Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 23:57, 9 January 2024

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 MERCY KILLING this AFD. I suggest pursuing a rename and a rewrite, since it's very, very clear that there's no consensus to delete. (This deletion closing brought to you by the Judeoislamochristiathebuddhist Cabal, dominating the Earth for somewhere between 4001 and 4.54 billion years.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid[edit]

Posting on behalf of another user as follows: 1)Article fails to deliver the political neutrality championed by wikipedia. That in itself should be more than enough reason to delete. 2) It is politically biased. Article is thoroughly sourced, but article is overly-dependent on biased sources (like Uri Avnery). Article fails to deliver the balance necessary to be hosted on wikipedia. 3)The article has been in clean up limbo for more than a year, but nobody has made any real attempt to do a write-up. 4)The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed. The Arab minority in Israel are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. In the apartheid regime in SA, blacks could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population. The article has no room for this fact. 5)Segregation is debatable, but Allegations of an Apartheid is far too sensational. 6)Unfair voice. There is no "proponent" section. The article is one big slant and has no balance. I cannot emphasize this more. 7) Some of the original authors have been banned or disciplined for wikipedia violations, though I'm not sure how relevant that is. 8) The most recent nomination had a majority delete, though the consensus was none. Not sure how important that is, but thought I'd mention it. 9)All in all, I think it is a perfect candidate for deletion. I can't think of any other reason why it should stay other than the potential to be cleaned, which as far as I can tell won't happen any time soon. If I see some pursuit by other members to fix this article, I'll gladly drop my want to delete this article. thanks for the quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – I'm remaining neutral on this issue. My only involvement is to properly post the AfD request for Wikifan12345. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: There are two Arbitration cases that are relevant here as well: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nobody's worked on it, but that alone is no reason to delete. Neither is a PoV dispute. This article has gone through seven AfDs and was kept each time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Seven AfDs strikes me as resolving the issue for a good long while. People need to stick to working on the content of the article. Thetrick (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's POV, change it, it's not a valid reason to delete it. Nominator tries to explain why the allegations are invalid, but that's irrelevant to such a nomination, since the allegations have already been made, are citable, notable, and it's not up to us to decide whether they're right or wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Re: seven prior AfDs. This is a valuable article and your argument basically amounts to "it needs to be fixed, so delete it." -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Seven prior AfDs and two arbitrations. --John Nagle (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable subject. Many readers will search using the terms "Isreal" and "apartheid" to read more about this perspective. Content cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having read the article, I'd now say that the nominator's description is completely inaccurate. The article appears very well balanced and is an appropriate discussion of a modern debate. So ignore my "content cleanup" comment, this article is not in need of cleanup. The POV tag on it is mistaken, as they so often seem to be on contraversial subjects. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I disagree. The neutral tag had been on for several weeks with no prior edits. Today it was removed, and I put it back on. I've listed some very good reasons why the article is not neutral. Please give reasons for your findings. Also, I'll like to add that those who say keep, please review the reasons i listed why the article should be deleted. this isn't just a quality standard, there is something intellectually wrong with this article. plain and simple: it's biased, and blatantly. i dont see how you guys can shrug it off with "cleanup isn't a reason to delete". there is something more to this and i really wish some of you would accept that. pov isn't the only issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PoV is not a reason for deletion. Period. --Thetrick (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is propaganda not a reason for deletion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the article is propaganda? FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it possesses qualities that could be considered propaganda. Using Uri Avnery as a credible source is VERY alarming. But I'm guessing you guys just brush that off in the POV pile...right? I'm going through the article right now. I've already found one source that was used incorrectly.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what you should be doing instead of dragging out the debate here. --Thetrick (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing what? Shifting through sources?? Tell me, if this article is so reliable, so factual, so non-propaganda, why is it still rated in the start class? Clearly something is wrong here. Wikipedia is hosting a very flawed article, and nobody cares. It's loaded with fallacies, and on top of that, many of the sources don't even connect with the paraphrasing. What do we call that again? This is ultimately turning into my view verse your view, which is unfortunate considering the influence this awful article has on the internet. If only wikipedia wasn't so political, perhaps quality would top partisanship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone made protests against your edits on the article? No, so instead of complaining, go and edit it so it isn't POV anymore, that's how Wikipedia works. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, way to miss the point there. Didn't you just say the article was full of reliable and well-sourced material in the talk page? Nice.Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but that doesn't mean there aren't unreliable ones, That should be beyond obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "very good reasons" that the article is not neutral have no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, so they are not good reasons at all. Your reasons show no understanding of the neutral point of view policy. Please read the policy, and learn than it is appropriate for contraversial subjects to have an article on Wikipedia, so long as all perspectives of the discussion are represented. "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." That is done in this article. It is desirable for well-sourced opinions to be presented on Wikipedia, and for opposing well-sourced opinions to be presented where they exist, as this article does. This article shouldn't have a NPOV tag, let alone be up for deletion. The fact that some people would like to bury or discredit this subject does not make it any less suitable for an article, but it does explain the many failed AfDs, the incorrect tags, and the "start article" status. Contraversial subjects should be covered in full, with all sides discussed, without all the attempts to bury it in tags and meta-discussion, so that interested readers can become informed and draw their own conclusions. That it what Wikipedia is for. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Israel's self-appointed defenders on Wikipedia have been hammering away at this article for years; the resulting edit wars, often involving newbie single-purpose-accounts, have degraded its quality. Now the degraded quality is being cited as a reason for deletion. It's very tiresome. Anybody who thinks that we can't cite a veteran Israeli journalist and commentator because he's a post-Zionist leftie ought to explain why it's totally acceptable to cite lesser-known figures who are on the other side, or partisan advocacy organizations funded by the Israel government and aligned with radical Israeli nationalists. There may be good reasons to remove advocates from both sides from the article's citation, but that's another debate entirely. This looks an awful lot like somebody just trying to get rid of opinions that he doesn't like.

