Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:45, 17 July 2007

Allegations of French apartheid

Allegations_of_French_apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

this article is a joke and a collection of clichés and lies. it has nothing to do with the apartheid definition and focus on algerian muslims living in france. this article is not serious and does not exist in the other wikipedia versions, i suggest its deletion. by the way there is nothing about northern ireland its real apartheid ha. Paris By Night 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

allegation of lies:

France maintained colonial rule in the territory which has been described as "quasi-apartheid" :this is stupid and totally false. there was no such things as US buses for black and white in algeria, :besides algeria was truly part of france as made of département like today corsica. for example muslim :children went in public schools with european french kids, i've seen worst apartheids. this view is a :simplification by american editors, reads like all mslim in france are from algeria, but this totally :false many comes from morroco and tunisia and black africa as well, all of which are former french :colony or protectorates, there is not a single word about this. this article is totaly oriented and a :mystification this can be seen in "Criticism"'s POV authors selection. this article doesn't exist in :other language, don't ask why. Paris By Night 09:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

plus there is nothing like "race" in france, france is not the united states! there is nothing like Racial segregation in the United States and never was, not even in algerian departements. Paris By Night 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep article properly sourced and notable.--Cerejota 12:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this and the whole series. They are all irredeemable POV collections of slurs. Mowsbury 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You might find that the whole series would be deleted if they whole series was nominated in a group nomination. Individual AFD's have failed in all but one case up until now. My reason for my AFD vote here is that it the article seems to completely follow all of Misplaced Pages policies and requirements for articles, as can be seen both by its content and the precedent for dealing with its sister articles.--Urthogie 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie is absolutely right, Mowsbury. This is a WP:POINT and WP:ALLORNOTHING hostage-type situation. The editors creating these articles don't believe in them, and are willing to "trade" their deletion for the deletion of an article they're ideologically opposed to.--G-Dett 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction, I do believe in these articles so long as one of them exists. If only Brazil's apartheid allegation article existed, then that would be singling out Brazil. It's an NPOV issue, not a POINT issue. And WP:ALLORNOTHING applies to justification for AFD votes, not suggested new AFD's or changes in notability policies.--Urthogie 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Well sourced article drawing from numerous notable publications. If there's a POV problem, fix it. JulesH 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - WP:POINT by the article creator who has been a frequent, noted critic of Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. Variations of this tactic have been used too many times to count. Tarc 13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Doesn't meet any criteria for deletion. Seems like a bad faith nomination. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there is a precedent for keeping "allegations of apartheid" articles. If someone created an AFD for all of these articles, that would have a strong chance of succeeding. It is irrational, however, to apply differing standards from one article to the next. Also, to Paris by Night, I believe race does exist in the French mind-- at least according to Frantz Fanon!--Urthogie 14:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. There are a couple of sources that actually appear to pursue the comparison. Most on the other hand merely use the word "apartheid" once for what appears to be rhetorical effect. These passages are then presented in such a way as to make the rhetorical effect look like an extended comparison. All fifteen of the sources are listed twice, first as "Notes" and then as "References," in order to give the illusion of depth in sourcing. The fact that this article has been cobbled together by two editors who know nothing about the subject matter and are merely compiling quotes they've found through Google-searches, and that the WP:POINT of all this is to create a bargaining chip with which to bring about the deletion of an article they're ideologically opposed to, doesn't bode well for its future quality. I vote only "weak delete," however, because I don't know that much more about the subject than the authors do, so it's possible that there's a quality article to be written on this by an editor with genuine interest in and knowledge of the subject. If that's the case – that is, if there are sufficient RS-foundations for this and such an editor comes forward, I wish him or her the best of luck in coaxing the article out of the sweaty palms of the pranksters now clutching it. For the purposes of this AfD, the comments and recommendations of editors with experience editing France-related (or civil-rights-related) articles should be given much more weight than those of other editors.--G-Dett 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't it ironic to advocate that some people's votes should count more than others when discussing apartheid? – Quadell 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Apartheid in the strict sense means systematised segregation condoned by the authorities. France does not have apartheid. Either that, or every single western country has apartheid. All the quotes cited in the article are in the pejorative sense, "blatant, gross, discrimination or racism" (of which any country in the world can be accused of).--Victor falk 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because these are allegations. Allegations are just allegations and unless proven in court or through media. This will be appropriate as a subsection of French apartheid, but not on its own Corpx 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

