of_apartheid, or Romani people. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for same reasons as other "allegations of X apartheid" per ArbCom, Centralized Discussion, et al. The subject and its sources may be treated in antiziganism, romani people, Relations between ethnic Czechs and Roma, or whatever article, as fit. --victor falk (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I understand now. These articles are not to exist excepting the one on Israel because it gets grandfathered in. It might have been nice to know earlier that it has nothing to do with whether you can source it, etc. (I replaced the source Roland talks about) Feel free to delete.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no "per Arbcom," as the Arbcom made no ruling or decision on this matter. --Leifern (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * T. Anthony, I don't think you do understand. This page is filled with incorrect statements.  The ArbCom did not decide that "Allegations of (nation) apartheid" were "not to exist", nor did they decide that the one about Israel should exist, or what its name should be.  The ArbCom does not make content decisions.  In fact, in the case in question, the ArbCom did not make any decision at all; they dismissed the case without a decision.  What a majority (I believe) of the arbitrators did say is that "false advocacy" on behalf of an article is disruptive.  Nobody said that you cannot create an article in good faith.  6SJ7 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to improve it some. It only started a few days ago or so. Although someone suggested to me it be renamed to be more like Segregation in Northern Ireland and that's not a bad idea. Although if deletion is preferred I don't really care either I guess.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: The only "gamesmanship" that I see here is by the nominator, CJCurrie -- and by Tarc, who previously "prodded" the article with a similarly obnoxious, accusatory, bad-faith-assuming statement.  If you think an article should be deleted, you are free to nominate it for deletion, with an explanation of what Wikipedia policies or guidelines have not been satisfied.  (Such as, "It's not notable", which I would probably agree with in this case.)  What you have done instead is to make just about the most blatant assumption of bad faith I have ever seen on Wikipedia.  The person who created this article was not involved in the arbitration or in the previous articles, as far as I know.  The fact that he may have known about the arbitration is irrelevant.  As I said in my response to one of T. Anthony's comments, the ArbCom never said that an "Allegation of (nation) apartheid" article could not be created.  (They didn't actually make a decision at all.)  I don't think any of the arbitrators said that.)  It looks to me like T. Anthony has not violated any policies nor any ArbCom decisions in creating this article.  It also looks to me like you (CJCurrie) -- and perhaps others -- are taking the ArbCom case, twisting around what happened, and using that false version of reality to intimidate at least one editor who has not been involved.  Perhaps the ArbCom would be interested in your conduct, which paints a false picture of what they did.  My suggestion would be that you withdraw this nomination and, if you wish, make it again, the right way.  6SJ7 (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This article had the same problems of notability that the others did, as has been noted. I figured a simple prod would have taken care of it quietly, and that the certainty (as many of your allies seem to have gone to ground during and after the ArbCom fizzle) of an AfD would just be prolonging the inevitable.  You seem insistent on tossing a hand-grenade into the proceedings unfortunately, with some rather wild conspiracy theories an accusations of bad faith.  Of course it goes without saying that the call to withdraw the AfD is groundless. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The use of "apartheid" might not be common enough to be notable and I concede that was an error on my part. However the issue of these two nations having or possibly having segregation is certainly notable. I've read about in the news for years and it's been the subject of court cases or political disputes.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wild conspiracy theories and allegations of bad faith"? Your prod tag said (in part) "This seems to be yet another in a long line of apartheid point-making, i.e.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid"  CJCurrie's nomination refers to "gamesmanship" and says "This page was obviously created in response to the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid..."  Who is making the wild conspiracy theories and allegations of bad faith?  Who is talking about "allies" and tossing "hand-grenades"?  Not me.  6SJ7 (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In fairness a discussion of the Israel article was when I first started thinking of whether other such articles should be done. Although I had no intention of doing one if I couldn't source or justify it and I gave up on the idea after awhile. Then I saw the news on some Slovakian situation. I love the defense of me, but I guess I did do wrong. I originally wanted this just to be on Slovakia in truth, but the two situations seem so connected. Still Segregation in Slovakia, with a link to Svinia, would've been better.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this nomination has to be one of the worst violations of WP:AGF I have seen. The nomination should be tossed out on that basis alone. Afteir dragging these spurous allegations of conspiracies all the way through arbitration without getting anywhere (except wasting a whole lot of time), CJCurrie is resorting to hallucinations as a basis for a nomination. --Leifern (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Talk about violating rules. Looking at the comments above, not too many people agree with you, and not a lot of people (who have commented) think the article should be deleted, and those comments are based on Guidelines and Policies.  Also, it appears you should be reminded of a few policies yourself, like WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL (telling somebody they are hallucinating isn't a civil thing to do, if it isnt a Personal Attack).  So, welcome to the AfD discussion about the article; Do you have any comments about the content of the article, or are you just here to comment on the contributers themselves? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read the nomination? The only argument related to the article is that the nominator thinks the information in the article could be covered in another article. Everything else is about imagined motivations of the editors. It's pretty self-incriminating. As for whether others agree with me, completely irrelevant. --Leifern (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. The apartheid analogy itself doesn't appear to be a subject of discussion among RSs writing about Czech and Slovakian discrimination against Roma.  That's the crystal-clear acid test for articles of this kind, whether written in good faith or concocted in bad.--G-Dett (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to just emphasize what’s been said above: there is no arbcom decision on articles of this type, express or implied, and anyone may comment or !vote here, edit this article, or create any such article as long as they obey WP policy. I can see how folks would be confused, but no, really, arbcom doesn't rule on content. I would disagree with Leifern and 6SJ7 that this needs to be withdrawn and resubmitted--the result looks like a foregone conclusion to me. They are right, however, to point out that paranoid intimations about editorial intent are not helping. IronDuke  01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What sort of "foregone conclusion" do you see here? There are a number of delete votes, no keeps, and some scattered vituperations about previous editorial clashes.  