Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Saudi Arabia


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Apartheid in Saudi Arabia
AfDs for this article:  AfDs related to this article: Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid, closed as "keep" Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid, closed as "no consensus" Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination), closed as "no consensus" Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination), closed as "speedy keep" Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination), closed procedurally in deference to the ArbCom investigation Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)... Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination), closed as "keep" Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination), closed as "no consensus" Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (second nomination), closed as "speedy keep" Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination), closed as "keep" Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid, closed as "no consensus" Articles for deletion/Apartheid outside of South Africa - opened 5 Jun 2006, closed as "no consensus" Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (second nomination) opened 29 Mar 2007, closed as "delete" DRV 6 Apr 2007, closed as "overturn and relist" <li>Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination) opened 11 Apr 2007, closed as "keep" <li>ArbCom review opened 12 Aug 2007, closed 26 Oct <li>Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fourth nomination) opened 19 Oct 2007, closed procedurally in deference to the ArbCom investigation <li>Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) opened 8 Jul 2008, closed as "delete" <li>Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid, closed as "delete" <li>Articles for deletion/Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy, open <li>Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Bahrain, open </ul>
 * – ( View AfD View log )

In conjunction with 2 current AfDs here and here along with the recently deleted Arab apartheid, this is an outgrowth/byproduct of the consternation that Israel and the apartheid analogy is a well-sourced, notable, and perennially-kept article. What we have here is, again, a WP:POVFORK created by crafting disparate, off-mentions of human rights issues in Saudi Arabia and trying to frame them with the "apartheid" label with the mistaken notation that tis will birng about some sort of balancing NPOV with the Israel article. I would also note a 3 yr old discussion at Talk:Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid that resulted in a merge to Human rights in Saudi Arabia, but since there is really nothing substantively new in this article and no edit history to speak of to preserve, deletion is in order. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because it is a well-sourced and widely applied analogy. ergo, it is WP:Notable.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, POVFORK. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:COATRACK. Discrimination and apartheid are not actually synonyms, and the existence of a few conservative op-eds who don't care about that distinction doesn't rise to our sourcing standards. The only relevant section appears to be the section on women, which is actually copied without attribution from Gender apartheid. (Note: I do not propose a rename to "Discrimination in Saudi Arabia" or any such title. This title needs to be destroyed.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is a wonderful vital page. The great apartheid in S. Arabia is notorious. Especially anti non-Muslims policies and Gender apartheid You guys will excuse me if I am poorly familiar with wiki "codes". If POV stands for point of view, than it is no reason to delete. AS any allegation of apartheid today are a P.O.V. Especially Jimmy Carter's whose point of views in the M.E. are notoriously bias since his "handling" of Iran.Miraflores808 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Miraflores808 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. While there may indeed be discrimination in Saudi Arabia, this article is pretty much entirely synthesis. To justify its inclusion, we'd need to have some reliable sources attesting to the topic being one of general notability, rather than just some people apparently using the word "apartheid" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - previous delete opinions have said all that I would say. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - A POINTy FORK of Human rights in Saudi Arabia. The same editor is starting all these "Apartheid in..." articles and he needs to stop. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians have an obligation to apply the rules objectively' I am concerned that the dtandards, WP:N and WP:RS are being applied differently here than they are to Social apartheid in Brazil or to Israel and the apartheid analogy   For example, Roscelese removed a paragraph from this article, but not from very simlilar articles on Brazil and Israel. To me, the five articles, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Israel and Palestinian Authority share many similarities.   I would like some of the editors voting to delete to explain why an article about Apartheid in Saudi Arabia, where women and Christians suffer formal, legal restrictions, is to be deleted, while the article about Brazil, where there is no legal inequality, was kept Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a common error made by new editors, that some sort of balancing standard must applied to all articles to achieve true WP:NPOV, i.e. "if you have an article about bad things that X does then we must have an article about bad things that Y does, where Y is usually some cultural/national/racial/ideological rival of X. But how it really works is simply this; this is an encyclopedia, where articles reflect verifiable information, supported by reliable sources, and in accordance with the general notability guidelines.  If we can verify that reliable sources cover the accusation that Israeli actions are apartheid-like, then that gets an article.  If we cannot say the same about Saudi Arabia and apartheid-like actions, then that does not get an article.  Each is evaluated on its own merits; not in relation to each other. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT is only relevant to article content; this explication of how it relates to other rules is a serviceable argument for keeping the article. There is no rule at all about what balance there should be between articles. Anarchangel (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many, many sources analyzing and discussion the apartheid situation in Saudi Arabia.   More than enough to  make the topic is WP:Notable.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have made this claim several times yet fail to provide supporting evidence. What is in the article now...e.g. a feminist's 30-year-old book, opinion columns from newspapers, and the like...does not support this claim. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, merging if necessary&mdash;There is no reason to have separate Human rights in Saudi Arabia and Apartheid in Saudi Arabia articles. The content can be covered in the former and it is better kept together unless there is a legitimate reason to fork (such as WP:SS). That being said, there is plenty of scope for expansion of the human rights article.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you also support merging Social apartheid in Brazil to Human rights in Brazil and Israel and the apartheid analogy to Human rights in Israel?I.Casaubon (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrm, false dilemma much? As I stated earlier, support for one does not predicate support for another.  Each is evaluated on its own. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, false dilemma. Like stating that an article about one nation is a POV FORK of another. Except that his statement could be assumed (WP:AGF) to be rhetorical, where quoting WP rules surely cannot. Anarchangel (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The list of previous AfD results, which I took the liberty of adding as it was (already) in the related AfDs, is a record of consensus to Keep. I venture to say that the result to Delete Accusations of Arab Apartheid looks a little shakier for it. Anarchangel (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep So far, there are rationales to delete, none of which I accept. The article is well sourced and its subject is sound. Its title could use a tweak or three, in my opinion. It might save a lot of trouble if we could get a consensus on the title here, as title change discussions on talk pages are acrimonious on occasion.
 * The oxymoron POVFORK (oxymoron because everything that is a FORK (copy of original material) cannot be POV, unless the original article was POV). This is also a claim that an article about one country is a fork of another. FORK that, I say.
 * SYNTH, which claims two arguments from sources are combined to make a third argument. Which arguments these might be is not shown, only asserted.
 * COATRACK, which posits that something rests upon it. But what? Again this is asserted but not shown.
 * Nom implies and another editor has specifically asserted that there someone has disrupted WP to make a WP:POINT. For the sake of argument, there is no evidence of it here. However, there is never any evidence of it; like most of POVFORK, this rule has always been and will always be founded on an implicit belief in the power of Extra-sensory perception. Like a stopped clock, the fact that it is right once a day is not the relevant assessment of its accuracy. Its adherents count their success rate as do Water witches; on one hand, for the successes, and failures, not at all. However much I might use my imagination, I will never see evidence that this article is pointy; just suppositions and plausible frames. Anarchangel (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "POVFORK" is not oxymoronic, because "Fork" does not mean "Copy", it means "Make a different version of" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, because while its well sourced, finding a lot of sources that use a phrase does not make it a notable subject. By this logic we would create pages on "Chinese apartheid", etc., when these are obviously nicknames for particular human rights issues. In the case of Israel the analogy has gained a really huge significance in being debated so much in a way that it hasn't with these other articles.--Babank (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

*Keep - Article does meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above account has been blocked as the sockpuppet of a banned user. CJCurrie (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Improving the article I am adding material to the article, when I have time, but it had been my understanding that articles on Wikipedia are not required to be perfect, only that they be well-sourced, neutral in tone, and about a notable topic.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I have to stop working on this now (I have a life), I believe that editors coming to this page have an obligation to look not only at the article as it now stands, and it does meet Wikipedia standards, but to loot at the widespread use of the term apartheid as applied to Saudi Arabia and its systemic discrimination against non-Muslims, women and Shia Muslims. Because the analogy is in wide circulation worldwide.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. A clear violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Saudi law and policies discriminate against women, foreign workers, and religious minorities, especially Shia and Ismaili Saudis. That is not my "synthesis" it is the language cited by Human Rights Watch, the UNHCR and the Saudi NGO Human Rights First Society.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But that has nothing to do with apartheid. You have taken legitimate human rights groups' criticisms, placed them side-by-side with people like Dershowitz and Dworkin who name-drop the term, and super-glue it all together into "Apartheid in Saudi Arabia".  This could be the poster child example for WP:SYNTH once we're done here. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. You're taking sources discussing inequality and cobbling them together to advance the position that this is apartheid, which few if any of them actually say. Textbook WP:SYNTH.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a pretty broad consensus in the world that when you don't like somebody because of their ethnicity, race, religion or gender and treat them mean, that's discrimination.  But when you have actual laws whereby  courts and government agencies make one ethnic group into second-class citizens with fewer rights because of their ethnicity, race religion or gender, that's apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. There is only one apartheid, that of South Africa.  The Israeli apartheid article exists because notable and prominent people, organizations, and international bodies have compared Israel's actions to that of South Africa, it does not mean that Israel literally is an apartheid state.  That same threshold for significant comparison of the actions of Saudi Arabia to that of South Africa simply do not exist. A handful of activists writing opinion columns barely scratch th surface of the "Israel as apartheid" allegations. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarc, darling, either "There is only one apartheid, that of South Africa." or, just possibly, the word came from Africaans, but is now being applied to a wide range of cases, Brazil, Bahrain, Gender apartheid, etc.. You really can't have it both ways.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is routinely misapplied, as in your Bahrain article that is likely to go down the AfD drain along with this one. In other cases, if reliable sources have mad the comparison (note there is a gulf of difference between saying something is like apartheid and something is apartheid; with this and other articles, you appear to be supporting the latter) then an article may be viable.  There is, or was, only one apartheid.  There are several areas in which apartheid-esque actions are alleged to exist.  The sources supporting including Saudi Arabia being in this case are inadequate, as others have noted.
