Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Apartheid outside of South Africa

I voted on the proposal as it stands; or rather on the multiple proposals, and tried to keep them straight. I am posting here to make a comment outside the confines of a specific proposal. What I think really needs to happen is, delete everything and start over with some sort of moderator in charge of guiding the development of the article, or else hand the whole thing over to some authority-figure and let them make a decision. I do understand that either of these would be un-Wiki-like, but that's really the whole point: What is happening here demonstrates that the Wiki process cannot handle this subject matter because it is too controversial and involves too many people who will not back down or compromise, nor can a consensus be reached either way on keeping or deleting a particular article. So as I (and others) have suggested before, maybe Wikipedia needs to recognize that some subjects are outside its capabilities. How to deal with that realization is another issue. There are several options: Don't have articles about the most controversial subjects; have them but allow some authority figures to determine content when the usual process fails; or allow POV-forking as (I understand) Wikinfo does. And yes, I do realize none of these things are going to happen. But there has to be a better solution that what we have now. 6SJ7 21:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I voted but now I do not see my vote and it doesn't show up in my contribs... I may not have saved it properly. Great, I wrote an explanation and now am going to have to re-create it...   6SJ7 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have posted this recommendation on at least 5 pages now. I agree in that I think things have progressed so far that maybe this whole set of related articles, AfD, merge proposals and moves and various WP:POINT and WP:AGF accusations be taken to Requests for arbitration and be settled properly.  We have two partisan groups that are fairly incapable of seeing things from their opponent's point of view -- thus debate between the parties doesn't work too well here and thus a mediator (or set) would be the best solution.  --Ben Houston 21:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Jay would have to resign from ArbComm altogether if they are to touch this. Recusing himself would not be sufficient given the depth of his involvement. Homey 22:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's very logical in my opinion for Jayjg to recurse himself and I think that Jayjg would quickly agree to that if the ArbCom did take it up. I do not see why he should completely resign though.  --Ben Houston 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise ArbComm members will be expected to work in the future with someone they are investigating and may have to reprimand. This is an untenable situation that would put all ArbComm members in a conflict of interest when considering this matter. Given Jay's involvement and his questionable conduct he would have to resign from the ArbComm altogether before they could assume any role here. Homey 22:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Give me a break, "Jay's questionable content"? are you kidding me? How can you acutally consistently act so hypocritical, it really cannot be good for you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Homey's suggestion is ridiculous and his motives obvious. 6SJ7 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily agree with you Homey on this. Recursal should be enough.  --Ben Houston 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose Jay would then have to recuse himself from any case being heard by an ArbComm member hypothetically hearing this case. If so he would be hearing virtually no cases from this point until new Arbitrators come on. I don't see an option but to resign. Homey 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If ArbCom is complicated by Jayjy then it may be useful to just go towards more straightforward mediation. I am inexperienced with these mechanisms in general.  --Ben Houston 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment
Why can't we just treat the Israeli apartheid article the way we have Islamofascism? I'd like to share some quotes from that article's talk page which seems to have had a similar discussion to this series of articles:

"How about merging this into a new article called Fascist (epithet).... --Lee Hunter 19:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)"

"Are these terms all related? Who says? Anyway, they seem to be about more than just fascism. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)" "Of course they are related. They are all instances of "fascism" applied strictly as an epithet to groups or individuals who don't consider themselves as fascist. "Fascism" is a vague enough term, at least in the public's mind, that, as Orwell says, you can get away with slapping it on anything that moves. I think your point that the articles are "about more than just fascism" is very relevant. The stuff that's "more than fascism" - terrorism, fundamentalism etc - is covered in excruciating depth and detail elsewhere. Tossing it in with the F word, creates the false impression that there is some connection.--Lee Hunter 20:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)" "Possibly. Anyway, this article has been up for VfD; the results of that process should be honoured. Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)"