Why withdraw and resubmit?  Wouldn't it make more sense to speedy delete per WP:SNOW and common sense?--G-Dett (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, perhaps you misunderstand. The foregone conclusion of which I speak is that this article will be deleted. I believe that would happen even if the AfD were properly redone. I don't see the point of withdrawing and resubmitting it. Just let it run its natural course. IronDuke  04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, it was I who suggested that the nomination should be withdrawn. The suggestion is mostly tongue-in-cheek.  What I actually think should happen is that the closing admin should close this AfD as "No decision" or something like that, due to the statements made in the nomination, which have nothing to do with the merits of the article.  I know that this will not happen, but I can say it anyway, can't I?  The last time I made a "suggestion" like this was in response to a couple of nominations by... why, it was you, G-Dett.  And actually, some of your statements in those nominations (one of which went on for several paragraphs as I recall) were actually worse than those of CJCurrie in this one.  As I said back then, I do not think people should be rewarded for making obnoxiously-worded AfD nominations that are full of personal (or group) attacks.  6SJ7 (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you realize that your suggestion to close the debate will not happen. Also, you should notice the consensus that is building here.  As of this moment, there is no reason the debate would be closed as "no consensus" (which is the phrase commonly used). - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest "no consensus". At the moment at least, that would not be accurate.  What I am suggesting is that AfD nominations that are written for the purpose of spreading conflict and controversy, rather than just seeking a deletion of an article, should be considered invalid.  As the essay says, process is important.  6SJ7 (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "What I actually think should happen is ... close this AfD as "No decision"". Okay....I suppose you would like to see the article kept?  Is that why you are saying these things?  Also, you do not know the intentions of the nominating user, however you do have to AGF.  There is a clear consensus building here, so sorry, but whatever intentions the nom had, doesn't matter at this point. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can suppose whatever you wish, but what I said is what I said. I have not "voted", I have made comments and suggestions about the procedure that is being followed.  As for knowing someone else's intentions, take a look at the nomination.  The nominator made an assumption about what the creator of the article intended, and as it turns out, he was wrong.  As for "what matters", we shall see.  6SJ7 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: I feel particular consideration should be paid to the article's creator comments, T. Anthony, especially, and --victor falk 04:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah basically I go for renaming or deletion. Although possibly a Slovakia-specific article, as we have a Czech specific one, on Roma issues could be done. Still deletion seems preferred so if that's what's wanted okay. I just hope people here chill on each other as some above are getting overheated. I'm not any kind of activist for Roma, Israelis, or whatever. It just seemed fair and sensible to me at the time as I could source it, but no biggie.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see that the article Allegations of apartheid includes several countries with allegations of apartheid, and each of these needs expansion. These are serious matters that should not be ignored, and, being sourced and verifiable, they have their place in Wikipedia. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * None of them has the form "allegation of X apartheid", except israel. The others are called Bumiputra, Social situation in the French suburbs, Taliban treatment of women, Racial segregation in the United States, White Australia policy...--victor falk 08:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not true. There is Social apartheid in Brazil and Tourist apartheid in Cuba. -- Gabi S. (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep no arguments for deletion on content grounds have been made, including in the nomination. AfD is not the place for sorting out content disputes, and we don't delete because we don't like the title.  Tewfik Talk 11:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Read this page again, Tewfik.--G-Dett (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, only if you still don't see it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the content is acceptable but not the title, we move, merge, or rename --victor falk 01:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The name "apartheid" really was too inflammatory. Ideally there should be no "allegations of apartheid" article and hopefully the one on Israel can be renamed as well. I think a rename might be worth considering.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Tewfik, are you being dishonest, or did you just not read all of the discussions? The delete entries here make cite non-notabiity, POV, original research, among others.  Are those not "content grounds" ? Tarc (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This page was obviously created in response to the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid - CJCurrie (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't arbcom already deal with this? - Jayron32| talk | contribs 07:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This appears to be another point-making exercise - Tarc (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm being dishonest. If secondary sources do not support the title, then it should be renamed.  Tewfik Talk 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and there isn't anything here that can't be covered under Antiziganism. CJCurrie (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC) The content has been addressed, Tewfik, from the nomination on down.--G-Dett (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Barely, and only after the tirade of nasty comments. Nominations like this should be stricken on procedural grounds, and the nominator should be sanctioned for disruption.  6SJ7 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, a new Arbcom case should be opened to handle CJ's comment: Just when Wikipedians had reason to believe the "apartheid" gamesmanship was finally over, along comes this page. What a tirade!  I don't think I've ever read anything so disgusting and execrable; CJ should be perma-banned.  And the offended party, T. Anthony, should be blocked for a week for failing to be properly offended.  How dare he discuss the issues instead of hyperventilating.--G-Dett (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Was that supposed to be sarcasm? I couldn't tell.  I have teenage children, so it's the normal mode of discourse in my household.  As for the part about a new ArbCom case... well, I was made a "defendant" in an ArbCom case just for voting in a few AfD's, so I guess it doesn't take much get an ArbCom case started these days.  Misuse of the AfD procedure by using a nomination as a soapbox, as CJCurrie did here, and as you did a couple of times, seems a much better candidate for that sort of attention.  6SJ7 (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel some kinship with your teenage children. I'm sure you take it in stride and they adore you for it.  Your house sounds like fun, 6SJ7.--G-Dett (talk) 03:13, 27 November 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.