 * BTW, there's only one person in my life who calls me darling, and she tends to give a blowjob as she says it. So unless you are her, then please, no pet names.  Thanks. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does she, dearest? How lovely for you.  Listen, sweetheart,  you still have not addressed the fundamental question, which is: given that, as you say, "There are several areas in which apartheid-esque actions are alleged to exist." why can we have  articles for Brazil, but not for Saudi Arabia or Bahrain?I.Casaubon (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have addressed that concern several times now; "but but but Article XYZ" is never a valid criteria to assess another article, it has to be evaluated on its own merits. Your articles on Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the PA fall woefully short of what the Wikipedia requires for notability and reliable sourcing, among other concerns.  As far as I recall, I have never been involved in the Brazil article and cannot put forth an opinion at this time as to whether it is article-worthy or not.  I do note that the old AfD ran a solid keep, though the rationales were exceedingly weak and many of those "old guard" I-P editors are either blocked or long-retired.  Might be a good time for a 2nd AfD, with fresh eyes and a better appreciation of the subject matter. Tarc (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, in one corner, we have Tarc, who maintains that the term apartheid is misapplied when used for any country except South Africa, Israel (he's not sure about Brazil)  In the other corner, we have  Vali Nasr, Mohammad Taqi, Mona Eltahawy, Alan Dershowitz,  Patrick Bascio, Anne Applebaum, Mitchell Bard, Jonathan Raban,  Andrew C. McCarthy, Brian Whitaker, Ali Al-Ahmed, Andrea Dworkin, Khaled Abu Toameh and  many more  including Colonel Martha McSally who say that apartheid accurately describes the Saudi regime.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, Argumentum ad verecundiam. Quaint.  Also, while flattered by the prominence you have given me, I am not the sole voice of opposition.  I think though that I have contributed enough counterpoint to this and the other apartheid-tagged AfDs, and much more would just belabor the point.  I look forward to closure in 3 days time. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt as yet another obvious POVFORK and violation of WP:SYNTH. I.Casaubon, the article's creator, really ought to be sanctioned for persisting with this pointless waste of everyone's time. He knows perfectly well what the problem with these misconceived articles is, so there is no excuse for creating more of them. Prioryman (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I happen to believe that the government of Saudi Arabia is one of the world's worst, but that's not the issue -- the "apartheid analogy" in relation to Saudi Arabia hasn't reached a critical mass in terms of scholarly research and/or public commentary. I'll acknowledge there's more here than in the Bahrain or Palestinian Authority cases, but it's just not enough. CJCurrie (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Removal of evidence I object to the attention this removal of evidence by User:Tarc. To me it seems that he is entitled to express his opimion, but not to remove significant sections form the article.  Repeatedly.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have a definition of apartheid in every article that mentions it - we should link to Crime of apartheid, where it is defined. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LoL, "removal of evidence" ? What I removed is a section that has absolutely nothing to do with the article, as explained at the talk page.  I find it most curious though that after edit warring once again to jam it back into the Saudi Arabia article, you went and removed it from the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article.  Quite a dichotomy there, and quite wrong considering that UN officials have considered the actual question of whether Israel should or could be brought before the ICC for their actions. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On the advice of User talk:Boing! said Zebedee. As I explained on that article's talk page .  I am trying to apply the same rules to articles on Apartheid in Bahrain, Social apartheid in Brazil,  Israel and the apartheid analogy, Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy and Apartheid in Saudi Arabia.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet you haven't removed it here...--Cúchullain t/ c 15:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- User:I.Casaubon I.Casaubon (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt It seems like we're getting a new one every few days. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note There is an off-wiki effort to canvass editors here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:24, 9 April 2011 (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.