Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Delete - Stinks of POV, useless, non encyclopedic, propagadna... --Haham hanuka 08:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase) for the previous debate.

Keep - We've just changed the title of the article from "Israeli Apartheid" to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid". Indeed, it's very encyclopaedic. It may stink of POV, it may be useless as it may be propaganda but i am sorry to say that it is soo very encyclopaedic. -- Szvest 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I thought Bots are diff than regular users ;) -- Szvest 11:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes I think all Israel related articles are one, big POV fork... Medico80 11:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems well written and well sourced, referencing internationally renowned news sources. The potential to offend is not grounds for deletion, nor does it make an article unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not censored. The title of the article is "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". The text of the article proves that such allegations are a reality and asserts their notability. --IslaySolomon 13:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IslaySolomon. BoojiBoy 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article is well written and meticulously referenced, cited and sourced, I still think the article is inherently POV. One can find sources for people making allegations of virtually ANY position you can dream of, but does that mean they all deserve articles? wikipediatrix 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst you probably can find allegations of any position, this allegation seems to have come up a lot, and been made by many notable people and organisations (and more have either referred to or denied it). In my opinion, it's significant enough, verifiable enough, and messy enough that we probably ought to dedicate an article to it. - makomk 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IslaySolomon - makomk 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the second AfD, and it wasn't deleted last time. Plus, it's in arbitration. --John Nagle 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not in arbitration. The conduct of editors is in arbitration. ArbCom does not address content disputes (or isn't supposed to, anyway). Su-Laine Yeo 06:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about Allegations of of Ehud Olmert being gay or Allegations of Palestinian babies being used in traditional Jewish cat food. Fair and balanced, with citations and references, both sides having their say... 84.238.25.152
Delete - allegations of Israel human rights violations do merit articles (though one can always wonder the paucity of such articles about other states and regimes who do much worse), but the term "apartheid" is a rhetorical device that distracts from the real issue. --Leifern 16:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it survived a prior AfD — I'm no fan of this sort of propaganda, but as long as we have a Islamofascism page I don't see why we can't have this well-documented article. Plus the section on counter-arguments is useful and constructive for those wanting to counter such claims. — RJH (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, nobody talks about adding allegations in front of Islamofascism. -- Szvest 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The difference is that Islamofascism isn't about Islamofascism. It's about the term, how it was created, how it's used. This article is just a big rant on allegations of Israeli Apartheid and how the author(s) beleive that it's true. It's not encyclopedic. It's not NPOV at all. It doesn't belong here. --PresN 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Also, so what if it passed a previous AfD? That's not an automatic pass for all future ones, it just means it shouldn't be re-nominated again for a while. --PresN 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it would be better to retitle the article as "Israeli apartheid" and provide a neutral investigation of the term's historical usage. CJCurrie 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Leifern. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the current article seems to be infected with POV, the proper recourse is to correct it, not to remove the article. The allegation of "Israeli apartheid" has been made in various sources over a period of several years; there is no reason why Wikipedia should not document this usage (along with the debates surrounding the term), and every reason why we should. CJCurrie 22:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or else merge into another article, per my comments scattered through the many archived talk pages for this article. 6SJ7 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a little too much of a POV powder keg
Delete Way too much POV to ever be NPOV. --Wafulz 00:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Leifern. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep *sigh*, not again! POV problems can be fixed. At least the title isn't at "Israeli apartheid" anymore... —Khoikhoi 03:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has always suffered from lack of a coherent reason to exist and probably always will.

Under its original title it was defended as being an article about the political term "Israeli apartheid" but has always consisted of a set of arguments about whether Israeli apartheid exists.
Much of the article now consists of quotes from people who do not say Israel practices apartheid, but instead compare current practices to apartheid or say that Israel might some day practice apartheid.
Recently many facts have been added that sound scary in the context of this article, but does anyone consider them to be examples of apartheid? What is the 2005 Gaza withdrawal doing in this article?

Could one of the "keep" voters please explain, succinctly, what this article is about?

