Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Of the previous four Afd’s, two were by sockpuppet accounts. The most recent nomination contained next to no arguments by an inexperienced editor and was judged as keep. The remaining afd was closed as keep due to the nomination being out of process, despite delete votes outnumbering keeps. As per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion I am renominating this article for further discussion.

Our aim is to explain complicated issues in an encyclopedic manner whilst attempting to be as neutral as possible. By having a page that discusses the Israeli-Palestine situation which is “Allegations of apartheid”, are we approaching that goal, or are we moving away from it? Are we creating a POV and content fork that aims to channel sentiment towards a certain conclusion that does not comply with the goals of a neutral encyclopedia. Does this title alone immediately distort analysis of a complex issue, and hence distort the content of the article itself making it inherently unencyclopedic and POV?

This article and other “apartheid” articles are nearly a year old. They have carried POV templates for much of their duration and have been in permanent dispute. Collectively the articles have been disputed by countless users – the majority in fact - from all corners of wikipedia and all political persuasions. Does this imply that wikipedia is succeeding in dealing with these topics in a satisfactory manner? Or does it show that these pages have failed to meet the aims of their creators and a change is necessary?

Some of the arguments presented in the past to keep these apartheid articles are that they are sourced, However we could source anything from Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state to Allegations that Venezuela is an emerging Communist dictatorship to Allegations that Belgium is boring. So that doesn’t wash. See...

• Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state
• Allegations that Guantanemo Bay is a gulag
• Allegations that Iraq was a Stalinist state
• Allegations that Venezuela is an emerging Communist dictatorship
• Allegations that Belguim is boring
• Allegations that the Catholic Church were nazi collaborators
• Allegations that Britain is a totalitarian state
• Allegations that Russia is a dictatorship
• Allegations that Bolivia is a totalitarian dictatorship

All of these articles could be as well sourced and as legitimate as Allegations of Israeli Apartheid.

Some of the arguments presented elsewhere have stated that this article is written with a balanced view in mind. Nearly a year of POV tags, heated disputes and numerous complaints from users from all corners of wikipedia tells a different story. People might argue that as it is a controversial topic - it will inevitably draw POV tags. But that should be a sign that we should redress our approach to these topics - not blunder on regardless with articles in disarray. When topics are under dispute - we should work hard to find solutions to these problems, not become entrenched in block votes and partisan game playing. As far as I can see, the game is up.

Solution: This article should be deleted. It is notable and important that we detail this issue which is that people refer to Israeli policies regarding Palestinians as “apartheid”. But there are neutral pages already created which can (and on some occasions do) detail and address this. They include;

• Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• Israeli West Bank barrier
• Human rights in Israel