Edit conflict: See above comment of 06:04 GMT; he's actually trying to exclude entire ethnic groups that he doesn't like. Somebody speedy-close this debate, it's going nowhere. And ban the troll while you're at it, too. <eleland/talkedits> 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. --Thetrick (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, racial profiling. FunkMonk (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about Eleland. I'm honestly too tired to fight this. Clearly you guys want this more than I do. This isn't about opinions. This is about deeply flawed article that shows no signs of up. Most of you seem to agree that there is a problem, but don't really care enough about it. Perhaps because it satisfies your politics, or maybe you don't want to take the time. But this article isn't going anywhere, and you have just proved that. Thank you! And btw, I don't appreciate being called a troll. If anybody is a troll, it's you. Don't bate me next time dude. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Eleland, your user page speaks volumes. Appreciate the hate, man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now Wikifan has resorted to personal attacks two times in a row, not much left to discuss here I'm afraid. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I'm responding to attacks against me. How am I attacking? Wait, I get it. You're doing this to distract from the problem. Bate me and then spin. Wow, you're all just full of fallacies to do now aren't you? Funkmonk, Eleland, I appreciate your political affiliation. I understand. But let's keep this discussion on-topic, ok?!

[1][2]. Ad hominem attacks. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lol. I think we know this isn't going anywhere. I would like to see this discussion stay open but I'm not expecting a delete. You guys are too devoted in maintaining this article no matter how terrible it is. XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no one has contested your recent edits on the article in question, so go ahead and edit it until it pleases you, and quit wasting everyone's time. FunkMonk (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, way to double back there. Making baseless claims and then telling to be basically get out. Wikipedia at its finest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shweet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Here we go again; it seems that some editors are so determined to remove this article, that they will constantly tie us up in meta-discussions rather than get on with the task of improving Wikipedia. This is a balanced article on a notable subject; the objection is apparently to its very existence, rather than the content ("The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed"). The proposal is accompanied by racial stereotyping ("I see you belong to the Arab world wikiproject. Now I get it.") and baseless BLP smears ("Using Uri Avnery as a credible source is VERY alarming"). Avnery is a leading journalist and political activist in Israel, a long-standing editor of one of Israel's major magazines, he was for many years a member of the Knesset. You may not like what he has to say, but you can't simply dismiss him with a snide sneer. Is there no way to protect an article from this constant vexatious disruption? RolandR (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to authority much? Wikipedia is not about opinion. Whether I agree with his views or not is irrelevant. It's the fact that the author uses Uri Avnery as a balanced source is alarming. You say the article is balanced, which it blatantly isn't...it wouldn't be in start class if it were otherwise. You say it's balanced because you agree with, I say it isn't because I don't agree with. Get it? I've listed specific reasons why it isn't balanced. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a voice of partisan politics. This is just another wikipedia-sanctioned stab at Israel and is not encyclopedia appropriate. Perhaps in blog, maybe a biased newspaper, but not on wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little off-topic, I'm having trouble fixing the ref for the Nelson Mandel update (see SA views of Israel Apartheid). I have the source listed and it checks out, but I can't seem to fix the text correctly. Any help will be appreciated, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to last point: the memo is a myth, based on a journalistic satire. I've removed the text from the article, and explained this (with source) on the talk page. RolandR (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is now and always has been a POV-fork. The article itself barely addresses the subject - it is not a description the allegations but rather a list of them used to circumvent the undue weight section of the neutrality policy. We should not permit our policies and customs regarding the treatment of fringe perspectives to be undermined by the obfuscating expedient of prefixing article titles with the words Allegations of .... CIreland (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles like this that present a POV as an encyclopedic topic... inherently problematic. I am no expert on middle east affairs so I can only argue by analogy... but I don't create articles like Allegations that Senator Barack Obama is unfit to be elected President... yes it's a topic with sources and notability... but sheesh.--Rividian (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as repetitive nomination covering no new ground, to the point of filibustering. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My my, It's like déjà vu all over again indeed. Let's go point-by-point;