French apartheid does not exist as an article, it is a redirect to this page. It seems to be that you are actually suggesting a rename to french apartheid, not a delete.--Urthogie 18:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, not a rename. A french apartheid article would have to be created from scratch, which analyzes the orgins/history/ending etc of it, with the allegations being a part of it. Corpx 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations are just allegations unless proven, yes. But "allegations" that by their very nature can never be proven or disproven – because they're subjective, evaluative, interpretive, comparative, vituperative, etc., rather than falsifiable statements of fact – are not, of course, "allegations" at all. But if you're asking for basic literacy from the scribes behind this hoax, you'd be asking too much.--G-Dett 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. Allegations can definitely be proven right/wrong. First hand accounts, court-proceedings etc all prove allegations to be true or false. It'd be better off in a form similiar to ] instead of purely being a list of allegations Corpx 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Er, you agree then. "Allegations can definitely be proven right/wrong." Yes, exactly, that's my point. Things that can never be proven right or wrong are not called "allegations" – they're called comparisons, interpretations, analogies, critiques, whatever it is that they are. Thomas Jefferson allegedly fathered several children by his slaves, very well, no problem. But not: Thomas Jefferson was allegedly a hypocrite.--G-Dett 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Heh, I disagree again. How exactly would one go about proving who Jefferson went around fathering babies with? I'm saying that these allegation against ____ have no merit to stand on their own, but instead should be part of the article in question. Corpx 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DNA, maybe? The point is, allegations are statements of fact. They are things that either did happen or did not happen; proof/disproof are at least conceivable even if not practical. Subjective judgments, however – statements to the effect that X resembles Y, or is reminiscent of it, or whatever – are not "allegations." Oh, hell, it doesn't matter – when language slides, let it slide, you can't stop glaciers. --G-Dett 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Some allegations are noteworthy and encyclopedic. See Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example. If there weren't reliable sources, then I'd say they were unencyclopedic allegations, but these seem noteworthy. We can't pretend the allegations don't exist. – Quadell 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, quite obviously. A neologism. Let us not fool ourselves: everyone who comes here knows that this article's creation and continued existence is disruptive; it was created in response to the Israeli Apartheid article (which, I maintain, should be about the use of the term and not the mess of charges and counter-charges it is now) in order to indicate that allegations of apartheid are widespread. This is WP:POINT; however widespread segregation, even legal segregation is, the only term that is encyclopaedic is Israeli Apartheid. The others are all, quite simply, WP:POINT. The article is terribly written, largely OR, reading far too much into one or two op-eds. Delete with extreme prejudice. Hornplease 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is in line with other "Allegations of (country) apartheid" articles. Beit Or 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That it's "in line with" some other junk created by the same authors is self-evident, but how is this an argument for its retention?--G-Dett 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Those articles have, like the Israeli apartheid article, survived AFD's.--Urthogie 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Allegations of Andorran Apartheid" would also be 'in line with' other articles. Clearly not a good enough reason to keep this junk.Hornplease 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources dealing with "andorran apartheid."--Urthogie 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And none here either. Use of the word 'apartheid' in combination with 'France' does not make a notable phrase, or even a notable allegation. Which you know. Hornplease 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What does make a notable phrase, then?--Urthogie 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There could be several standards. This isn't one by any reasonable standard.Hornplease 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question for those who maintain that that Israel article is somehow unique. What is your basis for that? The Chinese apartheid article features quotes from the Dalai Lama and our lord and savior Jimmy Wales. Aside from length and controversiality, what exactly seperates allegations against Israel as unique, aside from the disproprotionate amount of press coverage the Middle East receives, thus resulting in more possible reliable sources?--Urthogie 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The disproportionate amount of coverage and analysis the Middle East receives. Oh, you answered it in your question. Hornplease 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so, it's a completely subjective decision about a quantitative value, then? 20 articles is enough coverage, 10 is not..? Or is it 15? Please define an actual qualitative, rather than quantitative reason for keeping the Israel one and not the others. Thanks, --Urthogie 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, because you miss the point. Even if the conditions in Israel are not unique, the disproportionate coverage and analysis raises otherwise non-notable allegations to encyclopaedic notability. And as for 'qualititative, not quantitative" - that's not how we work. Horrible, apartheid-like conditions may prevail in Andorra, but until everyone and Jimmy Carter gets involved, WP doesn't care. Hornplease 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The Israeli apartheid article existed for years before Jimmy Carter's comments. Would you have supported its existence before his comments?
2. The article on alleged Chinese apartheid includes stuff from Jimbo Wales, from the Dalai Lama. Would you therefore support the existence of that article?--Urthogie 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters about my opinions, but the talkpage of that article shows I was highly ambivalent about it, and I did not vote to keep on any of the AfDs prior to the mainstreaming of the phrase.

Chinese Apartheid is a phrase marginally notable purely because the Dalai Lama used it a few times in the early 1990s. I would not vote to keep or delete that article. Jimbo is irrelevant.