At present I believe the structure of this article inherently fails WP:NPOV, and there is no solution other than to delete. The problems with this and other articles are not going to go away until this happens. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The most recent AFD was closed as keep on 4 April 2007, barely two weeks ago. I don't agree with the contention that poorly worded or otherwise dubious nominations imply somehow that WP:AFD has been unable to give this article a fair hearing. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I do. The nomination was generic - was applied to a number of disperate articles and made virtually no arguments for the deletion of this article. Events surrounding afds since April 4 on other apartheid articles means that it is time to reevaluate.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, it's becoming a distraction. I only noticed earlier today that 20% of the reliable sources have been disappeared from the article in the past month, apparently due to the actions of some rather clever vandal. With editors actively trying to make the article less encyclopedic on one hand, and others nominating it for deletion for being unencyclopedic on the other, it's getting difficult to actually maintain the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with Zleitzen. Speaking as someone who has now "voted" three times to delete the article in question (not counting this page, where I haven't voted yet, and the second nomination which was open for less than 40 minutes and was never seen by me or most of the other "involved" editors before it was shut down), I think the procedural irregularities involving the first four nominations have deprived the proposal to delete this article of having a fair hearing. The first nom was by the guy who started the article, under a fake name, only a few days after he created the article; the second was over almost before it began; the third was shut down improperly, in my opinion, with (as Zleitzen says) a majority in favor. The fourth was oddly written and was based on policies that did not really capture the issue, and was doomed because most people thought it was the fourth nomination, which it really wasn't because the three previous were not legitimate. I fear that this one will meet the same end, as it will be labeled the "fifth" nomination. I am afraid that Wikipedia is probably stuck with this awful article. 6SJ7 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. These are notable allegations; a Nobel Peace Prize winner wrote a book with an accusation of Israeli apartheid in the title. If they were merged, then either important information would be omitted, or the allegations would be such a large portion of the article as to represent undue weight. And I do think sourced, NPOV articles could be written on many of the subjects mentioned by the nominator as an intended reducio ad absurdum. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The details of the nobel prize winner's views are already detailed here in this standard article in a fashion that does not appear to be undue weight. So there isn't really a need for them to be forked into a problematic POV article here.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Crotalus was referring to the other Nobel Prize winner. But the subject of this article is neither Tutu's views or Carter's, but the thread that runs through them both and that is detailed in neither's article(s). Andyvphil 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. By its very existence this article is going to prove problematic, however as the above editor points out, by deleting the article Wikipedia is stating an equally WP:NPOV position. Sources: BBC [1] Jerusalem Post [2] Salon.com [3] and that's in a short persual of the available sources. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Is removing a POV/content fork stating a POV position?(which I presume is what you meant) And as written above, we could source Allegations that Belgium is boring using the BBC [4], etc if we need to. The fact that an article is sourced does not mean it meets core policies.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd agree with you if this was a pure POV fork, but I believe that it is sourced sufficiently independently that it isn't. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • That's not really the point though is it. Allegations that the Iraq war is a disaster could be independently sourced to the highest level, using numerous reliable sources and counter reliable sources that discuss whether the war is a disaster,[5] but it would still be a POV fork from Iraq War by its leading title.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC) [6].
• Keep and a few of the hypothetical articles mentioned might also make appropriate WP articles. The one on Belgium, for example, seems to be a notable cultural theme being used consciously as a stereotype. DGG 05:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the allegations exist, and have been made by some very prominent people. The previous AfD was barely two weeks ago, this is getting tiresome. --Ezeu 10:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. When a mainstream newspaper writes "UN accuses Israel of apartheid" ([7]), then the allegations are clearly notable, whether they are true or not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The reasons for nominating are not to dispute whether anything is true or not. It is to dispute whether this was an unneccessary content/POV fork that has damaged wikipedia. It obviously has. I have never edited a single article related to Israel, but when my routine edits to make Tourism in Cuba a good article began to be reverted because of this article - then there is a problem. The problem is that this a POV fork that has set a precedent for a plethora of damaging articles that isolate and slant an issue. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view : "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."-- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I looked at the three articles you claimed this was a POV fork of, and I am not convinced. The Human Rights article discusses human rights in general, not just the condition of the Palestinians, and the "apartheid" section is only a paragraph long, citing this as the main article. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict article is more of a historical article. The barrier article is about a specific structure. None of those articles covers what this article covers. As for POV, a NPOV dispute is not a reason to delete the full article, even though the debate can be vigorous and heated. I see a "criticism" section here which tries to being some balance in the article, and the whole thing is remarkably well-sourced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The reason why you are not finding details covered here in those article is because its already been forked to this article. Unfork it back to encyclopedic articles, delete this article, and end its impact on scores of articles throughout the site - which have taken the precedent that any allegations can be forked to their own article - and have only resulted in what someone above described as "tiresome distractions". -- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Zleitzen presents an articulate case on how the very existence of the article is POV and unencyclopedic, and additionally gives an excellent recourse for distributing legitimate sourced info in an NPOV way in more neutral pages. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Crotalus horridusRaveenS 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think there is a problem with Wiki policy when articles can just keep getting put up for deletion every couple of weeks. People who are implacably opposed to the existence of an article can just keep trying until they finally get lucky and manage to get a majority. I think an article should not be able to be nominated for deletion more than once in, say, six months. This nomination seems particularly gratuitous given that an AFD on the "allegations of apartheid" page, which is much less noteworthy, was just defeated by a 2 to 1 majority. Gatoclass 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The majority of keep votes on that article were made by Israel focussed editors who object to this article - but wish to retain balance by having the other article(s). So in this weird game that has evolved since the unfortunate creation of these allegations articles - and the clearly dubious shenanigans that have surrounded the previous two or three apartheid afd's - it is worth testing the waters again to see where consensus has shifted, which can change in the few weeks. The conspicuous absence here of Israeli focussed editors who have fought tooth and nail to delete this article is of note. And there is obviously a problem with wiki-policy when coordinated blocks of editors can swoop in or out of afd and unrelated merge debates based on strategies to affect the outcome of this article. As I've stated in the past, this isn't going to end until a satisfactory outcome is found that doesn't impact on unrelated non-Israeli articles - and as this article appears to be the locus of the problem, a solution needs to be found here.