#1 - What is "political neutrality", and where is this a Wikipedia policy? Such a prohibition would gut pretty much any article on any controversial subject. If this was a kludgey reference to WP:NPOV

Are you asking what political neutrality is? I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Th article is slanted. Both sides are stated, but their is more emphasis on the opponents than the proponents. If you look at the introduction, it basically reads out why Israel is NOT an Apartheid state. But further reading is nothing but repetition. Overwhelming the reader with this ridiculous fallacies and absurd amount of sources (many of which don't connect with the source material...paraphrasing from no source is not wikipedia appropriate) 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#2 - The article is balanced by text from those who reject the analogy. Even if it wasn't, this is not a valid reason for the deletion of an article. See #1

This article goes beyond the analogy. It draws from mostly critics, while ignoring the many sources who disagree. We might as well have an article that says "Allegations of why Israel is not an Apartheid state. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#3 - The clean-up was reached a long time ago, just that the tag was never removed. the sections and paragraphs ans such are much more orderly and coherent than they were in the past.

I just spent 10 minutes browsing and found several critical errors. Most of you obviously agree with the article, so of course you don't look at the errors. And why is it still in start class? Read the talk page for more criticisms. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#4 - Article content is irrelevant to an AfD rationale. Take it up on the talk page.

How so? 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#5 - See #4

#6 - A completely untrue assertion. There are numerous parts of the article that contain counter-arguments of those who reject the analogy, and why they do so.

I'm not debating that parts of the article contain counter-arguments, but it ISN'T BALANCED. See #2 See #1 & #2. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#7 - An attempt at well-poisoning by casting aspersions on the article on the basis of who has created or edited it in the past.

Wait so now you're accusing me of fallacies? Whoa there. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#8 - The previous AfD was aborted after less than 24hrs, as there was an ongoing ArbCom case regarding editor behavior and the pointy creation of counter-allegations of... articles. The conclusion drawn that the previous AfD was a "majority delete" is a misrepresentation of the 7th discussion.