Furthermore, much as we have a well-meaning wish to help the reader understand whether there is validity to allegations of Israeli apartheid, it's not something that can really be covered in an encyclopedic fashion because the term "apartheid" in modern, colloquial discourse has no concrete operational criteria. (Yes, a definition of crime of apartheid exists, but if we restricted the article to that definition it would practically disappear.) You can have a coherent, NPOV article about whether Israel practices discrimination or genocide or war crimes or torture, because these are all well-defined terms. "Apartheid," as most of the sources used in this article use it, is a vague political insult. Su-Laine Yeo 06:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and merge any true human rights issues into Human rights in Israel As Sue-Laine eloquently said, this article has morphed and been changed to continue its survival so many times, that to me it seems apparent that its goal is more to disparage Israel than to inform as to facts.We now have an article for human rights issues, anything that is a valid issue should be (and likely already can be) found in that article. The current purpose of this article is now defunct, and it should be removed. Avi 13:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per 84.238.25.152's reasoning, I think it is silly for such allegations to have its own article. However, I think Szvest is correct that it belongs on Wikipedia. Just like various blood libels, it is used enough that it is a notable enough for inclusion. Where to put it then? Per Avraham, I think it sounds logical to merge the NPOV bits into Human rights in Israel. -- Where 15:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unsavoury subject, but a very real political discussion (or propaganda battle, if you prefer) of which neutral coverage is certaily encyclopedic. Do not merge into Human rights in Israel, because that article is too long already. Sandstein 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- any legitimate concerns about human rights violations should be dealt with in the neutral article on the subject, without all of the problems inherent in a title like this one. Tewfik^Talk 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV title, and it only gets worse. Someone needs to read WP:WTA#Article_title. FeloniousMonk 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we had this already. --tickle me 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article should have been deleted long ago.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. propaganda buzzword. -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this is actually an article about the argument that Israel is an "apartheid state" rather than an article trying to advocate or advance that argument, as some here argue, it hardly seems encyclopedic. If we have to have articles about every instance an epithet is used on someone in a new way (Ann Coulter's "church of liberalism" or 9/11 victims as "little Eichmann's" in the very recent past come to mind) wikipedia is going to seem less like an encyclopedia and more like a collection of badly written flamewars about topics that are ultimately going to be completely irrelevant. GabrielF 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Su-Laine and others. IronDuke 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not need articles based on an allegation or based on a viewpoint. Issues related to Israeli internal policy, society, culture, etc, can be explored in the related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Apartheid" is just a more pejorative rhetoric term for "Segregation". -- Heptor _talk 20:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it cannot be made NPOV like most "allegations" type articles: the selection of whose allegations of what about whom is inherently POV. If someone called Clinton a "pinko", or does the mere existence of the urban myth of how Clinton supposedly sought Soviet citizenship during his visit to Moscow, do we get to start Allegations of Clinton's communism, if someone claims that Muhammad's wife was under 18, do we get Allegations of Muhammad's child molestation? Don't think so...and yes, both allegations have been made. Carlossuarez46 22:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jossi. AnnH ♫ 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete der jossi. This is an attack page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has improved since I proposed it for deletion a few months ago and the title is now NPOV. fullsome prison 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46 abakharev 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per johnny cash. ReverendG 23:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. The original title was better; but this is silly politicing that just repeats the prior AfD with no new reason. LotLE×talk 00:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many times do we have to do this dance? "Israeli Aparthied" would obviously be more NPOV a title as that is the exact claim... His Excellency... 00:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course we should keep it. As previously discussed, the term is in wide use, there are weighty arguments supporting the usage, there are scholarly works using the term. And unfortunately, the phenomenon also exists. If I thought you could get rid of something by deleting the Wikipedia article, there's a lot that comes to mind. . . RolandR 01:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa Lacks available scholary information (see Talk:Israeli_apartheid/RS#Reliable_sources:_scholary_articles). Maybe better, rewrite under NPOV title (for example Israel en apartheid), focussing on scholary studies comparing the Israeli situation with South African apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agee with the others. --Daniel575 01:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Svest and RJH or merge per Avi and/or Kim van der Linde. heqs 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant way of framing the controversy. Fred Bauder 03:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete propaganda. Pertinent details on these allegations are already in the article Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa and also in Israeli West Bank barrier. It is POV and unencyclopedic to single out one country for special demonization, and the term itself, "Israeli apartheid", is novel and a neologism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with this assessment is that there's a tonne of recent literature on the subject from credible, academic sources -- some of it dating back twenty years. CJCurrie 03:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there? All the serious stuff I've seen has been about the way the term is used, or else discussing discrimination in general. I've not seen a single, serious academic source (i.e. a scholar who is employed in a relevant field in a university) argue that there's such a thing as "Israeli apartheid." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glaser, D. J. 2003. Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison. Ethnic and Racial Studies 26:403-421. (pdf available on request)
GREENBERG, STANLEY 1980 Race and State in Capitalist Development: South Africa in Comparative Perspective, Johannesburg: Ravan Press
AKENSON, DONALD HARMAN 1992 God’s Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press

Just to give three of the sources... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you cite (and you know this already) allege that there is such a thing as "Israeli apartheid," as I said above. That is the problem with this article. Not one academic source (that I am aware of) says there is actually such a thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. Uri Davis is an honorary research fellow at the University of Durham's Institute for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (IMEIS) and at the University of Exeter's Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies (IAIS)." That is from Uri Davis, article on the man who wrote "Israel: An Apartheid State". Based on the reasons being given I suspect that many of the people voting here have not actually read the article they want to delete. 62.156.190.36 05:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this was your first edit. Did you forget to log in? Su-Laine Yeo 06:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, you've said yourself ([1]), that none of these sources actually allege that Israel practices apartheid. What these sources do is compare Israel's practices to apartheid. Nuanced comparison is what scholars do. Reducing a complex situation into a slogan, like "Israeli apartheid," is what activists do. Su-Laine Yeo 06:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you talk about the term perse, yes you are correct. However, scholars do make comparisons between South Africa and Israel, and their conclusions are straightforward. On the title of the article, the current is POV, as it denies the scholary studies, but for the rest, I do not care abut the exact title, see my comment above. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP doesn't need this article any more than it needs Allegations of Jews drinking Christian blood. The info can fit very well into related articles, such as Israeli West Bank barrier and, well, Israel. POV fork. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete OR and POV magnet. The article is essentially about comparing the Israeli-Arab relations with South African aparthed. The comparisons are OR. Let's put out verified sourced statements about what exactly the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians and let the reader decide whether or not to draw comparisons to South African apartheid. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article here will give both sides their view. The term is widely used, and deserves thus encyclopaedic coverage. Bertilvidet 06:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not endorse them, but the allegations are often made. --Ezeu 06:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rename Israeli apartheid. As legitimate and encyclopedic as New anti-Semitism and Islamofascism. --Ian Pitchford 06:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evolver of Borg 06:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Merge or Rename - the title is perhaps not the best (perhaps something like "Ethnical discrimination in Israel" would be better), but in no way should the information be lost. // Liftarn
Strong Delete Israel-bashing bait Kuratowski's Ghost 09:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]