Make of that exchange what you will ;-) I should also note the rather surprising finding Articles_for_deletion/Apartheid_%28disambiguation%29 that 'Israeli apartheid' actually has more hits on google scholar than Islamofascism --Coroebus 06:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Some editors keep asserting that refering to Apartheid outside of the South African context as an epithet is pov. I would say that that it hogwash. Of course it is an epithet, if people wanted to describe it in neutral and non-inflammatory terms they would not use the South African word for it. It is just a way to compare policies of a nation to the South African regime by using emotive and politically charged language. It is comepletely ridiculous to suggest it can be used in a npov way.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid exists as a crime under international law (see Apartheid in international law) and is therefore not restricted as a concept to South Africa. Items under international law are not "epithets". While apartheid may be used as an epithet when referring to situations outside South Africa it is false to assert that all incidents of using the phrase is an epithet. Similarly, you can use "war criminal" and "war crime" as an epithet but that does not mean that all uses of the term are epithets. Homey 17:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats different, using war criminal like you are using apartheid would be like calling every war criminal a "Nazi", if it was a neutral pov term you would use something from the speakers language.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Point is just because one person's use of "apartheid" when describing Israel may be as an epithet doesn't mean someone else's usage (say Tutu's) is also an epithet. When someone calls Henry Kissinger a war criminal is it an epithet? Maybe, but then again Kissinger can't travel to Germany for fear that he'll be charged under that country's extraterritorial war crimes statute.Homey 17:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the ICC has set out the meaning of 'apartheid' as detailed in Homey's link, then his use of it is exactly like 'war criminal' and exactly not like 'Nazi'. You may not like that they've defined it in such a way, you may not think it applies to Israel, but it really is more than just an epithet if they have defined it as a particular crime. --Coroebus 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Murder is a crime too, but if I keep calling someone a "murderer" isn't that also an "epithet"? Especially if they aren't a murderer?  6SJ7 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting we move murder to murder (epithet)? The point is just because a term *can* be used as an epithet doesn't mean every instance of it being used *is* an epithet yet Israeli apartheid (epithet) and the proposed Apartheid (epithet) suggest precisely thatHomey 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all, and the two articles you name suggest nothing of the kind. Murder is a thing, specifically an action.  Presumably, the article Murder deals primarily with that action and its consequences.  In addition, "murderer" may very well be used as an epithet, but such usage is not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia.  "Apartheid," used as an epithet against Israel, did warrant an article according to you, which I know because you created the article "Israeli apartheid."  You chose to give it a name that didn't include the word epithet or any other qualifier -- in fact, at first, you fought against even the innocuous qualifier "(phrase)".  Others found that unacceptable, and put in a qualifier, which eventually became "(epithet)".  I would be fine, by the way, with just one article on Wikipedia named "Apartheid," dealing with the apartheid era in South Africa, with no mention of your anti-Israel propaganda in that article or anywhere else.  But I don't think that's about to happen.   6SJ7 00:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I keep making this point, but it hasn't been answered by anyone yet, why is it only this Israeli apartheid article that needs qualification with (epithet), and not Islamofascism or New anti-Semitism? People are quite welcome to accuse Homey (and me) of bad faith editing and POV pushing, but motes and beams come to mind. --Coroebus 06:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The very first sentence in that article makes it clear that it is a political epithet, in fact it makes it more clear than the Israeli apartheid article does.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet it still isn't Islamofascism (epithet), which was rather my point. --Coroebus 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "New anti-Semitism" is not an epithet, it's a description of a phenomenon. You don't call something a "New anti-Semitism", or someone a "New anti-Semite". Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the motes and beams, I'd respond for by saying that it's pretty clear from just looking at the word that "Islamofascism" is an epithet, whereas "Israeli apartheid" sounds like it could either be an epithet or the name of a phenomenon whose existence is not disputed. It would probably be a good idea to add "(epithet)" to the "Islamofascism" title anyway, just to make it clear. That article has a lot of history and I don't feel like I understand the history well enough to suggest it myself at this time, unfortunately. Su-laine.yeo 05:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Article revamp
I've significantly revamped the article; it no longer contains information not relevant to the term "Apartheid", and hardly contains any information found in the racial segregation article. Instead, it contains information from reliable sources regarding various accusations of apartheid, or apartheid-like situations, in various countries around the world. While this is still a work in progress, this should help deal with the nominator's objections. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been an attempt to unilaterally merge Israeli apartheid into Apartheid outside of South Africa despite the fact that the discussion at Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa (and for that matter Talk:Israeli apartheid) shows no consensus for this move. I believe this attempt shows the true intent of recreating Apartheid outside of Israel. I also think it's unacceptable to blatently disregard process in attempting to merge articles when there is no consensus for this to occur. Homey 01:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the problem you had with the article was that it "duplicates (word for word for the most part) material in racial segregation." I think Jay did a good job of addressing the concerns you expressed. -- M P er el ( talk 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay changed the article so it duplicates word for word the entire article Israeli apartheid. How is that an improvement?Homey 02:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And instead you replace it with a duplicate of Apartheid??? That's a bit inconsistent. -- M P er el ( talk 03:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I put in a section from another article. You and Jay copied and pasted an entire article. Homey 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course the article (and subject) is strengthened by providing proper context. It's not a huge article, there's plenty of room in it for that Israeli apartheid (epithet) stub, along with the information about all the other countries.  The "International law" stuff didn't really fit, so none of the references there are from lawyers or court cases. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

While I certainly recognize that some people use the word apartheid to refer to a number of political and human rights issues outside of the term's original South African context, I'm not entirely sure that Wikipedia should act as though it is the normative term for those issues. YMMV, I suppose, but personally I think it would be far more appropriate to have one disambiguation page, starting with something like "The term apartheid is sometimes used to describe human rights conflicts on analogy with the original South African system of apartheid" and listing, under more appropriate titles, some of the issues where the term has been applied — but I don't think we should actually use the term apartheid itself in the title of any article which isn't specifically about South Africa. I'm really not sure, for example, why Israeli apartheid needs to be a separate article from Israeli-Palestinian conflict, why sexual apartheid needs to be a separate article from homophobia, etc. But again, maybe that's just me. Instead of making this a simple keep vs. delete discussion, would it be possible to have a more comprehensive review of the whole crop of non-South African "apartheid" articles to determine the most appropriate presentation of this stuff? Bearcat 23:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bearcat, I am in favour of a more comprehensive review. However, having that discussion right on this page could present some logistical problems, i.e. this page will be archived in a few days with a "do not edit" notice on it. May I suggest we move discussion about the whole set to Talk: Apartheid outside of South Africa? Also, was any action taken in response to the urgings to get this case to ArbCom? Su-laine.yeo 06:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)