Wikipedia is very political. Many users aside from myself have expressed their disgust over this unnecessary article. It is pure speculation and is far from concrete. As I've said, it would be fair to have a "Why Israel is not an Apartheid State" because it would be in the same bounds as this one: Not neutral and not necessary. Do you agree? 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#9 - All in all, these are the same arguments tried in previous AfD and associated discussions, and they didn't work then either. The subject matter is notable and verifiable, and those are supported by reliable sources. That a controversial subject draws, well, controversy is not at all a reason for deletion. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated why the sources aren't reliable. And not only that, but many of the sources no longer work, some are dated, and some don't even connect with the paraphrasing. Meaning the author practically made up some of the info. Which is not surprising considering he was banned, so I'm he had a history of violating wikipedia rules. I'm not poisoning the well, I'm stating facts. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are stating, both in the initial rationale and in these piecemeal responses, is your own opinion. Not a single deletion rationale is based upon an understanding of actual Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:SK #1: nominating on behalf of someone else while not advocating the nomination. I know we're not a bureaucracy, but the SK1 rule exists for a reason. (I take no position on any other issue raised by this conversation.) Townlake (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Are we going to have to do this every time someone new comes along who doesn't like the article? CJCurrie (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously something is wrong if people are having issues with the article. You can't possibly think that the article is perfectly neutral (as you guys are portraying it has) while many people say nay. It's your political relationship verse ours. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, most of the problems that people have identified with this page tend to revolve around WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than serious discussions of its encyclopedic merit. CJCurrie (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Notability fallacy listed on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To CJ: The problem is that the very existence of the article is ridiculous and makes Wikipedia look like an anti-Israel hate site. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notice that nominator is more than eager to expand the equally controversial, but pro-Israeli and far less notable, Pallywood article[3], which represents a clear double standard. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nothing significant has changed since the 7th nomination, which decided to keep. 82.35.100.21 (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some serious refactoring has been happening on this page. Interested parties should check the history. Basically this whole discussion is a clusterfuck and should be terminated rapidly. <eleland/talkedits> 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not appreciate your language Eleland nor your personal attacks against me. Check the history for all you want. All I did was correct a source in the citizenship section. SORRY! XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As much as I support a speedy keep, I would like to point out that today and tomorrow are a religious holiday and observant Jewish editors will not be online until sundown on Tuesday (at the earliest). I think closing this nom early would result in valid complaints that the process was faulty. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but I do not believe religious concerns have a role in this discussion at all, any more than the suggestion that the discussion of an Islamic-related article should be suspended during Ramadan. We shouldn't take holiday around religious observances. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only suggesting that the discussion not be closed early so we can try to avoid a second round at WP:DRV. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rividian is right. Just because something is notable and has sources doesn't prevent it from being a POV fork. Obama analogy was nice. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a number of notable individuals (including James Carter and Desmond Tutu - both Nobel Peace Prize winners) have referred to Israeli policies as "apartheid", it is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia - regardless of whether or not you agree with them. An obvious keep. (Merge somewhere at worst, but don't delete under any circumstances.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appeal to authority much? Who cares if they're nobel prize winners. I'm sure you can some equally "awarded" individuals who say differently. I will that if this remains I'll be pursuing to create a separate that counters this one, because this clearly is an unnecessary an wikipedia-sanctioned political statement aimed at Israel. After all, it's only fair. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The article is one big ad hominem argument against Israel. There are plenty of better articles that touch upon the real issue and this one is just a pov form from those (such as Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Zionism and racism allegations, Human rights in Israel, etc.). --GHcool (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but I feel it's worth pointing out that the nominator (Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs)) has been a registered user for only two days and has only edited one article - namely Allegations of Israeli apartheid. With all due respect (not biting the newcomers and all that) I'm not convinced that he has had enough exposure to Wikipedia's policies and practices to make an informed judgement about the merits of this article. I don't think I've ever come across a two-day-old editor nominating an article for deletion before (and I've been an editor for five years). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'COMMENT ChrisO, I've told you, and many others, that I've been editing for over 6 months. Only recently did I register an account. Check my I.P. I would appreciate it if you would stop bringing this up. thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hadn't fully appreciated that. Apologies. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of how long the nominator has been editing Wikipedia, the point that their reasons for deletion don't display any understanding of the WP:NPOV policy remains. See my discussion above. "I don't think this should have an article because I think the argument is flawed" is not a valid reason for deletion. The debate is a highly notable social phenomenon, so it should have an article wherin the merits and flaws of both sides of the debate are be presented with reliable references. That's what the article does, and that's in keeping with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to "Israeli apartheid analogy". Frank Pais (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Frank. A renaming is a reasonable compromise (if this ends to keep). Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would strongly support renaming this article as "Israeli apartheid analogy". Would enough people support this as a compromise? CJCurrie (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was proposed on the article's talk page several months ago when there was a general discussion of renaming the article. There was no consensus for this proposal or a number of other proposals. I personally think it's worse than the current title for the reasons I explained on the talk page at that time. I suggest that you not confuse the issue of deletion (which, unfortunately, is going to be a fairly simple issue) by bringing in a renaming proposal that has already been rejected. It can be brought up again on the article's talk page, if you really need to see the same discussion repeated. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Renaming is a topic for another venue, but on the face of it I think that title is equally valid to the existing title and may somewhat pacify the people who see red whenever the word "allegation" is used in a title. It's unlikely to satisfy the "defenders of Israel" though, as they don't want an article with both "Israel" and "apartheid" together. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Defenders of Israel? What is your problem Paddy? You offer nothing to this article (as shown in the TALK and previous confrontations). Please stop with your personal attacks and hate. THANK YOU Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't contributed to the article or the talk, I wasn't even aware of its existence before I saw this deletion discussion. I'm not an interested party, I just sometimes comb through the deletion discussions making comments that I hope are based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, as many editors do. I have not made any personal attacks or hateful remarks. It would be naive to think that an article that may be perceived as putting a country in a bad light would not attract attention from "defenders" of that country. That's not something specific to Israel, it's almost universal. However the title should reflect the nature of the debate. This debate specifically links Israel and the concept of apartheid. Therefore so should the title, despite the likely objections, which was my point. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete the article is Wikipedia's best known POV push. It's evident that two arbitration cases have not helped to clean the content up, neither have the seven AFDs. I think two years is enough to make WP:HOPELESS a suitable reason for deletion (even more so as the article is, and I quote ATA, "so blatantly biased that it's an embarassment". Sceptre ^(talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:HOPELESS is part of an essay, and highly contentious. WP:NPOV is fundamental policy, and clearly overrides it. The article appears to cop a lot of flak despite being in a good state in terms of neutral presentation, hence the AfDs etc. To remove it would be censorship to appease people who don't want a notable subject described on Wikipedia because it offends their sensibilities. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We got images of Muhammad and the Pallywood article, what exactly makes this article different from those cases? FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No noticable loss of notability since the last AfD. Nomination for an 8th time simply seems to be a clear and disruptive violation of WP:POINT. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is irrelevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is the principal Wikipedia guideline used to determine whether a subject should have an article. Please read the guideline, it was written by editors like you and me and represents that current consensus on how Wikipedia should be edited. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep reading buddy, you're using notability as a fallacy. Just because it's notable does not mean it's valid, unbiased, fair, or balanced. I'm really getting tired of you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what you mean by "using notability as a fallacy", it doesn't make any sense to me. The main guideline used to determine whether a subject should have an article is WP:N. By the definition in that guideline this subject is highly notable and therefore it should have article. I believe the article is currently well balanced, but even if it wasn't that wouldn't be a reason to delete because it can be fixed. Please don't get personal with your "sick of you" comments, you're clearly fairly new to the deletion process and I'm trying to help you understand how it works. It works by taking into account arguments based on policy and guidelines. Your arguments are not, so they're going to be ineffective. There are articles about subjects I find very offensive on Wikipedia, such as Race and intelligence. I hate the argument discussed there (that race affects intelligence) but I support it having an article in Wikipedia. Notable social phenomenon such as these arguments should have articles, that's what the WP:NPOV policy says and policies are the core standards that Wikipedia is based on. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As they say: "It's déjà vu all over again". If anything the expression/allegations have just become stronger in the 2 years since this article was created. Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikifan12345 is actively recruiting (pro-Israeli) voters to this page; by last count he had left messages at around 14 different user-pages. Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is the WP:CANVAS policy and the contribs. --Thetrick (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This enervated propaganda is not an encyclopedia article. Hell, even the United Nations reverted its emetic resolution equating Zionism with racism -- we should follow their lead. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not recruiting anybody. I was making aware what was going on with this article before you shove this under the rug with a wikipedia stamp of approval. This article violates the foundation and reasoning behind wikipedia. Wikipedia should never be a voice of partisan politics. Heck, the title "Allegations of..." is completely ridiculous.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So yet again, why do you want to expand the Pallywood article[4], which has exactly the same faults as this one? Because it is pro-Israeli? FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the Pallywood article. You're the one that seems to be obsessed with the article: So how about you take a stab at it? Don't expect my attention when you blatantly lied about my unsaid opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing out the double standard of nominating this article for deletion due to it being controversial while wanting to expand the the Pallywood article (which is equally controversial, but is about a pro-Israeli subject), like the link[5] I posted showed you do. I don't give a damn about the Pallywood article itself. Quit fooling around. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm getting the distinct impression that many people who believe the article is invalid have taken this position because they believe the analogy is invalid (for instance, [6].) In fact, these are two entirely separate questions. CJCurrie (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the assertions above, Wikifan12345 was clearly engaged in canvassing as he left 13 consecutive messages on talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel/Participants (and none on talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine. --Thetrick (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when is it illegal to make aware of an important wikipedia happening such as this? It's only reasonable those editors who are most involved in this area of discussion deserve to know what's going on. Right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is clearly a dishonest argument given who you notified. Read Wikipedia:CANVAS#Votestacking. --Thetrick (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel is to notify editors who have an interest in Israel-related articles that an article is the subject of an AfD. I wrote above that I had listed this article there. Wikifan12345, further messages are considered unnecessary and inappropriate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Israel as an alleged apartheid state? there are a good few articles on wikipedia dedicated to the issue that are sufficient without pushing buzzwords. read the article apartheid and say Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations, Israeli-Palestinian conflict amongst many others that touch on the subject. there is really no connection. frummer (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments here. I recognize that many people oppose the analogy; that isn't sufficient reason to oppose the article. Note also that Frummer was canvassed by Wikifan12345 here. CJCurrie (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI did not canvaas anybody, at least not intentionally. I just wanted their OPINION, and considering they are the ones most active in this area of wiki, that's pretty REASONABLE. But thanks for the info. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doesn't seem to claim that any of what's stated is true--at the beginning of the article, it is explained that the subject of the article is the accusations themselves. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's always going to be a hotbed of anti-Semitism and religious warring. This normally doesn't matter that much, if there's a strong, neutral, sourced basline to begin with; we can always revert back to that. But in this case, it's biased and fails to give a reasonable view of a very sensitive topic. If it can be rewritten to be utterly neutral, arguments on both sides, fully sourced - without linking to too many websites attacking the Jewish faith, that'd be nice too. But unrealisitc. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Allegations of apartheid in the West Bank to address concerns of nominator regarding possible confusion with human rights issues within Israel proper. There are several noteworthy accusations of apartheid in the West Bank regarding roads etc, but to say there is apartheid in Israel (minus the territories) is just absurd. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support the renaming, however limiting the title to West Bank is not a smart move. The article touches on several areas, including Gaza, and the remaining territories where Palestinians inhabit. Second, allegations also go into Israeli Arabs. Which I feel is most absurd, since in several of the sections of the article support the fact that there is no Apartheid inside Israel. Arabs and Jews live in the country with equal rights. Heck, there is even an Affirmative Action Plan and policies that provide opportunities not government-sanctioned for Jews. Comparing an Apartheid regime inside Israel is not only false, it's intellectual dishonest. But that's besides the point. I supporting renaming the article "Analogies of an Israeli Apartheid". That seems more fair. However, I think this argument is not appropriate in this discussion. I'm still getting familiar with wiki rules, but someone mentioned that a deletion nomination discussion has no bounds in renaming the article. That's a completely different proposal...right? Apologies for my ignorance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm against renaming this Allegations of apartheid in the West Bank; and in any case, this is not the right place for such a proposal. Many of the issues discussed in the article (citizenship, personal status, family law, marriage law, land and infrastructure and much more) clearly refer to the state of Israel itself, not to the areas occupied in 1967. The article also notes the explicit comments of several activists, arguing that there is a system analogous to apartheid within the state. There have been several unsuccessful attempts to remove these; the suggested name change would enable this, and indeed would necessitate the removal of a large part of the article. Incidentally, why is the suggestion restricted to the West Bank; what about occupied East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip? RolandR (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could also have Allegations of apartheid in the Palestinian territories if there is reference to the same kind of thing happening in Gaza (I've only read about it in the West Bank) and as far as international law is concerned, isn't East Jerusalem recognised as being part of the West Bank (as no-one recognises the Israeli annexation). As for the Golan Heights, I don't believe anything of this sort goes on there (it is not mentioned in the article at all). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Articles like this are POV just from the way their title is worded. --Oren neu dag (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources used in the article directly discussing the topic of the article. This establishes the notability of this topic meaning that we should have an article on it. I do not agree that just because an article needs to be improved for a long time it should be deleted, we should inform the reader of the problems with the article with appropriate tags and keep trying to improve it. Davewild (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above keep reasons, the nomination is a POV as the article is accused of being. SGGH ^speak! 10:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similarities between apartheid and the occupied territories are obvious, and well-attested in reliable sources. None of the objections given by the proposer has any validity according to Wiki policies, as demonstrated by others above. Certainly the article can be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. NSH001 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has its problems, and it's doubtful whether a truly neutral article could ever be written about this topic - many would say that any article under the title 'Allegations of (something awful) against (somebody)...' is inherently non-neutral. However, having read the article, I'm convinced that this is a notable allegation (even though it may or may not be a totally illegitimate one; that's not for Wikipedia to decide) and therefore we should hve an article on it; and the fact that it's difficult to write a neutral article on the subject does not mean no article on the subject should ever exist. Terraxos (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I note a proposal higher up this AFD to rename the page to 'Israeli apartheid analogy'. I for one would consider that title a vast improvement. I think one of the biggest problems with this article is simply its title, which sounds non-neutral even if the article actually isn't; for various reasons, 'analogy' simply sounds more neutral than 'allegations'. Terraxos (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nothing substantial has changed since the 7th nomination resulted in a keep decision, ergo this 8th nomination should be rejected speedily. If there are issues about this article, they should not be being discussed or trying to be resolved here, but on the article's Talk page or in ongoing mediation processes. Bondegezou (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename or merge Merge or Keep only if renamed The analogy to Reasons why Barack Obama shouldn't be president is apt. A title like Criticisms of Israeli occupation or something would be NPOV, but putting the word "apartheid" in the article title itself is inflammatory. Regarding the concern that people will do a Wikipedia search for "Israel apartheid," just put in a redirect or something. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Weak keep This finding of fact from the arbitration committee changed my mind somewhat. I don't feel great about this (a title like this is a magnet for pov warriors of both stripes) but I suppose when a pejorative political term has become so widespread, there is no avoiding having an article about it. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as a POV fork, an inherently non-neutral subject, and a big collection of opinions that has no place on Wikipedia as a separate article. And as I have pointed out in the past, there haven't really been 7 (or is it 8?) valid AfD's on this article; they have all been corrupted in one way or another, starting with the article-creator's sockpuppet nomination of the article for deletion about one day after it was created. This one is already corrupted as well, because of all the people "voting" to keep on the basis of the past AfD's. I have no illusions that the article will be deleted, because Wikipedia's ability to deal with this kind of article is broken. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh; what article is it a POVFORK of? I'm getting really tired of people who make this claim with no understanding of what WP:CFORK actually says. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the renaming proposals - I don't believe AfD is the place for debating article naming or renaming; that should be article's talk page as it is a discussion of content, as it is not exactly related to the keeping or deleting of an article. I will mention though for those unfamiliar with this atricle's colorful history that feel the current one is inflammatory/non-neutral/etc, that past names have been Israeli apartheid and Israeli apartheid (phrase). The current one, though still open to further refinement of course as nothing here is ever set in stone, is the product of past compromise. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think in this case, renaming is a bit of a WP:HEY criterion. The article should simply not continue to exist with the current name. I revised my !vote to make it more clear that this is my intention. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep or keep (good cases for both positions have been made above). In essence don't delete or redirect or merge.Bless sins (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some notability, but it's too easy for it to degenerate into an attack piece. I'm not a fan of Israel, but that we forbid "Allegations of 'Blank' Apartheid" for all other nations (exempting Social apartheid in Brazil, which is not the same kind of thing) makes this seem like pointing fingers.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and rename Israeli apartheid analogy. The word "allegation" in the English language always refers to statements that could conceivably be proven true or false if all the facts were known; it never refers to contentious comparisons or subjective evaluations. It’s clear from the lede alone what the article’s proper title should be:

Those who use the analogy argue that...Several critics extend the analogy to include...Those who reject the analogy argue that...Addressing the ramifications of making this analogy 53 faculty members from Stanford University have stated: "The apartheid analogy is false and breeds conflict"; as for the analogy itself they conclude that...Some accept parts of the analogy...

Etc. etc. Misnaming this article has made it seem more deletable, not only through the general cheapening effect of a conspicuous linguistic gaffe, but also because you’d never have an article about rumors, hearsay, speculation, and so on.

But you would, of course, have an article about an analogy that has occasioned dozens of books (scholarly and popular), hundreds of articles, countless debates, and considerable, sustained attention from pundits, politicians, lobby groups, and the mainstream media.--G-Dett (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The suggested title has one issue. Apartheid is sometimes used as a description of a specific social system, per the crime of apartheid, based on South Africa's apartheid but independant of it. In that instance, which is described in the article, it's not an analogy that's taking place but a description. A change of name to "analogy" might descope the article to only discussing the subject in terms of an analogy to apartheid South Africa, not to apartheid as a general description or as an international crime, which would unnecessarily limit the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Ryan, but how much of the article is devoted to actual legal allegations? The majority of sources both pro and con refer to their subject as "the analogy"; very few – vanishingly few, if I remember correctly – refer to it as an "allegation."--G-Dett (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Israel and the United Nations section is about allegations, which is about 6KB. On the other hand, the section is also relevant to the validity of the analogy, so should still be in scope with the suggested title. Using "analogy" will soften the title, because the implication is that there is a comparison being made as opposed to a label being applied. This may be a little weaselly, as some commentors quoted appear to be applying apartheid as a label as much as an analogy. Comparing the degree or type of apartheid supposedly present in Isreal to the degree or type in South Africa is not an analogy, it's a comparison to a baseline. While the term "analogy" is used a huge amount in this article, it's only used a few times in the sources quoted and always by those who deny it. Reflecting on this, while I was originally happy either way I'm now inclined towards leaving the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To put it more succinctly, I've been looking through the writings of those who suggest that Israeli apartheid is taking place and I can't find anywhere that they describe it as an analogy. Those sources are making the argument, so if they don't call it an analogy then us calling it an analogy may be a mischaracterisation of their arguments. That softening mischaracterisation may be propogated by those who deny Israeli apartheid. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, I really think you’re mistaken about this. The opening panel at last year’s “Israeli Apartheid Week” in New York City was callled “Israel and the Apartheid Analogy”; everyone who spoke on that panel was a proponent of the analogy. Saree Makdisi (Edward Said’s nephew) spoke at that conference; his paper too was titled “Israel and the Apartheid Analogy.” In Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein writes that “the apartheid analogy is a commonplace in Israeli political discourse.” In a piece on “Desmond Tutu and the Apartheid Analogy,” the journalist Philip Weiss observed that “When Jimmy Carter said Israel was practicing apartheid in the territories last year, defenders ran to the parapets to boil the oil...Still the analogy won't go away. Alas for good reason.” Critics of the analogy also call it “the apartheid analogy.” If there are no more than a half-dozen genuinely neutral words in the English language, “analogy” might well be one of them. No one except Wikipedia refers to “allegations” of Israeli apartheid, because it’s a solecism and most publications have decent copy editors. You’re right that there is one narrow instance in which “allegations” would be appropriate – when reference is made to the actual crime of apartheid as defined under international law. But such references constitute only a tiny fraction of RS-based discussion of the analogy.--G-Dett (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, you've convinced me. If "analogy" is used by the proponents, then it being a softening is not an issue. The only issue is that allegations of the the crime of apartheid should stay in scope. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is essentially meaningless. "Allegations" are appropriate in a courtroom, not an encyclopedia. Let politicians and lobbyists make their case. What other state has an article devoted specifically to allegations that are made against it? Furthermore, this is just one of numerous allegations made against Israel. Perhaps each one should have its own page? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka and the United States both do. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As if on cue, Tundrabuggy provides an example of what I mean when I say that "misnaming this article has made it seem more deletable."--G-Dett (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Hopeless article. Delete and work on it in userspace until it can be certified as a Good Article. Bstone (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how a "hopeless" article can be brought to GA status by deletion. Infact, making it in userspace makes it far more inaccessible to users than keeping it in the article space.Bless sins (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the fact that this is now to its UTTERLY RIDICULOUS eighth AFD attempt. One doesn't get to re-run this until you get a result you like. That's abuse of process. FCYTravis (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staying strictly neutral on this, but given the repeated AfD nominations and dramas that have accompanied them, I think it would be reasonable to have a moratorium on future nominations. Once a year should be enough for everybody. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drama? You mean like if someone were to move the article to his preferred title three times in 23 minutes, using his administrative powers each time, helping to set off an arbitration in which he had to be "reminded" about the proper use of his administrative powers? Oh wait, that was you. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For best results, can we please focus on the article, instead of the editors? Thanks, El on ka 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete the accounts of the editors who keep screwing with this article and dragging it out to AfD. RomaC (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & a heavy rewrite. An encyclopaedia is here to report facts, in this case the allegations NOT argue the point. To be neutral the refutations should be included but that is it. On an article as controversial as this the highest standards are needed. All text should be cited sentence by sentence, and those sentences should be summaries of the sources points. Discussion interpretation & opinion are all the was of edit wars on a topic this hot. Most articles have some latitude but with the level of interest & passion involved here we can't allow it. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I can see nominating an article for deletion one or two times, but eight times? The second time this deletion was rejected should've been clue enough that this article belongs in Wikipedia. You should not get to keep nominating until you get the result you want. --Martin Wisse (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accusations that Israel is a type of apartheid state, and therefore guilty of the crime of apartheid have existed for decades now. I don't see any problem with having an article on the topic. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name of the article to Israel and the apartheid analogy after reading the discussion here becsuse I thought it was a neutral title and both sides would prefer it. Sorry that I jumped the gun. Strongbrow (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't particularly like the POV built into the title, but when you nominate an article for deletion for the eighth time, you need some good new reasons that weren't discussed in excrutiating detail in the previous AfDs. I don't see that here, so it really smacks of "I'll just keep trying until I get the result I want". Klausness (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the changed title, while not perfect, is an improvement. Klausness (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the article's been moved back to it's old title because I moved prematurely. Strongbrow (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is ridiculous. The argument thoroughly explains why Israel is NOT an Apartheid, but then continues to maintain that there might very well be an Apartheid. It's like someone is debating gravity. Sure it exists, but here we have two or three people who are high in the academia relm who think differently. Now there must be validity in the argument! Appealing to the authority is the #1 fallacy in this article. BAH! I'm just disgusted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, you might want to read WP:CALM. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, simply presenting the "anti-" side of the debate is an interesting attempt to support an AFD of the debate itself. However, what you wrote in opening the AfD is flawed in a few respects. In particular, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza can not vote for the Knesset, even though they remain under Israel's control, one militarily the other via an embargo. So, they are indeed denied suffrage, just like the way the bantustans were treated in South Africa. The way Israel reacted to the last election, where Hamas won, demonstrates that the Palestinian National Authority is not materially different from the toy parliaments the bantustans were given in South Africa either. As our article predates those recent events, the analogy usefully predicts this sort of behavior. While the analogy breaks down somewhat in Israel proper, the government allows for Jew-only ID cards and Jew-only housing opportunities, etc. which seem to have an apartheid-like goal. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Content disputes are not valid reasons to delete an article. What matters is if he topic is notable, if there are sources to back up the content of the article, etc. This is clearly the case, so there are no good reasons to delete the article. The fact that many people do not agree with what is writen in this article in the sense that they'll dispute the sourced statements, e.g. by Tutu, is totally irrelevant. If we were to take this attitude on wikipedia, then we would have to remove the articles on Homeopathy, Astrology, etc. etc.. Count Iblis (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - God forbid that Wikipedia let an article critical of Israel stay active. Keep it, simple as, it just need to be worked on. AWT (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons specified by the nominator, especially 1-6. Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's a well documented issue but rename to a neutral title like "Israeli apartheid analogy" or "Israel and the apartheid analogy". Strongbrow (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When this article was created it was put on VFD and a large number of articles like "Allegations of French apartheid", "Allegations of Chinese apartheid", "Allegations of Norwegian apartheid" etc. etc. were created by exactly those people who wanted to delete this article. In the subsequent VFD of these articles many people voted in the opposite way. So, the behavior of everyone here needs to be scrutinized to see if they are acting in good faith. Assuming good faith should not be the default attitude here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.