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What "coordinated blocks of editors" do you refer to, and when did they happen? Could it be that those "Israeli focussed editors" have accepted the consensus evident in previous AFDs? --Ezeu 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Essentially, "consensus" has broken down and been subverted on most of these afds. Whether the Israeli focussed editors have or haven't accepted whatever consensus you believe was present before - swooping in en masse to oppose unrelated merges and deletions of material referring to Latin America on the basis of their acceptance of decisions made on this article helps no one. Something is broken. And if people don't realise that it's broken or think that it isn't a problem, then perhaps they should borrow my watchlist of over 4000 articles. Then perhaps they'd realise how many topics and articles have changed in the year since this article was created, and what a bad precedent this has set. Vote to fix this damage to wikipedia. Not to compound it.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Well said. The continued existence of this article is an embarrassment...it makes Wikipedia look more like a propaganda fest rather than an encyclopedia, and it promotes the creation of other articles like it by setting a precedent. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this is an issue well-discussed in the media and elsewhere (see all the sources above). But move to Israel apartheid analogy as a more accurate name. —Ashley Y 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep The existance of this article shouldn't preclude covering anything in Zleitzen's Cuban Tourism article or elsewhere. If bad decisions have been made to that effect (give me a diff, Z) he needs to find some way to address that directly, because this process isn't going to do it for him. And he's wasting our time. Andyvphil 22:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no more direct way to address this problem than to call for the deletion of the article that created it. And having had more time wasted on this farce than most whilst researching and writing another article I hoped to raise to featured article status, I don't plan to waste anymore working on articles that are impacted by this article until this business is resolved. Interfering with editors' efforts to improve other articles is the real waste of time. You ask for diffs? Start your research here, and here's another "consensus" decision that looks more like a Cold war era UN vote than a genuine debate.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What you've cited is failed attempts to delete articles. What I asked for was some evidence that your "efforts to improve" Tourism in Cuba had been adversely affected. In the cites the worst I see you alleging is a denied direct redirect. Andyvphil 11:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • When you've been around long enough, and worked on enough articles to try and bring them to a half decent standard, you'll realise that people coming out of nowhere to revert routine edits and changing the context of material to suit some unrelated issue concerning a completely different country, then it is not helpful, and is disruptive. My goal here is to improve Caribbean and Cuban articles for readers. If I can't do that without an unrelated dispute concerning Israel having a bearing, and without a bunch of Israeli focussed editors swooping in to dictate merges and content based on something to do with this article, then there is a problem. Likewise issues concerning race in Brazil. If a proper debate on content cannot be had without it being part of a strategic game concerning this article, there is a problem. And it needs to be solved. - Zleitzen^(talk) 18:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, at least these are diffs, but they don't support your point. Looks like Jayjg came to your article to fix a link broken by a rename and thought the article should have an inline link from the paragraphs that cover "tourist apartheid" to the article covering the subject in greater detail, rather than just a note in "see also" at the bottom. So he added it, using the often confusing (and therefor inappropriate) "main" template. You had a bit of back-and-forth about whether or how to do it, and in the end he got the current "Further information:" inline cite rather than "Main article:". A very modist tiff, and the result looks right to me. Only your amour propre as "owner" of the article was damaged, not the article itself. I assure you that the resulting campaign more closely resembles Don Quixote's than Agamemnon's... your snowball melted long ago and your delusional quest is just wasting everyone else's time. And yours. Andyvphil 13:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
          • You may view the efforts to find solutions for problems surrounding these articles as Quixotic. But there is no reason why this deadlock will continue any more than other more entrenched deadlocks, which are resolved in wikipedia all the time, something you perhaps will learn with more editing experience. When this situation is resolved, we may return and review whether my "quest" has been "dillusional".-- Zleitzen^(talk) 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I'd first like to return to the subject of whether there's any problem that needs fixing. I've offered my interpretation of your diffs. That's what all this is about??? Andyvphil 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Zleitzen, you've said that the current allegations-of-apartheid mess, which originated with this article nearly a year ago, has resulted in disruption for the editors of Cuban articles. From looking at Talk:Allegations of Cuban apartheid I get the impression you are probably right, and it is noble of you to try to address the problem at its root, which is Allegations of Israeli apartheid. However, given the current bizarre climate in which the most vociferous critics of Allegations of Israeli apartheid don't even show up for its AfD (wtf?), it would probably be easier to more directly try to undisrupt the building of Cuban articles. Discussion to be continued at Talk:Allegations of Cuban apartheid. Kla'quot 04:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
                • • Update: The critics have shown up now. Kla'quot 01:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • I haven't revisited Allegations of apartheid in Cuba since the early phases of what had once been a blantant WP:POINT but the more I look at it this is a form of apartheid, i.e. a government enforce separation of two populations so the government can maintain its regime. It seems to go beyond the classic description of Club Med: a holiday in other people's misery. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
                      • Well that is what the fork suggests, however the situation is far more complex than that. Your conclusion illustrates how unsatisfactory these articles are explaining complex issues. They deny context and isolate situations from their structural causes resulting in a POV distortion. In situations like Cuba and Israel, where distortions for political reasons already complicate any representations, we should tread even more carefully.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Too many reliable sources. Why keep Allegations of Cuban, Brazilian and Saudi Arabian Apartheid? Has Desmond Tutu commented on those? The attempt to delete this article is a disgrace to Zionist editors that are a part of it.Kritt 04:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Read anything written by reporters who have the courage to live in Arab villages in Israel (Jeremy Cook among others) instead of those that never leave their hotel rooms in Tel-Aviv, have papers delivered to their doorstep and simply rephrase them. Lixy 17:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Why are we going through this for the fifth time? --John Nagle 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for whatever it's worth, per nom and per my comments the last few times, and many of my comments on the talk page. If I had to boil it down to one sentence, the problem is that the article is inherently POV and its purpose is to have an attack on Israel in the title of an article. Zleitzen is correct that this allegation can be handled in other articles. It does not need its own article. 6SJ7 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Political status of the Palestinian people as suggested by Fred Bauder half an eternity ago, and rewrite to address questions other than "Is it apartheid or isn't it?". I don't think this article is currently a POV fork, but it is question-framing fork. Per Zleitzen, "our aim is to explain complicated issues in an encyclopedic manner whilst attempting to be as neutral as possible." Kla'quot 04:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Political status of the Palestinian people is fine if it is about Politics of Palestine. This article is about the Apartheidish nature of Israeli politics. --Ezeu 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I would support a move as well. I recall Fred suggesting a particular name that I thought was acceptable, but I got the impression that nobody was interested, since as far as I remember, nobody said anything about it. 6SJ7 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Zleitzen, I sympathize with some of your concerns. Some folks here probably think that the "allegations of Israeli apartheid" should stay because it documents an important and notable critique of Israeli policies toward Palestinians. As shown in a recent analysis[8] I did of article bias though, far from doing so, the page is so one-sided as to read almost like an advertisement for Israeli tolerance and high-mindedness.

It's for that reason apart from any other that I've sometimes thought deletion would be the best course. The problem though, is that doing so effectively reinforces bad behaviour. If editors are to be rewarded for petulantly sabotaging articles they don't like, or by creating multiple examples of WP:POINT, where does it stop? After "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", which page will be targeted by such tactics next?

What I'm saying is that I think there's an issue of principle here. If the allegations themselves are notable enough to warrant their own page - and in this case I believe they are - then one cannot agree to deletion just because some editors apparently can't restrain their desire to try and undermine it. Gatoclass 05:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Keeping an article that about which one thought deletion would be the best course, so that purported behavior of allegedly Zionist editors is not rewarded, appears to be a violation of WP:POINT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doright (talk • contribs) 22:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

• • Hello Gatoclass. I haven't followed the discussions on the talk page of the Israel article. But I have no doubt that there has been an element of WP:IDONTLIKEIT about proceedings since the creation of this article. However, I imagine that the concerns of many people including the Israel focussed editors is that this is simply too complex a situation to be framed simply by the rhetorical pejorative itself.

• • In this round of debates (4-5 I think), there have been several interesting suggestions, concepts and ideas thrown around. Although I have lambasted the original creators of this article elsewhere, and continue to take a dim view of the WP:POINT activities that have sprung up in its wake, the motives behind each of these acts is understandable in a certain light. Even if they have resulted in this unsatisfactory scenario. The people above who are complaining about this afd wasting time are missing the point of the debate and discussion process, and the concept of gauging the mood of involved parties. There has been much food for thought on how to proceed. The over-riding conclusion, of course, is that we do have to proceed. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 06:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's an insightful comment, Gatoclass. AfD, whether for one article or all articles at once, does not address user conduct issues. RfC is a better venue for curbing the WP:POINT problem. To the pro-Israel editors I'll say this: We have a series of one-sided articles which make other countries such as Brazil and Cuba look as heavily criticized and apartheid-ish as possible, while great efforts have been made to downplay the analogy as applied to Israel. This is, for any reader smart enough to see what's happening, actually bad PR for Israel. Kla'quot 06:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Whatsmore, as noted in previous debates, the volume of available media which will analyse or counter the credibility of these claims about Israel far outweighs that of poorer nations. Meaning that in some cases, there is no possible way to find reliable sources to counter various random, speculative, propagandistic comparisons to apartheid. So whilst Israel editors were able to draw from a deep well to add to the article described above, an editor attempting balance on (say) Latin American subjects is scrambling around in the dark with a broken article that cannot be improved or balanced. There should be no surprises that this Israel article is now 80% in favour Israel. If you create and support an article that is poorly framed and is essentially set up to be a list of sources using a rhetorical pejorative - or in my view: people shouting in room - it should come as no surprise that the people who shout the loudest are the most often heard. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Personally, I think that at least some of the newer "allegations" articles could be deleted just on the grounds of non-notability. It's hard to see how an article on "Brazilian apartheid" can be justified just on the basis of a couple of throwaway quotes from someone. By contrast, there have been numerous books by qualified academics written specifically on the subject of Israeli apartheid. "Brazilian apartheid" deserves a few lines in the umbrella "allegations of apartheid" article I guess, but an article of its own? Gatoclass 16:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - as I said on the 4th nomination... "A bad faith nomination without a leg to stand on, as there is an abundance of sourced material in the article. The problem is POV-pushing, which in itself is not a reason for deletion." Lately, the article has been virtually assaulted by a handful of bad-faith editors. What is really needed is a wholescale reversion to ~Mid-March, and begin again. Tarc 17:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, you represent another user who hasn't addressed any of the problems surrounding this article, merely believing that as something is sourced, it meets policy. This assumption is false as borne out by numerous arguments here and elsewhere, and has been proved by ongoing deletions of inherently POV articles since wikipedia began. What is really needed is a solution to end these problems, not compound them.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't put words in my mouth, son. What I "represent" is someone who is tired of agenda-pushers who simply cannot stand to see this properly-sourced article exist, and are doing everything in their power to get rid of it. POV is not a reason to delete an article. Period. Tarc 13:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - it is clear that Israeli apartheid exists. even if one doesn't agree, the issue is still very relevantDean Sayers 19:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense and you're an ignorant. Please be familiar with South African apartheid as a political and legislative segregation tool before you make such allegations. --Gabi S. 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete' "the very existence of the article is POV and unencyclopedic: - I have said this a year ago and was banned from the article. Zeq 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge 2 or 3 paragraphs into Allegations of apartheid. Zleitzen is correct in challenging the notion that just because something is sourced, it meets policy -WP is not a soapbox. <<-armon->> 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While WP:SOAP forbids "propaganda or advocacy of any kind" it specifically allows that "an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." -- Kendrick7^talk 22:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It's clear the "attempt" failed. <<-armon->> 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well the Allegations of apartheid article is no better than this. In fact it's even more slanted and poorly designed so I don't think that is a solution. The absurd article only survived a deletion review due to an effort to portray it's deletion as "out of process", followed by strategic partisan vote stacking in the second debate. I'm beginning to favour the creation of Political status of the Palestinian people in Israel or something similar, which would have indepth analysis of this "apartheid" - accompanied by wider coverage of the difficulties faced by Palestinians in Israel.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The problem is that there is a significant faction of WP editors who feel these allegations are notable. Despite your cogent arguments, I seriously doubt this article will be deleted. I suggest the merge as a compromise wherein the editors who feel this topic simply must be addressed in it's own article can write a short neutral description of the allegation. But I doubt that will fly either. <<-armon->> 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to favour the creation of Political status of the Palestinian people in Israel or something similar - Zleitzen

Comment In theory not a bad idea I suppose, but in practice, the vaguer the topic, the more subject the article becomes to bloat. This is especially true, I find, of articles on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, where everyone seems to want to have the last word.

