Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:50, 30 May 2006 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 16:52, 30 May 2006 edit undoAvraham (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators49,160 editsm →[]: Strong deleteNext edit →
Line 82: Line 82:
**The term is common enough... But maybe something like ] would be more appropriate? ] 10:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC) **The term is common enough... But maybe something like ] would be more appropriate? ] 10:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Note''' I have reformatted the above so that it won't have its own top-level section ] 11:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC) *'''Note''' I have reformatted the above so that it won't have its own top-level section ] 11:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Strong delete''' per Viriditas's analysis ] 16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:52, 30 May 2006

Israeli apartheid (phrase)

offensive phrase. Delete or merge with Israeli occupied territories. Fullsome prison 23:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete not an offensive phrase, but OR and POV magnet. The article is essentially about comparing the Israeli-Arab relations with South African aparthed. The comparisons are OR. In addition, this is unencyclopedic: let's put out verified sourced statements about what exactly the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians and let the reader decide whether or not to draw comparisons to South African apartheid. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable phenom. Article seems balanced. 200,000 google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 23:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. I've done a few hours of research on Israeli apartheid, and the term is nothing more than a focused, targeted propaganda campaign for a political platform that according to Abraham Cooper, is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state". Merge anything useful into Zionism and racism, Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, World Conference against Racism, Israeli West Bank barrier, and Israeli settlements. (See also: Veracini, Lorenzo. "On Israeli 'Apartheids'." Arena Journal 22, Annual 2004: 99. Cooper, Abraham, and Harold Brackman. "Through a glass, darkly: Durban and September 11th. United Nations World Conference against Racism, 2001." Midstream 47.7 (Nov 2001): 2(7)). —Viriditas | Talk 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentWouldn't your research findings be better served in the article on Israeli apartheid than here in the AfD. Isn't that what Misplaced Pages is for? The concept exists, wouldn't it be better to treat it in Misplaced Pages than to pretend that it is so offensive that it can not be even mentioned? --Ben Houston 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't find the term offensive. That was the opinion of the nom. Outside of Uri Davis, and perhaps Zionism and racism the term is unencyclopedic. Your example below, in which you contrast tar baby with Israeli apartheid compares apples and oranges. One is an actual term relating to West African trickster folklore, whereas the other is rabid, revisionist, polemical fringe terminology used as a political epithet. There's just as much research to create American apartheid , British apartheid , etc. We don't, because this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. —Viriditas | Talk 02:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • CommentBen's point is definitely well-made, but I do want to commend Viriditas in any case for having spent time to research the article and the concomitant AfD; too often we (I include myself) participate in discussions here without having done the research we ought to have done, and it's always good to see one be pensive and moderate (and, of course, consistent with Ben's note, if the article is kept, Viriditas will surely be able to contribute content and add sources, which is always good). Joe 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or at best merge per above arguments. — RJH (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a phrase that, even as it expresses a POV, is notable (toward which proposition see, e.g., Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace (second nomination)). Were we to be using the terminology as descriptive in an article, I'd object; here, though, our article is apropos of a trope that is increasingly common (to be sure, if the article is not/cannot be properly sourced w/r/to the frequency with which the term is used/the prominence of certain users, deletion would be in order). The article oughtn't to include original research, of course; instead of attempting to prove the correctness of the phrase, it ought to detail the arguments of others who make claims for and against the phrase. We don't take original research, but we can compile opinions recorded in secondary sources, even where the primary sources are individuals who undertake original research or push a POV (Charlie Sheen's conculsion that something other than an airliner hit the Pentagon on 11 September is original research but nevertheless notable). Our article Better dead than red, about another notable tendentious locution, provides a fair examplar around which this article can be developed. Joe 00:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per OR concerns and per CrazyRussian and Viriditas. --MPerel 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV by the title. --Rob 00:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep re Joe/Jahiegel. It should provide a summary of the use of the phrase from RS from those that use it seriously (i.e. Uri Davis), why it is offensive to critics, and pointers to the main articles that deal with the related topics. I recently helped develop the article on Tar baby -- it is an offensive term but it was also notable. It was dealt with fairly well. --Ben Houston 00:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the prevalence of a phrase doesn't make it a notable encylopedia entry; the comparison between Israeli policies and apartheid is a notable topic, but this is covered elsewhere. --Leifern 00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fullsome and Viriditas (as well as my own comments on the article's talk page prior to the nomination, in fact I suggested it, I just didn't do it.) 6SJ7 01:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Characterization contained in title may be disputed, but the phrase itself is undoubtedly in notable usage. Having seen some delete votes, every single one seems to be on the basis of factual/political opposition to the analysis done using the term; no delete voters actually even tries to deny the notability of the term itself (or really, the NPOV of the article as a whole). LotLE×talk 01:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is very NPOV, so much so that I don't see how it can be cleaned up and I am someone who agrees with the sentiment --Stilanas 01:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to relatively balanced and phrase is confirmed to be in wide circulation in academic and news media (See my Google comment above). And absolutely agree with Ben Houston regarding User:Viriditas's comments. Bwithh 01:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "The concept exists" as Ben Houston wrote, or "phrase seems to be in wide circulation" as you wrote, are not valid arguments. Here, a double standard is being applied inorder to demonize Israel. Where is Saudi apartheid? Are you ready to say that it doesn't exist? ←Humus sapiens 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I think it's fair to say that the concept of Saudi apartheid exists, and that concept can be dealt with in several articles. I distinguish the two by noting that this phrase is notable not solely for the message it conveys, but also for its prominent and frequent usage, as against the Saudi phrase, which yields only 115 Google hits. Joe 02:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The point is that the phrase is in wide usage, not that it is being used to demonize Israel. As Joe notes, the phrase "Saudi apartheid" is not widely used (I would note that the comparison of Israel with South Africa partly arises from its historically close relations with SA during the SA apartheid years). Just because you disagree with the politics of a phrase, this doesnt change the significance of its wide usage. Misplaced Pages is not censored in that way. Anyway, it is also used in contexts where the phrase is refuted and debated - Haaretz (and most of the hits are to do with Israel, not South Africa) (corrected previous 26400 hit result due to typo. By the way, accusing me and Ben Houston of deliberately and maliciously demonizing Israel may count as a personal attack. Please see the rules on this. Bwithh 02:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Don't throw rocks while in a glass house. As for "historically close relations with SA" - what's that supposed to mean? That Israelis spread their wicked apartheid to SA? To write a serious encyclopedia, we should distinguish between "wide usage" by propagandists and WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens 02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Israel officially opposed the apartheid system in South Africa, but was also against international sanctions against South Africa. There is a long history of military cooperation and trade between the two countries which continued through the 1980s when international sanctions against South Africa were implemented. South African uranium was vital to Israel's nuclear weapon program. In exchange, Israel helped pre-apartheid South Africa develop their own nuclear bombs. Some nuclear proliferation commentators have suggested there was a joint Israeli-South African nuclear test in the South Indian Ocean in 1979. Not directly relevant here, true, but anyway that was the close relations I was talking about Bwithh 04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless you imply that apartheid is somehow contagious, all that is irrelevant to the subject. For the better explanation of roots of this quazi-anti-colonial propaganda, see Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict. ←Humus sapiens 04:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge salvageable parts into articles with NPOV titles, per Viriditas. ←Humus sapiens 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep the article was being worked on to bring it into compliance with NPOV. The term is clearly a real one, there's little reason not to neccesarily have an article about it as long as you present the controversy over it. Let the peer review, and other editors work on it. --Strothra 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment it's pretty clear by now that there will not be consensus for deletion. If some people here think this term is actually being used, let it be kept, but we must remove the OR and as much POV as possible, and be absolutely clear that this article is belongs in Category:Pejorative political terms. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That the phrase was originally Afrikaans is irrelevant. Apartheid has entered the English language (as well as others) and has been accepted as such for a long time. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid Bwithh 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)