I trust that satisfies you about my motives. I am not going to discuss them again.Hornplease 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Stuff" is a pretty good word for the China article's haphazard sourcing, though I still prefer "junk." Take a look at the Dalai Lama source: a BBC article in which the word "apartheid" appears once, in a pull-quote. This is what I mean by 'passing reference,' and it does absolutely nothing to support the legitimacy or notability of a subject. Move on to the Heritage Foundation block-quote, which a Wikipedian has misrepresented (deliberately?) as "discuss some of the reasons for the use of this term." No it doesn't. It's just juicy material from an article that in a subsequent passage, and in a different context, makes passing reference to apartheid: "Through what has been termed Chinese apartheid, ethnic Tibetans now have a lower life expectancy, literacy rate, and per capita income than Chinese inhabitants of Tibet." That's the only mention of apartheid in the entire article. What does the material Misplaced Pages quotes at length have to do with it? Nothing. It's just more "stuff." Move on to the Desmond Tutu stuff. Tutu tells the Tibetans God is on their side, and our boys type "Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has also drawn comparisons between the fight to end South African apartheid and the Tibetan struggle for independence from the People's Republic of China." If Tutu speaks to a room full of terminally ill patients and tells them not to lose heart, our boys will be able to create Allegations that Cancer is Apartheid. Now to the Jimbo Wales reference. Here the article suddenly becomes cryptic: the only direct quote is something odd from Wales about how Google has "damaged the brand image of 'Don't be evil,'" by giving in to Chinese authorities." Huh? Whuh? Then you click on the link and find that the original article didn't even quote Wales on apartheid, it just mentioned in passing that Wales himself had made a passing mention of apartheid. Jimbo objects to Chinese censorship in strong terms; the AP quotes his strong words, then mentions in free indirect that he also invoked South Africa; and our boys type up eagerly what AP could barely be bothered to mention, and throw in a driver's-licence/college-yearbook style photo of Jimbo to liven things up. There's no context, no explanation, we don't even understand what the comparison was, just the smiling snapshot, serene in its irrelevance. Stuff. Junk. Stuffed with junk.--G-Dett 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I fail to see how WP:POINT is involved, as there is no disruption here. Everyone seems to be assuming bad faith about the contributor who has written this article, and I see no reason to think that. The article discusses allegations that are, in fact, notable, having been reported in multiple reliable sources, and having apparently had significant impacts on French culture and politics. I see no reason to delete here. JulesH 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Head, meet sand. WP:Ostrich in reverse here. The fact of self-segregation may have had a significant impact on French society. Some commentators see such self-segregation as resulting in apartheid-like conditions. Sourcing the first and the second to reliable sources and then putting them together is the very nature of OR.Hornplease 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No two things are being synthesized together. The entire page is about one thing-- the rhetoric of alleging apartheid against France.--Urthogie 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the page is about that, or so the title attests. My analysis of the sources, however, is one I recommend to all others who wish to comment.Hornplease 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment perhaps we should take "apartheid" and put it on the list of words that are not to be used for article titles; like "cult" (except when dealing with ancient observances called cults in their own time) and "tyrant" (except for certain ancient Greek rulers so-called as a neutral title in their own time). Allegations of Fooian apartheid is little differen that allegations that so-and-so is a tyrant, or allegations that Fooism is a cult, etc. Carlossuarez46 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with 2005 civil unrest in France. The allegations of "apartheid" are largely limited to this period and its aftermath. Please let's not devalue the word "apartheid" which means an official policy of segregation --> South Africa before Mandela, the US before Luther King, Nazi Germany. There is not and never has been any such policy in France. --Targeman 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Either Keep all Allegations of X apartheid or Delete them all. Per NPOV, no preferential treatment. ←Humus sapiens 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not require equal treatment of articles of unequal notability. Hornplease 21:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. And the loudest scream is not an indication of being right. ←Humus sapiens 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And being right has got nothing to do with being notable. I trust you will keep to reasonable arguments for deletion in future.Hornplease 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Either Keep all Allegations of X apartheid or Delete them all." Thanks, Humus, for aptly summing up the hostage situation and making clear your demands.--G-Dett 21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfft. To make my "demands" clear, Keep. ←Humus sapiens 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Article is well written, encyclopedic, and uses high quality sources, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deleting. Nor are the various ad hominem comments that have peppered this AfD. The article also uses sources that all refer directly to French apartheid, and multiple sources refer to the same issues, so there are not WP:NOR issues. Finally, I did an experiment last night and hit the "Random article" button twenty times; the majority of articles didn't even have any references, and the best article only had four. This one has 15, and the article itself was longer than all but 3 articles. I recommend this test to other editors, to see how this article stacks up against the Misplaced Pages norm. Jayjg 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That the article is well-written is debatable and, in any case, irrelevant. That it uses high-quality sources is possible, but that those sources have been used in synthesizing original research is likely, which is something I notice you have not addressed. Such misuse of sources is a concern as endemic to this project as unsourced assertions. Hornplease 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you have edited your post in an attempt deal with my concerns, which should perhaps have been done