I guess I might support a change in name of the article if a suitable name could be found, but I can see a name like "Political status of the Palestinian people in Israel" soon turning into a content jungle. Perhaps "Human rights of Palestinians under Israel occupation"? Something like that might keep the focus reasonably narrow. Indeed, it would probably enable getting rid of all the material in the article that is currently devoted to the apartheid analogy within Israel itself, which might be an advantage.

At the same time, it would allow for a seamless expansion of content into areas such as property law, home demolitions and other Israeli practices which may not strictly have been used in the apartheid analogy itself (although I'm sure they have been). Perhaps there could also be a companion article entitled "Human rights of Israeli Arabs" or "Human rights of minorities in Israel" dealing with the situation there.

Before I'd agree to such a name change though, I think it might be useful to have some sort of agreement with the regular pro-Israeli contributors about the content and structure of such an article. We really do need to avoid as many acrimonious disputes as we can manage, and a prior agreement might be a good way to achieve that. Gatoclass 01:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the Human rights of Palestinians under Israeli occupation idea. Note that we already have Arab citizens of Israel which covers much of what's in Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Kla'quot 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Grief, that Arab citizens of Israel article looks gruesome. One line paragraphs, dispute tags dotted around, and a vast, Joycean, Allegations of discrimination section which mirrors many of the themes of this article. I've had a look at a few of the more political Israel articles since this affair began and some of them just look like the aftermaths of an editing apocalypse. No wonder editors have appeared so jaded and cynical in these debates having to face those articles on a regular basis.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are so right Zleitzen! I have argued for an end to the claim-counterclaim format that so many of these articles finish up as, because the results are about as encyclopedic as watching a spat between two badly behaved children.

I think a lot of the mess that persists in these articles could just be fixed by everyone agreeing not to put counterclaims immediately after claims, but instead having totally separate for and against sections, wherein each faction gets to put their own side of the debate at length and without interruption.

On second thoughts, there probably *are* viable reasons for putting criticism directly after charges in some circumstances. The problem is that there's too much of it and it's done in a totally haphazard way. It's just that it's very hard to think of a way to fix the problem *other* than having totally separate sections. Gatoclass 05:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I describe these articles as being like being stuck with two people shouting at each other in a room. Just rubbish!-- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because User:Zleitzen's arguments make a lot of sense. The word "apartheid" should never be used in any context except as it applies to its point of origin, South Africa itself! Apartheid was a unique form of racial segregation that existed in South Africa. It was not called "Nazism" (a unique political ideology in itself) and it was not called "Fascism" (although it had elements of it), but Apartheid a unique Afrikaans word that captured that ideology's origin's and connections with the Afrikaners who created it in South Africa ONLY! -- and NOT all Afrikaners supported it either, such as the famous Field Marshal Jan Smuts. (To really understand Apartheid's uniqueness, one would need to know more about Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd its chief proponent and architect, who eventually also became South Africa's Prime Minister democratically elected by the white electorate -- and how many supposedly well-informed and intellectual people have even a shred of knowledge about all of this?) The trend to play fast and loose with these labels and specific political terminology is recent and in this case is clearly meant to besmirch Israel and reeks of antisemitism, plain and simple. Let's take another example, such as Nazism, which is identified strictly with Nazi Germany and the Nazi Party and with any group that called itself by that name or wished to be openly combined with them, such as one sees in Category:Nazi parties, BUT at no time does any rational and reliable scholar call Spain under Franco Nazi Spain or his party the Falange as the Nazi Falange, no matter how many similarities there may have been. On the contrary, care is taken by NPOV writers and scholars to clarify that while the Falangists and the Nazis were Fascists, yet the Falangists are called Falangsist and not Nazis. Similarly, Italian fascism is not called Italian Nazism and the Fascist National Party is not called the Nazi Fascist National Party or the Nazi National Party (no matter how many times Hitler and Mussolini got together and even signed treaties) because true scholars and historians do not play fast and loose with terminology to score points. Likewise, another of the closest of the Nazi's allies, Imperial Japan is not called Nazi Japan and they are not accused of Allegations of Japanese Nazism (no matter how wicked they may have been to other nations) simply because as scholars it is to our advantage NOT to mix labels and start "cursing out" those we dislike, as it does not help us in our quest for understanding, through accurate description and explanation, as to what the true nature of each movement and nation really was or is. Thus, in this case, articles about so-called "allegations" of a "Apartheid" attributed to any state or party, not just Israel, make Wikipedia look silly and manipulated, and serve only to confuse and politicize as propaganda vehicles like so many pawns without brains not helping to create any clearer understanding of the unique issues and struggles that upderpin the complex and unique Arab-Israeli conflict and its sub-set, the equally complicated Israeli-Palestinian conflict which are the two true neutral model names for articles connected to them, see Category:Arab-Israeli conflict and Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's time to stop the reckless tomfoolery when it comes to abusing and bandying about the term Apartheid, and put it back where it belongs: in its South African cage ONLY! Thank you.IZAK 09:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• • The word "apartheid" should never be used in any context except as it applies to its point of origin

• • Fine, but that is only your opinion and not the opinion of the numerous reliable sources who have chosen to use it in other than the original context. There are numerous academic books and articles devoted specifically to the subject of Israel as an apartheid state, and many more which make the comparison in passing, which means that Wiki is amply justified in recording the phenomenon. Gatoclass 10:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Gatoclass: Sure, and there are also many so-called "academic books and articles devoted specifically to the subject of Israel" that call it a Nazi state (which opens the door to the likes of Allegations of Israeli Nazism) or a Fascist state (should we welcome: Allegations of Israeli Fascism?) or that Jews, with Israeli Jews at the helm, control the USA government via the Zionist Occupation Government (so does that mean that Wikipedia should merge Politics of Israel into the Zionist Occupation Government article now?) Or how about the fact that Israel is accused of "genocide" should we also include Allegations of Israeli genocide? Let's face it, Israel-haters and Israel-bashers are plentiful out there. There are even many Israelis and Jews who are self-hating enough to think that they need to self-flagellate in the media and in academia, but it's fine, Israel is a democracy and allows it, unlike Russia which is now systematically killing journalists, see List of journalists killed in Russia or China's policies, such as Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China and then forces Yahoo! to snitch and then arrests dissidents (see, case of Wang Xiaoning) yet there are no articles (yet) about Allegations of Russian persecution or Allegations of Chinese oppression. At any rate, the "just because others say it and use it" argument does not always work, and often defies reality and simple logic, since at one time or another all sorts of groups have come up with their own ways of slandering Jews and now its Israelis to boot. There are even plenty of people out there who believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (concocted by the Czar's secret police, later publicised and printed by Henry Ford, and nowadays pushed and spread by the Saudis and their ilk) is a very "good book" and is "100% accurate", so does that mean that Wikipedia will soon see articles about Allegations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Israel or Alllegations of Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the United States or wherever Jews live? Somewhere the line needs to be drawn between fact and outright propaganda. IZAK 11:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • If Tutu and Carter and many prominent others had made Allegations of Israeli Nazism the subject might well deserve an article, or, better, Allegations that Zionism is Racism with "further information" jumps to one or both child articles as length and due weight grounds make appropriate. So, the allegations are slurs. But notable slurs. Shouldn't Zionist Occupation Government exist? Andyvphil 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Andy: Tutu and Carter, are no friends of Israel, and they have no right to coin any negative phrases that border on slurs and blood libels against Israel or Jews, and no responsible people should accept them and certainly not support or propagate them. As for Zionist Occupation Government, it has as much right to "exist" as does Untermensch and Übermensch as long as it's made perfectly clear just how toxic those concepts are and just how delusional people must be to believe such sick stuff coming from feeble and prejudiced minds (note, that Tutu and Carter are ardent Christians, so whatever they say is biased automatically.) No-one in their right mind would propose that just because there are powerful and notable venomous snakes in the world so therefore they and their venom should become the "gold standard" by which to judge anything of value and importance to this good world of ours. IZAK 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
          • But Tutu and Carter didn't coin it. The article documents usage going back to 1967, at least. If you didn't know that maybe the article needs to exist to inform you of that history. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not reason to delete. Andyvphil 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Tutu and Carter are among its chief promoters. In 1967 nobody but extreme left-wing radicals may have first used it, together with calling South Africa "Nazi" and a "Reich" and Israel was called Lord alone knows what after it hit the devil out of the Arabs in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 until 2006 when Hizbulah was dealt a defeat, none of the name-calling was accurate nor did those labels help further the rational political dialogue then and subequent understanding. Do we want to claim to "understand" things like babies whose minds were controlled, then by the Kremlin and now by radical Islamist agitators and their far-leftist cohorts on Western campuses and the media? You know what, the only thing "I don't like" is ignorance and lies, oh and have I mentioned that I don't like Israel-bashing and anti-Semitism? IZAK 08:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: IZAK's comments above, Crime of apartheid demonstrates that the term is used in contexts beyond its point of origin. Bondegezou 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Africa's Apartheid was only a replica of what Canada did to it's Aboriginal population, and Israel simply looked at these techniques and replicated them. So their is a connexion to 'Apartheid' and it is an appropriate lable. --Mista-X 19:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or change name--yidi 11:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete --YoavD 11:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete article as per IZAK. The wide use of the word apartheid around the globe doesn't justify its misuse that belittles the human rights violations and atrocities that existed in South Africa. In contrast, while there is a 'conflict' between Palestinians and Israelis, there is no systematic discriminating apartheid policy. The allegations of apartheid exist, but a) certainly don't deserve a seperate article, b) I don't think that 'allegations of...anything' should be on WP. --Shuki 12:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete or have it renamed or perhaps include a paragraph in Arab-Israeli conflict or somewhere else. There are no points of comparison between apartheid and the policies carried out by Israel in its own country regarding its own citizens. First, apartheid is a term defined by afrikaners, in an afrikaner-against-black context, which is WAY different to what happens in Israel. Blacks had no right for a passport and could not even vote in Apartheid South Africa. There is only one parliament in Israel, in which arabs, druze and jews all vote, sometimes even for the same candidate! If an arab woman is pregnant, she is attended by jews or arab doctors alike, and in the same hospital a jewish woman go. There are no "vir gebruik deur joods" (for use only for jews, in afrikaans) signs on beaches, trains, buses or supermarkets in Israel, if I remember well! And still, can any of this possibly have occurred under apartheid? Of course not. The comparison is really offensive --JewBask 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE and replace with REDIRECT to Arab-Israeli conflict. -- Olve 14:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Mainly per Croatulus horridus. The allegations are notable and well-sourced. The best thing to do if people don't like the allegations is to go through and find reliable sources that explicitly counter them(my impression is that there are many of them). I must also register my extreme displeasure about how many of the opinions here seem to be distorted by peoples political opinions and not by Wikipedia policy. Dean Sayers' comment in particular is so POV that it isn't funny. JoshuaZ 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Changing opinion to delete given Zleitzen's comment below and other comments. I still am disturbed by the large amount of POV on both sides that is being interjected here and still see Sayers' comment as the most blatant and worst example. JoshuaZ 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think we've established that the claim/counter claim format you endorse is a very poor way to write encyclopedia articles. And is certainly not working in this context. Not to mention the systemic bias it injects into issues if people start viewing apartheid as a series of claims against a variety of subjects, some of whom - such as Kazakhstan - obviously do not have the quantity of coverage to counter any random allegation made in some Western website. These articles demand editors act as combatants or lawyers in defence of the accused rather than act as collaborative writers working to explain a complex issue. The results on these page demonstrate that these methods are not good enough. There are good, illustrative ways to write about complex issues, these are used all the time in wikipedia. Why endorse this failed method?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is mostly a collection of single-sided political propaganda rather than an encyclopedia article. Yevgeny Kats 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per an incredibly thorough noomination. The article is inherently PoV, has been tagged for most of its existence and what reputable content there is can be included in another article. The fact is, allegations of Israeli apartheid are based on a false premise. To retain this page is an insult to Wikipedia. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This proposal keeps coming up again, and I think this is an abuse of procedures. As I wrote on a previous occasion, "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." The article should be rewritten, and I would prefer to remove the "allegations" and simply call the article Israeli Apartheid. I am opposed to removing well-researched and documented material on a clearly notable matter. RolandR 15:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is your opinion that the phenomenon exists, and it may be others' opinion that the term is used purely to demonize Israel for sinister purposes. --Leifern 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This AfD should not be about whether the analogy is an apt one, but about whether use of the analogy or debate over use of the analogy is notable. Those who think the phenomenon exists and those who think it is used to demonise Israel both agree that there is something to talk about, ergo they should agree that a Wikipedia article on the matter is appropriate. Put your efforts, I suggest, into improving the article's content. Bondegezou 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but based on a broader discussion: This is an article about political rhetoric. There is little dispute about the factual basis for the allegations; what is disputed is whether the term "apartheid" is a valid interpretation or comparison of the intent and effects of what is happening. If we are going to allow articles about one stream of political rhetoric or another, we need to avoid our own rhetorical fallacies in determining notability, and appeals to authority constitute one such fallacy. I happen to think political rhetoric is a fascinating subject, but it's one where angels fear to tread. --Leifern 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete* Propaganda article. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment that's not a reason to delete. Any article of a political nature can be labeled propaganda be people who WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The two state solution article is propaganda too if you don't agree with it; as it will neither create two viable states nor solve anything, maybe that should be moved to the alleged two-state solution for balance.... -- Kendrick7^talk 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • First of all, I didn't label it propaganda. This is an article about an assertion that can't be proven or disproven, because it draws a comparison between two separate phenomena. The comparison may or may not be useful, or accurate, or even relevant; but there's no question that it's being used to make a political point and is without question an example of rhetoric. I can find countless other examples in other controversies. My point is that we need to distinguish interpretations from accusations, rhetoric from specific acts, etc. --Leifern 19:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. 'allegations' is a great term to make from everything an encyclopedic entry. Hence, allegation of Bush being stupid. allegation of.. etc. One would also open an entry allegation of Palestianians continious intention to kill all Jews. I do not want wiki to contain any of these empty ergumentative nonsense. YechezkelZilber 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination--Shrike 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article does not look in the least encyclopedic. It is an unholy mishmash, a ragged collection without any content.--Redaktor 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Israeli Apartheid is a far more prevalent term in use in academia and the press than are allegations of Apartheid applied to Cuba and Brazil. Why aren't those that would delete the Israel article, calling for the deletion of the others (i.e. Cuba and Brazil)? See box to right below, which of these articles has the most relevance and reliable sources like Desmond Tutu and South African anti-apartheid experts and activists? Allegations of Israeli Apartheid does, by far.

Template:Allegations of apartheidKritt 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Sorry four AfDs on one article is way too many and the last one looked quite legit... last time I voted keep but now its a strong keep on principle. Time to listen to the community and stop this nonsense. --BozMo talk 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are allegations of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia -- judging by this breed of articles, they're clearly unfounded. --tickle me 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article was created as a WP:POINT, was nominated twice for AfD by strawman sockpuppets, and after almost a year, 3100 edits, and an ArbCom case, is no better than it ever was, and only getting worse. It took an outside like Zleitzen to expose why this topic is inherently non-encyclopedic. -- Y not? 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it's an obviously important topic.--Mista-X 19:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong, speedy, obvious, etc., etc. keep. Zlietzen offers the most articulate and principled opposition yet to the existence of this article, but ultimately it's sophistry to say that Allegations of Israeli apartheid is the "source" of the organized POINT-pushing damage carried out in articles pertaining to Latin America. The source of that damage is those carrying it out, period. This article's subject is different from "Belgium is boring" or "Cuban tourism policies are like apartheid" in that it's been the subject of sustained comparison in many works and through many lenses – historical (Benvenisti), moral (Carter), pragmatic (Adam and Moodley), etc., the list goes on. More important, or at any rate more relevant to the objections Zlietzen raises, is the fact that the comparison itself has drawn great attention from journalists and scholars alike. This is manifestly not the case in the gaggle of "related" articles googled up by Israel-focussed editors making their POINT against this one. Even in the most well-sourced and serious of those articles, the one about the Cuban tourist industry, the "apartheid" rhetoric is incidental to the controversial issue presented there. In none of the sources given is the "apartheid" meme itself the issue (the way it so incontestibly is in the wealth of RS-material for this article). Those arguing about the human-rights issues at play in the Cuban tourist industry aren't arguing about the aptness of the comparison, or listing historical similarities and differences between Cuba and South Africa, or whatever (South Africa, in fact, is barely even mentioned). They're arguing about whether Cuba's tourist-industry policies are wrong, morally impermissable, a sign of gross hypocrisy and discrimination among the socialist left, or whether they are economically justified. "Apartheid" is a stage prop in this debate, but it isn't the subject. And the Cuba article is the best of that bad lot, bear in mind. According to the utterly ridiculous and execrable "parent article," Desmond Tutu by definition made an "allegation of apartheid" merely by telling the Tibetan people they were "on the winning side"! It makes no sense to conflate such junk with the prominent, extensive, and historically detailed discussion that is the subject of this article. I appreciate your good-faith attempt to deal with a metastasizing problem, Zlietzen, but the way to deal with that problem is to confront the editors who are causing it; sophistry of this sort doesn't help.--G-Dett 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • G-Dett - I don't think anyone would question the premise that everything Israel does gets more criticism and condemnation than anything anyone else does, and far out of proportion to the magnitude and depth of human suffering involved. If you want to get into that discussion - why Israel is demonized so out of proportion to even the sins she's allegedly committing - that should be an article in its own right. But if this article is about a) the character of Israel's policy, the article is inherently POV; or b) the basis for the political rhetoric, then we should discuss the rhetoric itself, not who happens to bring it up. To say that many and interesting people indulge in the rhetoric is entirely irrelevant. --Leifern 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The article itself already suggests several reasons. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If you think no one questions your opening premise, Leifern, then you are not in touch with the debate surrounding Israel-Palestine. Many – and I count myself among them – argue that Israel, because of the unique atrocities the Jewish people have historically suffered, is granted much greater leniency with regards to its human-rights violations than any other modern Western liberal democracy.--G-Dett 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Interesting that you should characterize Israel as a modern Western liberal democracy. This is not what a title like Israeli apartheid would imply. I am quite familiar with the shrill accusations thrown at Israel, have looked at the facts that underly them, and find that most of them are extremely prejudicial. --Leifern 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom, MPerel, Y and everyone else who voted Delete this non-encyclopedic WP:SOAPBOX. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Y, who explained it most clearly IMO. --DLand^TALK 21:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is one of the best examples of an article which should not have been created. Even if we put aside the pov issues, which are major, this article from the very beginning has been marred by dirty tricks, gratuitous distortions of wikipedia policy, fraudulent and dishonest afds, and all manner of deceptive subterfuge. A few editors chose to conspire behind the scenes from the very beginning to ensure that this article would not be deleted. In an effort to gain a veil of legitimacy they had a sock puppet nominate this article for deletion with a straw man argument and then quickly all voted keep and then closed it as a "snowball" before anyone could oppose. All of this clearly indicates a level of coordinated cooperation that is far greater than what many editors have been blocked for. When I see all the people who cite these ridiculous afds in their "keep" votes, I do my best to hope that they are just too lazy or disinterested to actually read up on the history here, but then I see many editors who were actually party to the earlier disputes and I dare say some who helped coordinate it. I understand that people are obviously going to come to these types of articles with strong opinions, nothing can change that, but the fact that so many people have engaged in such dishonest and indeed dishonorable methods really just ruins the whole idea of wikipedia for me. It is just so far from the spirit of cooperation that is so often talked about here, that I don't see how anyone can bring themselves to edit anymore.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Cheer up, Moshe! Wikipedia will survive.--G-Dett 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Its not really wikipedia as a whole I'm worried about, its just any kinda of article that has the potential for contention. They are what really damages wikipedia's creibility and its future.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Analysis of media phraseology, not encyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I came to this article fairly recently. I Repeatedly attempted to engage in productive dialog and have found all efforts to be futile. It appears that the actual conflict on the ground will be solved before this seemingly ill-fated article conforms to WP policies. It has been empirically demonstrated to my satisfaction that the subject matter of this article can be better addressed by one of the many already existing articles that do address the same subject.Doright 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Even President Carter reiterates the point, "my use of 'apartheid' does not apply to circumstances within Israel." This demonstrates the improper nature of this article and its bias.Doright 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems to fulfill all notability requirements. .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and change title to something like "Israeli Apartheid Analogy". I hope that whomever closes this afd will recognize the partisan nature of this process. CJCurrie 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep And a recommendation that the article be protected from further spurious deletion requests. Five times is surely enough for an article on a subject which clearly isn't a trivial one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacobgreenbaum (talk • contribs) 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
• Strong Keep None of the arguments made relate to WP:DEL. I'm sure by the sixth nomination, which will probably be a week from Tuesday, someone will have realized that this nomination was just a flawed combination of WP:WAX with WP:GHITS and a fair measure of WP:ITANNOYSME. But, a flawed nomination isn't important, if subsequent good arguments are made. Y's WP:BIGNUMBER argument seems popular (3,000 edits and WP:IstillDONTLIKEIT) Others are attempting to apply WP:SOAP but the article had a huge criticism section so I can't see that applying here; the article is currently tagged as WP:NPOV for being too against the allegations. Otherwise, the article is WP:NOTABLE, WP:V'd and WP:RS'd. It's messy, and heavily edit-warred, and I empathize with Moshe cause I've deleted it from my watchlist on many occasions. And, perhaps it is "inherently POV" because Solomon himself couldn't find the right balance of sentences to make all editors happy here. But, still, per Tarc, no reasons to WP:DELETE. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Some people may be able to cite the previous nominations out of ignorance of the circumstances surrounding them, but as someone who has been involved with the dispute you should feel ashamed of yourself as you clearly know what really occured in those votes.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You're memory is extremely close to being correct here, but I have not gone back and closely studied the first few AFDs, or related the ArbCom case, and my earliest apartheid related edit was on or just before 14 July 2006 and I don't recall the second AFD of this article on 18 July, which was a speed close (too soon), even popping up on my radar screen. Every AFD should be taken on its own merits, of course, but I am mainly perturbed that this one had come around, again, too soon. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • A misunderstanding of the nomination, and the numerous arguments put forward here and elsewhere that support this sentiment. Arguments which call to delete this article relate to this forum. I asked two or three questions in nomination, and made a few other arguments there in favour of delete. Almost none of the keep votes have addressed or satisfied these arguments as far as I can see. In a debate about the framing of a topic on wikipedia, WP:NOTABLE, WP:V'd and WP:RS appear to be a last refuge rather than a counter argument. We have to work harder to present complex issues in an encyclopaedic fashion. Simply regurgitating mountains of material from whatever sources we can find in order to address a badly framed article title, piling WP:V on top of WP:V until the page looks like an exploded cake, means that this article has failed. Those pro-Israel editors have to deal with an article which is hung on a rhetorical phrase and makes explicate unproven allegations in the title itself, those anti-Israel editors have found that the point they wanted to make is now submerged beneath layers of argument and counter-argument which does not serve their goals. Therefore it has failed everyone, most importantly it has failed readers by not addressing a complex issue in a coherent form. Failed articles which have been given enough opportunities to succeed should be deleted.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Even if all of your facts are correct, the remedy is still inappropriate. If the subject is relevant (and this analogy assuredly is), the correct course of action is to improve the article, not to throw up our metaphorical hands in frustration and delete the piece entirely. For my part, I'd quite welcome the arrive of genuinely neutral parties to the discussion page. CJCurrie 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Is this an analogy, or is this a rhetorical phrase? I ask this because in some instances, the usage of apartheid outside Africa is tied to a comparison to apartheid itself, whilst in other instances it is a rhetorical term with little relationship with the African apartheid. Much in the same way we describe something as a blitz, without literally comparing it to the German Blitzkrieg.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I think the more important question should be, "has the analogy reached a sufficient level of cultural significance to merit inclusion on this project"? I can't imagine how anyone could honestly answer in the negative. CJCurrie 00:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
              • I believe it merits inclusion in the project because of cultural significance, but we still have to ask whether the reader is best served by having it be the exclusive subject of one article, or whether it is better discussed within wider contexts. Debating whether the article "merits" existence is writer-centric; I'd like to see us discuss what is best for the reader. Typically, we center articles around facts and then offer varying interpretations of the facts, e.g. some people compare it to apartheid, some call it fascism, and some call it self-defense. Kla'quot 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                • If the article remains, I recommend we rename the title to Exploded Cake. Zleitzen accurately emphasises that the article serves the interests of no one--not proponents, opponents, and certainly not readers. What *would* serve the interests of everyone is to delete this article and present any relevant notable data from it in the format Zletizen suggests...distributed amongst the neutral pages that already exist. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • Yes, Zleitzen, you are correct that there are explicit "unproven allegations in the title itself" but WP:V isn't about truth to begin with. But even if it were "truth" is meaningless in this context. The crack forensic lab at CSI: Miami could work around the clock day and night and they wouldn't be any close to knowing whether these allegations are "true." The U.N. could hold a trial and find everyone guilty and people would just say "Well, ya know how much the U.N. hates Israel." Jesus, Elijah, and Mohammed could descend arm-in-arm from the Heavens with a tablet enscribed by God himself pronouncing the matter one way or the other, and people would just say it was a trick done with mirrors. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                • In reply to Kla'quot, it is important for discussion of this nature to be seen in a wider context, yes. However, the wider context is generally delivered through there being links to other articles, with individual articles being of a manageable size. If there are better ways of presenting the information in this article, one suggestion is that you write that better way and than suggest merging this article into that better way. I don't think it would be the best solution to delete this article while this better way of presenting the information remains hypothetical. Bondegezou 14:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think it's time for all the apartheid pseudo-articles to go. The usable material here can be merged into relevant articles like, for example, filthy Jew. IronDuke 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to wonder if some people aren't voting "delete" simply because they find the analogy incorrect or offensive. Such perceptions may or may be accurate, but they are not sufficient grounds to remove the article. CJCurrie 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. And one might just as easily wonder if supporters are voting that way because they find Israeli policy incorrect or offensive. Luckily, motivations don't matter for our purposes, otherwise this process would be considerably more complicated. IronDuke 01:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I rather hope that we could avoid any sort of partisan voting. As I've said above, the important question should be, "has the analogy reached a sufficient level of cultural significance to merit inclusion on this project"? I can't imagine how anyone could honestly answer in the negative, and I'd challenge those who have called for deletion to address this issue directly. CJCurrie 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • There's always partisan voting, especially for this particular topic. Thankfully AfDs aren't just a "yea or nay" roll call, and much of these " I don't like it"'s votes are culled from the herd. Tarc 02:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • If any votes are "culled" it should be "keep" votes that mention this being a "fifth" nomination, since they are based on a false premise. 6SJ7 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
            • To continue my previous comment, I suspect that the avoidance of partisanship will be very difficult indeed on a subject such as this. CJCurrie 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • IronDuke, your argument (and most of the other "delete" arguments) might hold water if the article were titled Israeli apartheid, as indeed I believe it used to be. —Ashley Y 03:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't agree. Perhaps a better example might be comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany, and individual Israelis to Hitler et al. That analogy is probably sourceable to an even higher degree than IA, and yet we're not giving people space in Wikipedia to rant about it. IronDuke 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clear POV fork--Sefringle 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question Are there any contributors currently supporting deletion who would reconsider views if the article were retitled as "Israeli Apartheid Analogy"? CJCurrie 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that this question, or the answers, belong on this page. The question is whether the article should be deleted or not. However, I will also answer the question: No. The name that Kla'quot mentioned above would be acceptable. I doubt that I would find any title with both "Israel(i)" and "apartheid" to be acceptable. 6SJ7 02:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete, per Zleitzen and Y. This article was conceived in bad faith, nurtured by POV-pushers and propagandists, and protected by apathy and ignorance. It is inherently POV and unencylopedic, yet people have insisted on keeping it on the flimsiest of pretexts, either based on their dislike for Israel, or on previous straw man nominations that inevitably failed (as they were intended to), or on mindless invocations of "notability", "reliable sources", etc., which completely ignore the points made in this, the first real nomination. 3100 edits, and for what? The article was better at the beginning of November 2006, when it was half the length it is today. Like a cancer, it grows without structure or value, harming the body around it, and sapping it of strength better used in meaningful articles. It needs to be excised. This AfD will guide future AfDs regarding what Wikipedia considers worth documenting; it has spawned a number of similar (although generally markedly better) articles, simply because this article has become the yardstick by which Wikipedians test whether or not such articles are encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Odd, how is this less encyclopaedic than Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, Allegations of Brazilian apartheid, Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba and Allegations of Islamic apartheid, at least two of which you seem to have put a lot of work into? —Ashley Y 03:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, would you mind elaborating on how this article is encyclopedically inferior to the "related" spin-offs? Each of those seems to be built around a few sources that incidentally use the word "apartheid"; this article, by contrast, covers a wide-ranging, sustained, deeply sourced, and hotly debated analogy between apartheid South Africa and the Israeli occupation, viewed in great scholarly and journalistic detail and variously through a moral lens (Carter), a historical lens (Benvenisti), a pragmatic lens (Adam and Moodley), and so on. Do you just mean that you personally think the other "allegations" (in fact, rhetorical invocations) are more convincing and creditable?--G-Dett 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Same question here. Please elaborate on why the spinoff articles are better. Kla'quot
      • Oh, and BTW you could be more civil. Citing notability and reliable sources in an AfD is "mindless," while comparing an article to cancer is... the kind of discussion we're supposed to be having here?? Kla'quot 06:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Those articles are only necessary because of the existence of this one. It was important to maintain some semblance of balance.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • That's WP:POINT and it's not a good reason to create an encyclopedia article. Should we create Jewish racism to "balance" Antisemitism? — Malik Shabazz | Talk 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and give it a rest. Arguments that claim that previous nominations were flawed because of who nominated them, or why, are especially unconvincing to me. The nominator does not control the discussion, and should not be the one who closes it. This has gotten to the point of being disruptive at this stage. - Smerdis of Tlön 03:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's try and be NPOV here. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The Palestinian territories, while occupied, are not part of Israel proper. They never had the status of being part of Israel proper, unlike the homelands in South Africa. They are not ghettos for Arabs within Israel, but rather are, and always have been, seperate areas of jurisdiction. The Prince 05:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Does this mean you favour deletion because you believe the analogy is flawed? CJCurrie 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Some of the policies at issue pertain to the treatment of Arab citizens of Israel within the Green Line, so it isn't simply a matter of what's happening in the Occupied Territories. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Catchpole 06:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename Israeli apartheid per RolandR. Why perpetuate a double standard in which some articles are named "Allegations" and others (e.g., New antisemitism) are named as if the phenomena are facts? — Malik Shabazz | Talk 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• An obvious keep since Israel has on numerous occations been called an apartheid state. Failing that I would reccomend a rename so something like "Racism in Israel". // Liftarn
• Keep, and possibly rename, given the great big air quotes that pasting "Allegations of..." puts on the topic. WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- no matter how fervently you don't like it or rhetorical knots you tie yourself into to say it -- doesn't wash as a good deletion rationale. --Calton | Talk 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Zleitzen makes some good points, but I think the article works. The question of the applicability of the analogy is an issue in itself: that is, there are lengthy, notable debates specifically about the use and applicability of the term, above and beyond the issues of whether or not there is institutional racism in Israel. Thus, I believe it warrants its own article. There is plenty of good material here and it simply wouldn't fit into the articles Zleitzen suggests. There are clearly difficult POV issues here, but I would rather Wikipedia tries to tackle difficult POV issues through improving article content. It should be possible for the article to be balanced and factual (whether or not it currently is). Those who feel the allegations are unfounded (and there is to my mind much that is questionable about the analogy) should, I feel, focus their efforts on documenting that within the article. I am happy with the phrasing of "Allegations of...", but would be happy with a renaming if a good alternative could be found. Bondegezou 13:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Zleitzen's reasoning. If you look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, you can see plenty of good encyclopedia articles on arguments. Of course, those are classic philosophical arguments that people who are trained to be objective have written textbooks about and the articles are written and edited by philosophers who are trained to be objective and analytical. I don't think even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy could produce an objective, NOR article about "allegations of Israeli Apartheid", the subject is just too inflamatory and the two sides are too far apart. For wikipedia, where editors are not trained to be objective, its a waste of time even to try. There will always be an arms race between two factions of wikipedians.
• To speak more generally, wikipedia has an 80/20 problem (choose whatever fraction you want) where our methodology produces great results for 80% of articles but the remaining 20% will be so problematic that we have to spend as much time trying to get them right as we spend improving the rest of the encyclopedia - and we still won't get good results. The only way we'll get a decent article on this topic is if we change the way we approach it - appoint a committee of objective and knowledgeable editors to write it for example and then only allow others to make changes if they can argue for them from evidence and policy. Obviously, this will never happen, and I'm not even sure the result would be any good, but the usual wikipedia way won't work here. GabrielF 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments in the previous deletion debate, as follows, in this, its fifth nomination. Keep per Sjakkalle in this, its fourth nomination. I disagree with "pitch 'til you win" tactics where an article is nominated over and over for deletion, and urge the principle of Stare decisis. Edison 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Edison 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with a bazuqa. The only way this article should ever have existed was under its original name, and that article should only have discussed the term and the use to which it's put by antisemites and other collected ignorami. There is no way the subject of this article can ever be encyclopedic. It's nothing more than a cobbled-together bunch of anti-Israelisms and reads more like a blog than anything else. Nuke and flush. Tomer^talk 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So much for civility and assuming good faith. Gee... Lixy 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I always wondered how this article came into existence. It incoherently mixes different allegations, which are often baseless, and should in any case be mentioned in other relevant articles (mostly Human rights in Israel, and somewhat Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israeli West Bank barrier). We gave the original article its chances, but it has developed into a POV fork rather than an encyclopedic article, so it's time to delete it. --Gabi S. 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:POVFORK won't help. Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles fall under Wikipedia:Content_forking#What content/POV forking is not, as does Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles whose subject is a POV. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)