in response, I hope you will permit me to reply: the sources to not refer 'directly' to French apartheid. The quotes say things like "France is disintegrating before our eyes into socioeconomic communities, into territorial and social apartheid. The rich live in their own ghettos.". "Algerians encountered France's 'civilising mission' only through the plundering of lands and colonial apartheid society.." etc, etc. In each case, apartheid is used as a convenient signifier for a stable segregation. None of the sources make any effort to categorically compare France to apartheid-era SA; none of the sources make an effort to analyse a discourse which would use that term; practically none of the sources even use the term "French apartheid". (Perhaps because most of the people writing, polemicists though they are, seem to be better researchers than us.) Put simply, this could be held up as a textbook example of bad original research. Hornplease 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --Dezidor 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As I have said elsewhere, I generally do not like "Allegations of" articles (or articles that amount ot that even when not so-called). However, what I'd like would be cherry-picking which allegations are "true" and deleting the rest. If someone wanted to put all of these articles up for an AfD, I'd be willing to vote yes. IronDuke 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep together with all other "Allegations of XXXX apartheid", or better, delete them all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If this article is to be kept, please get rid of the word "apartheid"! This is an intolerable abuse of language. As I said before, let's not water down the meaning of apartheid. What next, Allegations of French genocide of Muslims? "Apartheid" is waaaaay over the top. And it's an insult to the memory of the victims of true apartheid. --Targeman 00:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the use of the term "apartheid" an "intolerable abuse of language" only in the case of this particular article, or is it an "intolerable abuse" in all six "Allegations of apartheid" articles? Jayjg 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per jossi. --tickle me 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable in and of itself. Although the Algeria aspects should be keep and integrated into the article on Frances involvement in Algeria. French apartheid really should be about apartheid in France proper. Right now the article is too much of an arbitrary collection without a focus, something that Misplaced Pages is NOT. --CGM1980 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Based on User:Targeman's comment, I'm wondering if people would be more generally happy if the article were renamed to Racism in France and its scope expanded to cover this subject more fully? JulesH 07:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: not really. Racism is just an expression of universal human stupidity. If we had an article about everything stupid humans have ever done, Misplaced Pages would need a server the size of the solar system. What I'm objecting to is the awful word apartheid in this context. Nobody talks about Stalinist gulags in Putin's Russia or the resurgence of Nazism in Germany because there are a few Hitler nuts left around. I personally propose to merge this article into 2005 civil unrest in France. Racism is widespread in France as it is everywhere but it has never, ever been a matter of public policy. What France is facing are the usual effects of a massive and largely monoethnic immigration of blue-collar workers into a sclerotic economy that just can't cope. Sure this breeds disgruntlement but apartheid, no way. --Targeman 11:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: JulesH's suggestion is a good one, given that most of the sources for this article are articles about racism, and few if any of them are about "allegations of French apartheid". Targeman's demurral is also well-reasoned, but this is a moot discussion either way. The authors of this article will never permit the title to be changed, no matter what the substantive support for such a move, because their very WP:POINT in cobbling this page together was to use it as a bargaining chip to secure the deletion of a different article. For the hoax to work, both the original article and the hostage/bargaining chip article need to have parallel titles. Have a look at the demands made explicitly by HumusSapiens and Jossi (and insinuated by Jayjg) above, and the mechanics of the hoax will become clearer.--G-Dett 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep no valid problems with article unless all apartheid allegations against democracies are removed for policy reason/encyclopedic - see jossi. Amoruso 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why all or nothing? The point here is if there is a noticeable debate of allegations of apartheid against the French government. Debates against other governments may or may not be substantiated, but there are not in this article. It is just a collection of quotes from articles using "apartheid" as hyperbole for racism and discrimination in France.--Victor falk 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Quadell Taprobanus 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is well sourced to notable scholars, all using the apartheid analogy. Isarig 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is non-notable, but the article is an instructive example of Zionist attempts to deflect criticism from their regime. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Whatever one thinks of the Israel apartheid debate, the fact is that a prominent, fractious and complex discussion and evolved. You have big names, you have wide opposition, and you have a standard list of points, facts, and arguments that recurringly come up. The end result is a topic that can't effectively be discussed in any other articles that have been suggested. With this article, I don't see any of that; solely a principle that all countries should be treated the same, never mind whether the issues or discussions actually differ. If we have a discussion of apartheid in Algeria, then it seems that would much better fit in French rule in Algeria. If we have a discusion of the Social situation in the French suburbs, then a neutral article also already exists. Unless those are somehow inadequate, then I don't see why this article is needed or appropriate. Mackan79 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in order to maintain consistency with other articles, pending a "global" resolution of the issue of "apartheid" articles, as discussed in the Arbitration Committee decision almost a year ago. I also think this discussion might go better without the personal attacks against the editors who created/worked on this article. 6SJ7 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates