Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:31, 2 August 2007

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This issue has been brought before ArbCom. --Ideogram 04:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Perhaps the worst of a now-infamous and metastasizing series of original-research WP:POINT essays. It slaloms around clumsily between five unrelated issues – migrant workers, the Tibetan occupation, African and Taiwanese populations within China, religious minorities within China, and civil liberties more generally among the Chinese. Why this particular grab-bag of disparate topics? Because, using the latest in data-mining technology, a Wikipedian discovered that a certain class of verbal act – an “allegation of apartheid,” if you will, meaning a sentence with the word “apartheid” in it – could be find in one, two, sometimes three (and in one case six!) primary-source documents within each of the five topics above. There are no secondary sources at all; no one discussing these primary-source “allegations”; no sources even calling them “allegations,” in fact, since this particular species of verbal act was discovered, described, and classified by Wikipedians; no sources linking these diverse topics in this or any other way. Different writers writing about different things, with no thought to one another or to the hobby-horses of future Wikipedians, used the word “apartheid”; that is all.

Remember the old Far Side cartoon ? That's what we're dealing with. “What Various Sources Say about Various Unrelated Issues in China”/”What Users X and Y Hear.”

blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah...

Each block quote houses one iteration of the word “apartheid.” The blah-blah-blah portions between the block quotes consist of pure original research:

1. "According to Anita Chan and Robert A. Senser, writing in Foreign Affairs, 'China's apartheid-like household registration system, introduced in the 1950s, still divides the population into two distinct groups, urban and rural'."
   The Foreign Affairs article in fact never mentions apartheid.
2. "The analogies to South African apartheid go even further."
   Wikipedian's thesis.
3. "A report by the Heritage Foundation discussed some of the reasons for the use of this term."
   No it doesn't. It just mentions some depressing facts about the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and later on uses the word apartheid.
4. "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."
   Tutu told his host, the Dali Lama, that he and his people were on "the winning side."
5. "These tensions have spilled over into the tourist industry."
   Wikipedian's thesis.

The article ends on a wonderfully ludicrous note. We are told that our own Jimbo Wales "compared China's restrictions on internet usage and free speech to South African apartheid." But here we are offered no block quote to go with our blah-blah, nor even given the rhetorical details of the comparison. Why? Because the AP reporter we've relied on for this gem didn't find it notable enough to report. So in the absence of our master's voice saying "apartheid, apartheid," we console ourselves with what appears to be his driver's-licence photo.

Delete this dreck.

WP:N and WP:NOR require secondary sources for a reason – to prevent hobby-horse essay-articles about issues not recognized as issues anywhere in the actual world. G-Dett 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Two more objections - the article doesn't address whether China is/could be guilty of the crime of apartheid. (If we're going to use legal or semi-legal terms, lets be precise, keep our eye on the ball). And badly referenced, the first link goes to The Economist, no mention of apartheid or even of China! PalestineRemembered 07:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense. The first link references an article from The Economist, which does indeed compare the Chinese hukou system to apartheid. These kinds of fact-free claims are rather depressing. Jayjg 02:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, point-pushing original research surrounding a forced neologism. --Eyrian 01:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. This is trying to solve an editing dispute by AfD. Article has quality issues, but it is well sourced and notable (I mean, it quotes Jimbo Wales, fer god's sake...). Quality issues should be resolved by other means, not AfDs. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Cerejota. Please note that IDONTLIKEIT isn't the objection; violation of WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT, and total lack of secondary sources establishing the topic qua topic, is the objection. And no, it doesn't quote Jimbo Wales, fer G-d's sake. Because there is no Wales quote on record, because the AP reporter didn't report it, because he didn't find it notable, because this is not a topic.--G-Dett 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It quotes Jimbo Wales.--Urthogie 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not on the topic of the article.--G-Dett 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he says apartheid in reference to China if you read the article.--Urthogie 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Urthogie, he says something the reporter never bothered to transcribe, but summarized as a comparison to apartheid. You added the unrelated quote about how China has "damaged the brand image of 'Don't be evil,'" for filler.--G-Dett 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Cerejota. G-Dett's valid complaints can be addressed by editing the article, something G-Dett has refused to do.--Urthogie 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As clarified below, improving the article doesn't work when the concept is flawed at its most basic level. This article is either 1.) an entirely original synthesis discussion of "allegations" that no other reliable secondary source has discussed as such, or 2.) a POV fork of substantive issues in China, which curtails any neutral or encyclopedic discussion by limiting it solely to those who use the word "apartheid" (while simultaneously combining several issues that no reliable sources has combined). If the article is about something else, this hasn't been explained, which is what makes it unclear how the article can be brought in compliance with these policies. Mackan79 13:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Allegations of tend to be a random collection of quotes from political activists, and this is no exception. In the unlikely event that someone does serious academic work comparing the two systems, we could possibly write a decent article, but until then this article can be nothing other than utter crap. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. These WP:POINT violations getting sillier with each day. (Incidentally, would anyone care to place bets now on the number of participants to this discussion with a background in Chinese issues, in relation to the number with a background in Middle East issues?) CJCurrie 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ReplyI am saddened by your narrow and incurious demeanor, and hope this is just a quick jab in the heat of debate... Knowledge should look outward, not inward. I have said it before this is why I defend the Allegations of apartheid articles: I have learned a lot more than if we focused on the middle-east alone. And I am a wikipedia because I want to learn.Thanks!--Cerejota 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not about suppression of information, it's about editors forcing the facts to comply with a term they've largely synthesized in order to balance a perceived injustice. What have you learned that couldn't be found in discrimination in China or racism in China? --Eyrian 02:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Red links weaken your argument.--Urthogie 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They indicate directions that this material could move if it wasn't being shoehorned into the apartheid label to fit the designs of tendentious editors. --Eyrian 02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Predictable reply. This page exists to discuss rhetoric, not actual segregation.--Urthogie 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary condescension. How many people need to scream it to create Allegations of alien influence in the UN? --Eyrian 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the centralized discussion, where the point has been raised that allegations articles should maybe not exist. Singling out China's article for deletion is not in following with NPOV. Comprehensive solution is needed.--Urthogie 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not happening. I've watched it from afar, and I know a train wreck when I see it. As in the real world, this conflict is bitterly divided, ruled by emotion, and will ultimately go nowhere. I believe that articles need to stand on their own. That is enough. --Eyrian 02:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This, like the others, is an OR essay with no encyclopedic value, created in obvious response to the Israeli apartheid article, by the same group of editors who created all the others. This needs to stop.--Cúchullain /c 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I admit that I'm tired of articles that are entitled "Allegations of ______ese apartheid", but if they're sourced, then they should stay. The idea that this is "dreck" to be deleted is an extreme solution. If it's dreck, then edit it, dispute it in the discussion, etc. Apartheid is a dumb title to use because (a) it's as unique to South Africa, as "Jim Crow" is to the USA; (b) apartheid and Jim Crow referred to laws on the books directing segregation, not policies that had that effect; and, last and least, (c) hard to spell, hard to pronounce, and as loaded a term as can be. Mandsford 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I completely agree with your views, without reservations. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Hi Mandsford, the point is it's not sourced to any secondary sources, as required by WP:N and WP:NOR to establish notability. The article is "about rhetoric," as Urthogie says above, but not one source here discusses rhetoric. That is Urthogie's thesis, which he advances through a constellation of primary sources. Hope this clarifies.--G-Dett 02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Properly sourced, notable, and entirely consistent with the other articles in the "series". I agree with Mandsford, however WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion, and this nom itself appears to be the violation of WP:POINT. <<-armon->> 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Correction Not IDONTLIKEIT, as you must have noticed, but WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT, per above.--G-Dett 02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • True, but has it does easily meet WP:N and it's clearly not OR, they were obviously just a pretext for IDONTLIKEIT. That's how it looks anyway. <<-armon->> 02:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, of course. Well sourced, well written, relevant information, presented in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. The practices of both China's hukou system and that of China in Tibet have well-documented parallels with the situation in apartheid South Africa, and I'm surprised that User:G-Dett dismisses the Dalai Lama's and Desmond Tutu's views on this so cavalierly, considering how strongly she has supported Desmond Tutu's similar statements on other very similar articles. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deleting an article, nor are various nonsensical claims about "primary" and "secondary" sources: Of course primary and secondary sources do exist, and are different, but the argument used regarding them in these articles is spurious. These constant AfDs are quite disruptive; what percentage of other Misplaced Pages articles do people imagine have even 10 sources, much less 37 citations sourced to 25 different sources? Jayjg 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • Jay manufactures baloney faster than any mere mortal can eat or otherwise dispose of it, but here goes. This article has no sources, as in zero sources, discussing its topic, "allegations of Chinese apartheid." "Well-documented parallels" are a red herring; what we need, in an article on allegations of Chinese apartheid, is well-documented allegations of Chinese apartheid. Again, zilch, zero, nada. I haven't dismissed and wouldn't dismiss Tutu's views; I dismiss Jay's willful and repeated manipulation and distortion of same. No IDONTLIKEIT arguments have been introduced, only notability and original-research problems and WP:POINT-violations Jay is unable to address and so hopes to distract editors from. The distinction between primary sources and secondary ones is central to both WP:N and WP:NOR, and was well understood by Jay himself as recently as May 1; that he affects now not to understand it is as predictable as it is trivial. AfD's aren't disruptive; the ceaseless production of hoax-articles like this one, for the purposes of leveraging deletion of an article one doesn't like, is disruptive.--G-Dett 04:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • G-Dett, I know I ask you this at least three times a day, but here goes another fruitless try; could you please comment solely on article content and policy, rather than lacing your remarks with multiple derogatory personal attacks? It really detracts from the discussion when you do this. Jayjg 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, and not that it matters, but I'm a she, as Jay knows as well as everything else he misrepresented in that last post.--G-Dett 04:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I've modified my comment to refer to you as a "she". Now, could you possibly stop making uncivil attacks on other editors in almost every single comment you make? I think it would really help the tenor of this discussion. Jayjg 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The hukou system does use a pass system, but that's the only real parallel. Chinese actions in Tibet are deplorable, but are being carried out in a completely different manner than oppression and control of nonwhites in apartheid-era South Africa. The term apartheid as used in this context is simply a term of opprobrium, not a serious comparison. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  It goes much farther than just the pass system, as the article brings out. The exploitation of cheap labor, forced to live in dormitories in places where they are not allowed to be real "residents", the raids and expulsions, etc. are all strikingly similar to the South African situation. As for Tibet, there's a good quote in the article outlining all sorts of parallels. Jayjg 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Those are all extremely shallow or apply to many exploitative systems other than apartheid: the American treatment of the native population, the Normans in 11th and 12th Century England, the Japanese in Korea, the English in Scotland, the English in Ireland, the English in India, ... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Apartheid was a specific legal and political structure. Its overuse to make facile analogies clouds its meaning. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Well, you might not agree that the analogy is a good one, but that's not particularly relevant in the context of this AfD. The fact is that multiple reliable sources have explicitly made these allegations/analogies, comparing Chinese practices directly to those of Apartheid South Africa. By the way, there's a more detailed article about this here, making very specific comparisons (and also stating where they break down). I'll have to incorporate it into the article as well, as there's lots of good stuff there, but haven't had the time yet. In any event, if you are making the larger point that "apartheid" outside South Africa is really just an epithet, and shouldn't be used as a topic/title for encyclopedic articles, then I hear you, but then you're going to have to look at a systemic solution, not just this article in isolation. Jayjg 03:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The author of the paper you link to makes clear that he does not equate the two systems (I doubt any serious scholar would), but is using a comparison as a device to explain the Chinese system to his readers. Thus, saying that the paper is advancing an allegation of apartheid in China does not seem accurate. I'm opposed to most "Allegations/Criticism of" articles as irredeemable POV problems and would be receptive to a systemic solution that would discourage them. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think I agree with you; in my view, the author sees similarities and differences between the two systems, but insists the similarities are quite real. Regarding systemic solutions, here's a page built for discussing exactly that: Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. However, it's only fair to warn you that the rhetoric often gets quite personal, and some editors are mightily resisting any sort of systemic solutions or compromises. Jayjg 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Right, but the article isn't Similarities and differences between the apartheid and hukou, it's Allegations of Chinese apartheid and the author never alleges that China practices apartheid and says that he's comparing the two (quoting from memory) "not because the analogy is perfect but because it is revealing." You could compare any two legal and political systems and find similarities and differences. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  Just to translate for those who might be getting lost in this discussion of "systemic solutions" and "centralized discussions." Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which superficially resembles this and the other "allegations of apartheid" articles, has survived six AfD's. The reason is simple: the article has 115+ sources, and most of them are secondary sources discussing the allegations themselves and hence establishing that topic's notability. This article and its sister articles (all written by opponents of the Israel article), by contrast, have zero secondary sources and provide no evidence of notability. At any rate, editors who oppose the Israel article on ideological or nationalist grounds have despaired of trying to have it deleted in the proper fashion, and came up with the brainstorm of creating seven or eight very badly sourced articles built around data-mining (of which the China article is a good example), and making them superficially resemble the Israel article so that they could be presented as a "family" of articles, the fate of which they could then insist be decided together. The idea was that while it's difficult to sink a sturdily built ship (the Israel article), if you chain it to a chunk of worthless concrete eight times its size it will sink. This article is part of that chunk of concrete. This is what the editor above means by the euphemism "systemic solution"; he means chaining the fate of a well-sourced article to that of unsourced or poorly sourced and eminently sink-worthy articles engineered to superficially resemble it. Those who think the articles should be evaluated for their compliance with Misplaced Pages policy on a case by case basis he says are "resisting any sort of systemic solutions or compromises." Hope this helps.--G-Dett 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Please don't "translate" for me, especially when your "translations" have little to do with my comments, but instead are just another re-iteration of POV and inaccurate arguments you've made many times before. Jayjg 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  Believe me, I'm well aware of the history here. Overall, I agree with the point that Jayjg is making: the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article is horrible. Its only distinction from the other articles is that it also quotes people who have either repeated or disagreed with the term. No serious scholar has alleged the two systems are the same and if you're apprised of the basic facts any equation of the two breaks down pretty fast. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Mandsford. The article is an eye-opener and certainly not "dreck." If it has shortcomings, edit it. If apartheid doesn't fit China, than it does not fit any other non-South African article.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  then it does not fit any other non-South African article. Bingo. The existence of one ridiculous article does not mean that numerous other silly articles need to be created. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Nothing silly about this article. It is well-researched and quite an asset to the project. It seems to be opposed for reasons unrelated to its merits.--Mantanmoreland 13:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The only sense in which the article is "well-researched" is that the authors have managed to find some quotes making analogies between various Chinese practices and apartheid. You could write a similar article called Allegations that George W. Bush is a Nazi. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, how many times do we have to go over this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, It seems to be sourced an does not seem to have the problems suggested by the nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayig's comments above. I found this article realy interesting. The nomination to delete seems like it may be politically motivated. Bigglove 03:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If it's a loaded name, and each of the sections are talking about different phenomena discussed in other articles, and no sources tie these things together, I don't understand why this article exists or how it should be improved. Per WP:NPOV#POV_forks, "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." Is there an argument for why these issues should all be discussed in this article under the name "Allegations of Chinese Apartheid"? Is this the best way to cover these issues in an encyclopedic way? The answer to each seems quite clearly "no." It is in fact entirely original synthesis, tied together under a title that stunts any discussion of the entirely distinct issues discussed in the article, which would be excluded since 99.9% of commentators are not going to discuss these issues in terms of apartheid. That is not improvable, which is why the article should be deleted. Mackan79 04:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you're making these claims; the topic of the article is allegations of apartheid in China, and this article discusses exactly that, and allows for all views on the subject. True, there are other good sources that could be incorporated into the article to round it out; I have two in particular that are thoughtful and extensive, and others exist. However, that kind of work takes a great deal of time. I do plan to get to it, though, and deleting an article because it's not yet complete does not make sense to me. Regarding "the best way to cover these issues in an encyclopedic way", it seems that this argument would apply to all of the "Allegations of apartheid" articles - and indeed, many have said just that. However, others have insisted that this does not apply to one specific article in the series, using various arguments I personally find quite dubious. Jayjg 04:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There are related problems. 1.) If this article is merely about the "allegations" of apartheid -- that is, about the allegations and their significance as such -- then the topic is clearly not notable, as nobody has discussed these allegations. These are entirely primary sources, meaning editors have data mined the internet for a phrase, and then synthesized an article about its use. This is, per the nom, original research until you find somebody who actually discusses the allegation as such. 2.) There is however some confusion, as some people seem to think the article is valid as a discussion of the underlying issues themselves. That is, not as a topic discussing the significance of the allegations, but as an article on apartheid conditions in China. In this sense, the problem is not notability, since the sources do discuss these conditions in China as secondary sources, specifically by referring to the conditions as "apartheid." It is thus the problem with this notion that I also want to point out, which is not notability but that it violates WP:NPOV#POV_forks in limiting a substantive discussion solely to "allegations of apartheid." In terms of other articles, I wish this did not keep being raised, but I think you know that the analysis is different. In some countries, the allegations are indeed highly notable as such, and discussed extensively by secondary sources who talk about the allegations, which means the topic passes under point one. I didn't choose this, but it is the reality of the situation that we have. In no country is "Allegations of Apartheid" a neutral discussion of the underlying issues, as all have agreed for some time. Mackan79 04:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Human Rights in China. "Chinese apartheid" is an obscure term. There are only around 200 hits on google proper and one hit on google scholar. The second reference is on the hukou system and it says it's been called "Chinese apartheid" or a "Chinese caste system" so there's no reason to think "Chinese apartheid" is a definitive term. Merge the information on houku to hukou with links from Allegations of apartheid and caste. As for the material on Tibet, 1) Desmond Tutu does NOT compare the situation of Tibetans under Chinese rules to the apartheid system in South Africa. What he does is compare the struggle to overthrow the apartheid dictatorship with the struggle to free Tibet from China - two very different ideas. He could just as well have been talking about any struggle against a dictatorship - it certainly doesn't mean he was comparing social, political or legal systems. The other references to Tibet are fleeting and not very deep. I can find no books or scholarly articles that make a detailed comparison between Tibet and Apartheid South Africa. Move the quotations to Tibet Autonomous Region and/or Allegations of apartheid. Move the other references as well since they also are rather fleeting. Until and unless there is some more serious scholarship on "Chinese apartheid" this article does not belong here. Lothar of the Hill People 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per what I said a few minutes ago on the AfD about Saudi Arabia, and per the comments here by Mantanmoreland, Urthogie and Jayjg. 6SJ7 05:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment On the last DRV (U.S. apartheid, I think) I noted that the word apartheid itself is POV and divisive and these articles, which discuss allegations from reliable sources, often fail to have sources which actually use the word "apartheid". (If they did they would be much shorter.) I do not believe that this word is helping the case of any of htese articles to appear as anything but attack pages. The first page to come up with a viable alternative gets a cookie. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there are serious problems with this article, as tabulated by G-Dett (I've added two more to that list above). There are no proper "allegations" as such, but if Jimbo had made them (except he didn't) it would be notable. However, I found the subject "valuable", the article readable and the topic acceptably encyclopaedic. PalestineRemembered 07:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - despite my enjoyment of this particular article, I've discovered that all of the "Allegations of apartheid" articles (other than those for Israel and perhaps Cuba) were apparently created very recently in a collaborative effort to do? what? be attack articles? I don't think these are allegations atall, except as neologisms on these very pages. PalestineRemembered 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per above. PalestineRemembered 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The content of the article is sourced, but the fact that those sources are slapped together to try to create this article is definitely WP:Original research and a violation of WP:Point. The simple litmus test here is that while the sources talks about discrimination and uses the word "apartheid" to individually and seperately describe the situations of the Tibetans, rural workers, etc, they do not collectively refer to all these groups that the article mentions. The fact that the article tries to link these together is what makes it WP:Original research and a violation of WP:Point. The content of this article should be on articles like Human rights in the People's Republic of China and Tibet instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is sourced ad nauseam and there is no reason to delete it unless it's some policy issue to remove all allegations of apartheid articles. If it's not, there really should be an article of allegations of apartheid for every country and this will probably top the list. Amoruso 08:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a laundry list based on a keyword search. While the quotes individually are kind of interesting, lumping them together doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Misplaced Pages is not Google. --Ideogram 08:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Let me expand. Articles like this can be written by a robot that searches Google for a keyword and simply lists all the quotes found. There is no secondary source writing about "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" as a unifying concept. There is no thought involved in cobbling together a list of quotes. The same process could be used to create a series of articles "Allegations of Chinese/French/American thoughtlessness" or any other pejorative term, as can be evidenced by the fact we are facing a group of people creating a whole genre of articles on "Allegations of Apartheid". --Ideogram 08:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was well known that consistency with other articles is not a valid justification for keeping an article. This is obviously a POINTy argument aimed at attacking the Israeli article. In any case, that is up to the closing admin to decide. --Ideogram 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, the American article got deleted, and the French article got kept. There is no such thing as consistency on Misplaced Pages. --Ideogram 10:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete:The article shows the whole problem of all the political allegation articles.
  They show two levels. Level one is the alleged fact and level two is the allegation itself. Each of these levels should be treated different.
  If the facts are notable, there should be an article about these facts themselves. In this case, there should be an article about apartheid in China, which will not happen, because there is no apartheid in China (Don´t misunderstand me, China is a repressive system, constantly violating human rights, but not every repressing political system is apartheid, a special system of racial separation. For excample the case of Tibet is no case of apartheid, because there the chinese do not try to separate the Chinese and Tibetians, far from it they try to absorb the Tibetians)
  The human right violations in China should be discribed in neutral articles of their own or added to the existing articles about human right violations. This article deals with the allegation itself. These can only reach notability, if they are more than the usual political blabla, because they cause special interrest independent of the content of the allegtion (level one). The claims of the dalai lama about apartheid in Tibet is one of many similar statements, showin no new facts and causing no reaction in addition to the other millions of statements of the dalay lama about the situation in Tibet.It´s the same about the other statements, discribed in the article. Someone made a statement and the only result was an article at wikipedia. We have an unimportant allegation about a not existing correlation. No reason to keep.--Thw1309 08:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - some of these "Allegations of Apartheid" articles are worthless, particularily the one on France. The one on Saudi is decidedly poor, proving only racism (against foreigners) and a divided society, not apartheid. However, I found this article on China interesting and significant. China may does not operate classic "racist" apartheid, but the pass-laws (according to what I've learnt here) get perilously close. PalestineRemembered 10:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You want to read about pass-laws, it belongs in Hukou. There is a bunch of other unrelated stuff in this article. --Ideogram 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Most of the repressive systems use the same methods (because they work so well) but this is not the central meaning of apartheid. Apartheid is a racist system of separtation, the result of a special historical situation and a special racist concept. The chinese system is not better but it is something else. That´s not the point. This article is not about apartheid in China. It´s about allegations of apartheid in China. --Thw1309 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about allegations of apartheid. It's a list of allegations of apartheid. It doesn't say anything sourced about the allegations. --Ideogram 11:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The same pro/con arguments should be applied across all "Allegations of apartheid" series. Consistency please. ←Humus sapiens 09:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Absolutely right, but this can not mean that,because one bad article was not proposed for deletion the others should not be deleted too. Delete them all!--Thw1309 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I support your sentiment but unfortunately this is a wrong place to deal with the series. I invite you to Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. ←Humus sapiens 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment On the other hand, it's also frustrating when editors continually point out differences between the various articles only for these differences to be ignored for purely WP:ALLORNOTHING arguments. Mackan79 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wrong, this is not "purely WP:ALLORNOTHING". The article Allegations of Jordanian apartheid was among those that did not hold water and was deleted. WP has a problem when certain unscrupulous editors and admins pick and choose a target to attack according to their POV. All I am asking is consistency. If an argument works in one case, it should works in others as well. ←Humus sapiens 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The title is inherently POV. There is no need to cover the underlying issues in this way, and it is invalid to do so. No article should begin with the word "Allegations" unless it is the title of a published work. Casperonline 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

• Strong delete It cannot be denied that the article has plenty of references (the quality of referencing is another issue altogether), but many users appear to ignore the fact that we cannot simplistically clump a whole lot of references together and conjour a wikipedia article with a thesis based on the collective information drawn from those references. This is clearly a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and is outright original research.--Huaiwei 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I beg to differ. Previously I'd thought there'd only ever been two apartheid nations (ie government issued IDs dividing people into "communities" within a single non-occupied nation). These series of articles have nuanced my understanding a great deal. And this article on China is second only to the article on Israel in providing "good" information. PalestineRemembered 10:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia Malaysia requires citizens to indicate their religion on their id cards, and a woman recently was not allowed to change her id card even though she had converted to another religion. Apartheid, like genocide, is far more common than most people realize. In fact, maybe these people would be better occupied describing all the genocides in world history, since Hitler tends to get all the credit. Oh, BEANS. And Godwin's Law. --Ideogram 10:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The ID incident is in Malaysia actually, which incidently also routinely classifies its population by race. Heck, so does Singapore, which insists that all children are to study their respective mother tongue, and public housing flats are allocated by race. God, its Apartheid in my own backyard too, so anyone keen to write Allegations of Singaporean apartheid next?--Huaiwei 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the ID issue in Malaysia is more about religion than race. Check out Status of religious freedom in Malaysia for further details. Now read that along with Ketuanan Melayu on the constitutionalised affirmative action practised in that country for decades now. The Chinese allegations would probably pale in comparison, so Allegations of Malaysian apartheid too?--Huaiwei 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If you need to know something, you should look at Wikiedia. There is an article History of South Africa in the apartheid era which says: "Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans, cognate to English apart and -hood) was a system of ethnic separation in South Africa from 1948, and was dismantled in a series of negotiations from 1990 to 1993, culminating in democratic elections in 1994.The rules of Apartheid meant that people were legally classified into a racial group — the main ones being Black, White, Coloured and Indian — and were separated from each other on the basis of the legal classification." This is apardheit and nothing else. Because this is globally detested, every political idiot claims the system, he fights, to be apartheid.--Thw1309 11:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I am fully aware that there are "sources ad nauseum" but the only purpose of the sources is to support the author's POV, which is basically WP:OR. And as Ideogram said, although both sides seem to be addressed, this is a simple compilation of quotes that makes the article seem valid. Pandacomics 11:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - ObiterDicta took the words out of my mouth. Will 11:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per what has been said above. The author uses selective quotes and deliberate mis-interpretation of sources to support an essentially WP:OR argument. PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Another google search for "apartheid + " that seeks to create a thoroughly artificial and unencyclopedic equivalence between things as different as the hukou system, race in Brazil, sex segregation in Saudi Arabia, and the social situation in the French suburbs, in order to have bargaining chips to secure the deletion of another article--Victor falk 12:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Keep but cleanupCholga 12:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete the same ol' garbage from the same ol' article author who is engaging in frequent point-making with this synthesized original research. Tarc 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "no sources even calling them 'allegations'". Well, if that's the case, then the article should be Chinese apartheid. We're bending over backwards towards NPOV to call it Allegations of Chinese apartheid. Gzuckier 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Ironies rich and meaty. Yes, no sources calling them "allegations," no sources discussing them as allegations, no sources discussing these utterances period. Kinda what I was getting at when I said the article was unsourced and should be deleted. Now yes, if you changed the subject to Chinese apartheid, you'd take care of the serious notability and original-research violations, as well as solve the fatal sourcing issues in one fell swoop. Trouble is, that fell swoop would take you out of the furnace and into the fire, as the article would by definition become a massive, five-pronged, red-hot and radioactive POV-fork. At any rate, in their use of the word "allegations" the authors of this article are not bending over backwards to make this article comply with NPOV; they're bending over backwards to make the article (and its bastard brother articles) superficially resemble the Israel one (with parallel structure, stock phrases, etc.) so that the collective deadweight of the former may help to sink the latter. It's deletion by other means, as anyone who's read their euphemistic ultimatums and endless strawman arguments about "consistency" can see. The question for Wikipedians in general is whether we want to keep bending over frontwards in submission to these serial WP:POINT-violations, or are ready to confront the aggressive disruption and put an end to it.--G-Dett 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

“Bending over frontwards?” My my. Anyway, I agree that there are problems with the allegations of apartheid articles—all of them. Any arguments about OR, POV, and notability can oh-so-easily be applied to the Israel article (and have been, many times). I liken this to the one time I ill-advisedly hit the random article button and came across some utterly non-notable middle school, or similar. I put it up for AfD, and was sternly informed that basically all schools everywhere are notable, so I should really pipe down. And… I piped down. Now, I could go back and start putting out AfD’s for all articles on middle and grammar schools that aren’t in some obvious way notable (which is virtually all of them) but what would be the point? I might win some, I might lose some, but the solution is really to take them all out at once, or leave them all in. No point in keeping Marquette Catholic School but deleting Hanshew Middle School, or viceversa. IronDuke 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, no one has ever argued that the Israel article lacks secondary sources and hence runs afoul of WP:N and WP:NOR. There is prominent, widespread discussion of and controversy about allegations of Israeli apartheid, that is, the allegations themselves. There is apparently no discussion or controversy whatsoever about allegations of Chinese apartheid. Going by the evidence of the article on the topic, the only source that's ever discussed allegations of Chinese apartheid is Misplaced Pages. That's a fundamental difference you can't get around through obfuscation and verbal shell-games. Incidentally, it's not particularly surprising that allegations of Chinese apartheid have never been noticed or discussed before. China is not exactly synonymous with human rights. In terms of public image, China and China's apologists have bigger things to worry about than comparisons with South Africa. It's a fundamentally different equation with a country like Israel, which is one of the reasons the comparison has become a subject unto itself in the Israeli case, but not the Chinese case.--G-Dett 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  People have said time and again that IA runs afoul of NOR (and again, in the last complete AfD, a majority of folks wanted it gone). A secondary source noting that some people have made an analogy does not make that analogy worth an encyclopedia article. Oh, if you have a sec, can you point me to what you believe are the secondary sources which discuss the controversy? I would aprpeciate it. IronDuke 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ian Buruma, "Do not treat Israel like apartheid South Africa", The Guardian, July 23, 2002; "Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week," Jerusalem Post by Jonny Paul; Heribert Adam, Kogila Moodley, Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians; Alex Safian, "Guardian Defames Israel with False Apartheid Charges," Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, February 20, 2006; Joel Pollack, "The trouble with the apartheid analogy," Business Day, 2 March 2007; "Israel Is Not An Apartheid State," Jewish Virtual Library; Benjamin Pogrund, "Apartheid? Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote"; "Carter explains 'apartheid' reference in letter to U.S. Jews," International Herald Tribune; "Archbishop Tutu, please be fair," Jerusalem Post Dec. 5, 2006; Norman Finkelstein, "The Ludicrous Attacks on Jimmy Carter's Book," CounterPunch December 28, 2006; Gerald M. Steinberg, "Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause," Jerusalem Post, August 24, 2004...How many is that and how many do you need? How about we make a deal, Ironduke. If I can produce twenty-five (25) more secondary sources on the Israel-South Africa comparison – that is, 25 more sources that discuss the allegation itself, as a notable subject – will you concede the point that this article and the Israel article are categorically different in their sourcing? That one has a rich vein of secondary sources, while the other has none, and that the difference has fundamental implications for notability? And will you then stop pegging the legitimacy of this article to the legitimacy of the Israel one? You can still vote keep on this, but you'd have to evaluate it on its own merits. Deal?--G-Dett 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. an argument built upon the sensational is one designed to appeal to emotion; it undermines real issues. Real issues are significant enough to present in a straight forward manner as stated above; call it racism. We do not need to manipulate readers to have a visceral reaction to a country or people. To me this title is POV; and these article with "Allegations" need to be deleted or the titles changed; they are too easily used to use primary sources to develop one's soapbox du jour. --Storm Rider 15:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As I have !voted before, keep all or delete all articles on this subject. This article has plenty of sources and, per Gzuckier, we could meet some objections by renaming it to Chinese Apartheid. IronDuke 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Let me get this straight. If we delete this article because it has no secondary sources and hence a) cannot offer objective evidence of its subject's notability, and b) must rely on its own original synthesis of primary-source material in order to thread together a narrative, then we must also delete another article that has copious secondary sources and hence neither of these policy/guideline problems? On the grounds that both articles have the word "apartheid" in their titles? This is sophistry, Ironduke.--G-Dett 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The vast majority of the IA article is a quote farm hodge-podge. I see few secondary sources, and am not impressed enough by the few that there are to say that it makes a good WP article. As you’ll recall, in discussion on another page, I pointed out to you the many secondary sources that could be had discussing “Israeli as Nazi.” You did not respond to this, and I’m going to assume it was because of the nature of my sharp—even eviscerating—logic. “Sophistry?” Socratic, I say! IronDuke 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The lack of response is more likely to do with the fallaciousness of your argument, really. The Israeli apartheid article has reliable and verifiable sources to support the noteworthiness of the apartheid allegations. For Chinese apartheid, the article creator and the usual gang have cherry-picked a few phrases here and there, tossed them in the pot, and called it a day. Soapboxery at its finest. Tarc 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't respond because I didn't think your list of secondary sources establishing the notability of "Israelis as Nazis" for a Misplaced Pages article merited a response. Your secondary sources consisted of: a link to an op-ed in The Iranian (an online newsletter); a link to an unlabeled pdf photocopy of an alphabetical index to an unspecified book (if I were to guess, by Alan Dershowitz); a link to an article on "New Trends and Old Hatreds," accompanied by your bizarre advice that I "look for the Google blurb"; and an article about new antisemitism in England. I concluded that Socrates was fumbling around with Google to no meaningful effect, and I let it go. If you really require a response, I'll say this: your experiment proved how essential the secondary-source/notability requirement is. Editors exasperated with these "allegations" articles often rightly ask, what next? Allegations that George Bush is an idiot? Allegations that Paris Hilton is a ho-bag? Requiring secondary sources that comment on and establish the notability of an allegation is what prevents such nonsense. If you play the game the authors of this article play, where any collection of primary-source utterances can become the subject of a "sourced" article, then anything – including the Paris Hilton article and the Israelis-as-Nazis article – becomes permissible. What was salvageable from the sorry clutch of links you sent me would go very nicely into New antisemitism and Zionism and racism allegations; those are notable topics.--G-Dett 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as per lack of any ANALOGY to South African style apartheid, which was based on race and ethnicity segregation ONLY. I cite The World Book Encyclopedia (1974): "Apartheid not only segregates whites and nonwhites, but it also has led to efforts to segregate South Africa's nonwhite groups from one another. For example, certain residential areas are reserved for persons of a particular racial group.". China is one nation, one race, only two languages Mandarin and Cantonese, which differ slightly, so the allegations of apartheid are just silly and invalid. These could apply only to the Kashmir region but the word "Kashmir" doesn't show up even once in this article. For French "allegations" article I voted "weak keep", because those allegations were valid, it concerned race segregation, not rural/urban segregation allegations. Also, there is another reason for speedy deletion. As per the same World Book, apartheid means the government's policy. As far as I know, China's government as bad as it is, has never installed this policy; they even claim Taiwan as "us". greg park avenue 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Greg, are you sure you've read the article? Most of the sources make very explicit analogies and comparisons to South African apartheid, and list government policies enforcing the conditions described. Jayjg 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure he's read it. Despite some misguided facts (i.e. "only two languages"), he's spot on in saying that China, if anything, is pro-assimilation, as in they'd much rather have people be absorbed into their culture, and in the case of the ROC, be absorbed within political boundaries as well. Pandacomics 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course, I read it, and I think it's an insult to Misplaced Pages too, to have here such a piece a garbage on display for so long. The official GOVERNTMENT'S POLICY (and this is a keyword to the term apartheid) strictly enforced in China is: THERE ARE NOT TWO CHINAS! (which is exactly the opposite to apartheid meaning), and everybody knows that. Once a US president did that mistake reffering to Taiwan calling it just like that and must apologize later for insult, however it was not meant to. I don't think you have to apologize for your mistake, because you're not a politician, only a wikipedian, but better get this piece a bullshit out of here ASAP, if only for sake of Jimbo's reputation. I think he's not Billy Gates who keeps money in the crates. And don't sell me that bullshit of yours that all articles including the term "allegations of apartheid" should be deleted as well (your comment below). Each country is different. Britannica would never used it, but they have also the print version. Just imagine Misplaced Pages in print. You would need a tractor trailer to make delivery from Wal-Mart to your house, but some wikipedians often use this as an argument for deletion of all "allegations" series. Just smile. greg park avenue 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, The article has considered all Misplaced Pages policies and stays on topic. --82.81.224.249 17:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to anon You'd better sign in if this is to be counted.--G-Dett 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep an entry that deals specifically with the "apartheid analogy". Whatever problems editors say exists with the titling is the same one that exists throughout the "series" and should be dealt with comprehensively, and not piecemeal. Tewfik 19:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Well sourced extremely informative and necessary article. --Matt57 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this article. While not perfect, it seems to be fairly well-sourced and appears to be mostly neutral. However, I have some concerns over the name, and wonder whether there may be a little too much focus on the word 'apartheid' rather than the underlying concept. I can't help but wonder whether the article might be improved, and perhaps some concerns might be partially resolved, if a move is considered at a later date. Jakew 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• Merge and redirect to Human rights in China. It's an unecessary content fork; the relevant material, including allegations of apartheid, could and should be incorporated into the human rights article. AfD's are not about "systemic solutions"; they're about individual articles. At this point, it's a reasonable interpretation to say that both the editors who keep creating these content forks, and those who use the AfD's to accuse them of a broad range of malfeasance, are disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. The amount of potentially constructive energy being wasted on this issue is disheartening. MastCell 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A reasonably well-written, NPOV, and referenced article. Beit Or 19:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article inherits notability etc. from the parent, Allegations of apartheid, article, for which it serves as a convenient repository of content. Of course China does not practice apartheid. Neither does France, Cuba, etc. Or Israel. Only ZA practiced apartheid. The decision has been made, repeatedly and ad nauseum, that Misplaced Pages can have an article on the epithet. The fact that that article has grown into a whole family of "articles" and that Misplaced Pages doesn't have a good mechanism for recognizing or presenting multi-"article" articles doesn't justify the kind of guerrilla warfare this AfD represents. The encyclopedia will not be improved by merging this content into Allegations of apartheid, and the time spent on doing so (and on this discussion) is simply a waste. Andyvphil 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability is not inherited. MastCell 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow your own cite: "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes, however - this does not imply "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation..." I would argue that accepting a sub-article for "ease of formatting and navigation" is "inherited notability", but the point is that this "article" is an article fragment, and it makes no sense to use the AfD process to force a formatting change. Andyvphil 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Every major authoritative dictionary of the English language from the OED to M-W to Webster's New International defines "apartheid" both as the proper name for South Africa's former system and as a generic political term for systemic segregation. The articles in this pseudo-series are merely gathering instances of the regular use of a word and building narratives to thread the instances together. Wikipedians never decided – not repeatedly, not ad nauseum, not even once – that "Misplaced Pages can have an article on the epithet." What was decided, rather, was that if use of the word or concept (or "epithet" if you will) provoked enough discussion, commentary, controversy, scholarship, and international debate, then that debate could be considered encyclopedic. A very different thing. Creating a series of unsourced hoax articles in order to leverage deletion of an article that's survived six AfDs is "guerrilla warfare"; addressing the disruption head-on and through the usual channels is not.--G-Dett 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, dictionaries are a very poor source for semantics, and the vogue for descriptive rather than prescriptive definitions can get them in trouble. As it does with "apartheid" which, in the real world, is not merely "a generic political term for systemic segregation", but is almost invariably used to summon the emotional weight of the campaign against Apartheid ZA. Inasmuch as the epithet is, notably, debated, there is no meaningful distinction between an article on the epithet and an article on the debate over the epithet. And the material in this sub-article is relevant to the subject of the parent article, which has survived multiple AfDs. I see no prospect of it failing to survive the next AfD merely becaus it has been formatted as multiple "articles", so nominating the sub-articles for deletion is a pointless waste of time. Andyvphil 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil, whatever fault one may find with the descriptivist tilt of the Oxford English Dictionary, it's hardly to be corrected in that regard by Misplaced Pages (!). Misplaced Pages is the ultimate descriptivist (as opposed to prescriptivist) reference resource, as established both by its tradition and its core policy of WP:NPOV. Also, the following doesn't make sense: Inasmuch as the epithet is, notably, debated, there is no meaningful distinction between an article on the epithet and an article on the debate over the epithet. Because the epithet isn't notably debated in this case. In fact it appears not to have been "noted" at all, and is hence by definition not notable for our purposes. Since you bring it up, the same goes for Allegations of apartheid. Notwithstanding the misrepresentation of sources in that article, there are none that even recognize or discuss this class of utterance, "allegations of apartheid," and none that describe it generally as an epithet. Jay has found four sources in which "Israeli apartheid" is dismissed as an epithet, and for the purposes of that article he's misrepresented them as offering a general critique on the use of the term "apartheid" outside of South Africa, and then edit-warred the article to a standstill to keep the misrepresentation in place.--G-Dett 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Who says Israel practices apartheid? But there is well documented analogy to it made by very notable politicians (Nobel Prize winners) and artists. If you wanna keep this article just because the name of "allegations" as an epithet has been allowed into Misplaced Pages, then I'd rather vote for switching "allegations" to "analogy" in this series and see how many countries fit into it. Probably very few only. Definitely not China. They even don't fit into "allegations" category. Then I recommend to rename this article Epithets concerning China. Some day we may rename it even to China apartheid jokes. greg park avenue 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete first off, per WP:N, notability is not inherited. Second, this is WP:POINT synthesis original research, as none of the reliable sources provided directly or significantly address "analogies between practices of the People's Republic of China and apartheid-era South Africa." VanTucky 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into Human Rights in China or somesuch. Seems a clear case of synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and/or climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. T L Miles 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Mackan79, Pandacomics, Huawei, Hong Qi Gong. While I agree that the article is informative regarding the Hukou system, that material belongs there. There are no secondary sources discussing the analogy and as such the collection of the information under this title is WP:OR. Tiamat 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep nom seems like a misplaced emotional opinion, not GF for WP. --Shuki 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The opinions expressed here should converge on the proposed subject of the article in question, not on amateur speculation about mentality of its author or contestant. We don't need another Wikishrink. greg park avenue 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• At any rate, Shuki, WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT aren't emotions. Do you care to say why you think Allegations of Chinese apartheid qualifies as one of those "rare" cases under WP:NOR in which no secondary sources are needed?--G-Dett 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please avoid begging the question, it's a logical fallacy. The article contains only secondary sources; it doesn't posit that there is apartheid in China based, for example, on the hukou laws and the definition of apartheid. Rather, it cites secondary sources that make that analogy. Jayjg 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• When the subject is "allegations of Chinese apartheid," a source that makes the allegation is a primary source. A source that discusses the allegations – that says, for example, when the allegation was first articulated, or who contests it, or what its political implications are, or if or why it's controversial – is a secondary source. Now I can see you've been working on this article trying to save it since the AfD was posted – larding it with more truffles sniffed out by your google-hounds, and removing Jimbo's driver's license photo – but where exactly are the secondary sources? I'm not eagerly rereading with each tweak, I'll confess, so maybe you can point me in the right direction; still don't see anyone talking about the allegations. One thing's certain – it's absolutely, categorically false to say that the article "contains only secondary sources."--G-Dett 23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Your bizarre claim that secondary sources all magically become primary if someone inserts the words "Allegations of" into an article title has been refuted below. I know you don't like the words "Allegations of" in the titles of these articles, but this new shell game of yours is taking things way too far; please have some respect for the integrity and meaning of words. Jayjg 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• At some point strawman arguments cross over into the territory of simple lies. I never spoke of secondary sources "magically" becoming anything; I said, rather, exactly what you've said and are now trying to cover up, that "whether a source is a primary source or a secondary source depends on the context in which it's used." In an article about a certain kind of political rhetoric, examples of that rhetoric are primary sources, as you know very well and are dissembling about. I am flattered and pleased that you liked my metaphor of a shell game enough to steal it and pretend it was yours; your larger and graver deceptions, however, I find unsettling.--G-Dett 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Mandsford. It's not up to us to purge WP by what some enraged Wikipedians qualify as dreck for no valid reasons, tellingly spicing up the sauce with constant personal attacks.

> "Sources who make the allegation are primary sources, Jay."

Wrong: if the Economist chooses "Discrimination against rural migrants is China's apartheid" for a title, that's a secondary source saying so - quite possibly citing a primary one who said so in the first place - absolutely nothing wrong with that. Same applies with "China reviews `apartheid' for 900m peasants," as feels The Independent, and "Third World Report: 'Chinese apartheid' threatens links with Africa" by The Guardian, or "China's 'Apartheid' Taiwan Policy" by NYT. I agree with Jay: The distinction between primary and secondary sources, valid in saner circumstances, is just a spurious red herring here. The list goes on with a dozen or so - obviously, rational argument is futile here. --tickle me 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tickle me, you are now officially arguing that when a newspaper or magazine runs a story, it is "citing" its own staff writer. That the guy writing the headline is a secondary source, "citing" the primary source which is the story itself. Why not make the copy editor a tertiary source? And the paperboy a quaternary source? If you're like me and have a nice little Jack Russell to bark like hell and bring the paper to your feet, he's your quinary source. "The Independent feels" – I promise you, Tickle me, I'm not enraged, I'm tickled to death by this crap; OK, I'm mildly irritated at having spit up half my martini onto the computer screen, but I'll get over that. But let's be clear here – I am not responsible for the pretzel your train of thought has buckled itself into. It is precisely in such insane circumstances – in an article about what some people say, how some people use a certain word, as noticed by some Wikipedians using search engines – that the distinction between primary and secondary sources becomes fundamental. Simply put, if the comparison you've found hasn't itself been remarked or discussed by anyone, it isn't a notable topic.--G-Dett 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

> Simply put, if the comparison you've found hasn't itself been remarked

> or discussed by anyone, it isn't a notable topic

Hard to believe you're pulling this one. If the the Economist, the Independent, the Guardian, or the NYT have articles titled like "Discrimination against rural migrants is China's apartheid," while dealing with the subject in the ensuing text, they're yet neither remarking nor discussing the topic, much less notably so, as these rags are no WP:RS? As rags in general are no WP:RS anymore, all of a sudden, lest they deal with apartheid in some tiny country we need not mention? This is sheer filibustering, hoping that opponents just leave the premises, tired eventually. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez, saying that the Economist's article makes a serious allegation of apartheid is just ludicrous misreading of the source. If a newspaper runs a story called "London Mayor is worse than Hitler, says residents", do you think it is seriously alleging that the London Mayor is a fascist dictator bent on world domination?

These aren't allegations - they are analogies - or, in many cases, hyperbole or exaggeration. This article tries to misrepresent exaggerated analogies as allegations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious; do you think your argument applies to Allegations of Brazilian apartheid as well? How about Allegations of Israeli apartheid? Jayjg 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

> ludicrous misreading of the source

Would you mind elaborating on that? When likening China's discriminatory attitude against its rural migrants to "apartheid" they didn't mean it, because PalaceGuard008 knows better, QED? Whose palace are you guarding?

> This article tries to misrepresent exaggerated analogies as allegations

We might want to complain with the Economist, as their article doesn't suit our expectations. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

btw, this just escaped me till right now: G-Dett feels the urge to admonish us to "elete this dreck" - right per nom. I can't believe that, given that dreck is Yiddish, while Zionist (and worse) is the standard qualifier for Jay and Urthogie, the authors if the disputed article. Seems like even faint pretense isn't needed anymore. --tickle me 00:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am less tickled by this sort of smear, though. If you want to know how I feel about the word "Zionist," click here. And then drop it. For good. As in now.--G-Dett 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

> "If you want to know how I feel about the word "Zionist," click here"

Astounding: you're writing your very own persilschein? Good thinking, I'm convinced, now. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know we're not supposed to feed the likes of you, but have some chicken soup and go to bed. I never said "Zionist."--G-Dett 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Have some red herring yourself - do they make soup of bait fish?

> I never said "Zionist"

...and nobody claimed you did. Others do, and you know as much, as your contact with Jay et al is, say, intense. --tickle me 16:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-written article, well-sourced. I also like that it says "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" rather than "Chinese apartheid". I see no good reason to delete. I do see that there's some overlap between here and Human rights in China, but that article is already extremely long, and it wouldn't make sense to merge more information into it. Instead, this is a good sub-article as part of that series. --Elonka 01:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A good, well-sourced article. Frivolous AfD. Arrow740 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep. AFD seems poorly conceived. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Stupidity Anyone who links this AFD debate with the rest of the "Allegations of X Apartheid" series, especially the god-damned Israeli one, is an idiot. I spent months trying to establish a "consistent" policy on the Taiwan/Republic of China naming policy, and failed. Nobody cares about your petty war. By trying to make China a pawn in your pathetic game you have only earned yourself the enmity of a whole new group of people. --Ideogram 03:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if the title of this article was changed to "Chinese apartheid", it is clear it would have to be about a specific government system that has been called apartheid. It is only by calling it "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" that it can talk about five different government policies which have nothing in common other than having the rhetorical device "apartheid" thrown at them. The fact that people overuse the term "apartheid" is not worthy of a Misplaced Pages article. We don't have articles about "Allegations that X is a Nazi", because it's so fucking common. --Ideogram 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment Move this to "demographic problem of China" or a page with similar title. Apartheid sounds more incendiary than anything else. This article is really biased too. I can't believe there're allegations of "apartheid against Taiwanese", no doubt referenced by single quote mined source. You want to know real apartheid? Go read how harsh we (the Taiwanese) treat mainland Chinese domestics and mail order wives here in Taiwan, what a pathetic article . Blueshirts 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Apartheid" is indeed "incendiary." The problem is, once Misplaced Pages is ablaze, putting out an individual flame here and there won't work. The whole fire needs to be put out. And, as a famous poet once put it, we didn't start the fire. 6SJ7 03:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See Stupidity above. You are pouring gasoline on your individual flame so that you can make a big fire to attract attention. You think it's so goddamn important you don't give a shit for our priorities, which, surprise, don't include you. You think by irritating people you will gain allies? --Ideogram 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Plus the fire shouldn't have been there in the first place. This isn't the same as sex education where it's "incendiary" but gotta be taught because it's real. "Chinese apartheid" is about as BS as they come. Merge what's salvageable to human rights in China please. Blueshirts 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This guy is part of the clique that is obsessed with the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, that is the fire he is talking about. He is trying to spread the fire to China, presumably because he thinks we will be grateful for being used. --Ideogram 04:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. the article is a heavily POV essay about observers' interpretation of what might be considered apartheid in China. I do not believe that "the subject" is notable, as it is in essence the amalgam of separate three ideas joined together by a very thin thread as if someone did a string searc on google for "apartheid" and "China". The article should be deleted outright, but it strikes me that the parts of the three constituent parts could be split back out into Hukou, Tibet, and Human rights in China. Just because the article is sourced ad nauseum doesn't mean it is not NPOV, including the title. Ohconfucius 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• What the heck is this? - I just noticed this message at the top of the article's Talk page:

This article was written under the auspices of Wikiproject Zionism, an effort sponsored by the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry to ensure a favourable portrayal of the State of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please contact Hasbara Fellowships to receive a list of open tasks.

Since when is any concerted effort to especially give any country a "favourable portrayal" sanctioned under WP rules? I'm pretty sure this is a gross violation of the cardinal rule of neutrality on WP. Seriously, is there really any question that this article was written to be POV and written as a violation of WP:Point? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism, I am pretty sure. I've deleted it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's putting it mildly. It looks like it was deliberately designed to mislead people, and unfortunately it looks like it worked in at least one case. 6SJ7 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Typical disinformation, a tactic used first by former KGB agents to create false impression how much antisemitism exists, in case there is none, someone must invent it. It affects both sides and incites hate among radicals. greg park avenue 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)'* Delete as WP:POV. Any useful information better placed elsewhere. I'm reminded of the old political tactic Let's make the bastard deny it. (Johnson, I think). The heading is phrased to give an appearance of neutral examination of "allegations", but serves as WP:POV advocacy for themm in my humble opinion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Split and merge to Hukou and Tibet Autonomous Region Yes, it's a WP:POINT effort, but there's some salvageable content. The Hukou article could use expansion, and there's content here that would improve it. That subject deserves more development. More info on how the hukou system is holding up as China urbanizes would be valuable. The Tibet vs. China issue is a separate one. Is there an article other than Tibet Autonomous Region where that material should go? --John Nagle 05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this well-referenced article. IZAK 05:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) This user is involved in Allegations of Israeli apartheid and has little or no contributions to China related articles. --Ideogram 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, despite the 'stupidity' comment, i feel that a discussion to delete one in the "apartheid series" while the others stay, is unencyclopedic on it's own. as of now, i think the article is referenced well enough to be just as unencyclopedic as the others. Jaakobou 09:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

• Keep - I have many reservations about including specific instances of political rhetoric as articles, but if the consensus is that these are notable topics, then this article should be included. --Leifern 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge and redirect to Human rights in China. this article is incredibly biased against China, presenting little or no criticism of these allegations. Delete and merge for now, until this can be made more NPOV.Bless sins 13:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In the middle age, when the pest came, there were allogations of jewish poisoning of wells. Nobody had any proof or even seen a Jew poisoning a well, but everyowne had heard someone say it. Nobody could have o proof, because, as we know now, the pest was not the result of poison but of dirt and garbidge. The allogations in these articles have the same quality. We can only be thankfull that wikipedia is to unimportant to cause the death of thousands of innocent people as these historical allogations did. --Thw1309 11:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You guys asking for consistency just don't get it. When I was struggling to establish consistent usage of "Taiwan" versus "Republic of China" in article titles, where the hell were you? Oh, I see, you want consistent treatment of "Allegations of apartheid" but when it comes to consistency elsewhere, you don't care.

Anyone with any breadth of experience on Misplaced Pages knows there is no consistency here. Every editor has his own idea of "the right way to do it" and fights break out when editors with different ideas try to establish their own rules as "standard". Sane people avoid these fights and let editors reach agreement on individual articles, not Misplaced Pages standards. It is not my problem that you can't get the Israeli article deleted, just as the Taiwan/ROC naming issue was not your problem. Your attempt to make it my problem is pissing me off. --Ideogram 11:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and AFD is not a vote. If you don't address the issues raised, don't waste your time. --Ideogram 12:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - --Tom 13:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)ps I don't believe articles about "allegations" are appropriate for this project. Leave that to the rags. --Tom 13:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I might also note that a significant proportion of the people going for keep are WikiProject Israel members, several of whom seem to think that it is actually called "WikiProject Defend Israel". I suspect that the development of the "Allegations of XXX apartheid" series is an attempt to dilute the fact that Israel is pretty much the only country regularly accused of apartheid (and indeed a case of WP:POINT, i.e. if Israel can be accused of it, so can other countries). Number 57 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(BTW I ran into a number of edit conflicts during this edit, so if I mangled something you posted, I apologize in advance. --Ideogram 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

• Strong Delete and ban users who created theses articles as WP:POINT. The whole bunch of articles created by pro-Isreal users following the creation of Allegations of Israeli apartheid is scandalous, pointless and irrelevant. They represent exactly what shouldn't be done on wikipedia. Poppypetty 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If not, delete ALL "allegations of X apartheid" articles. It's ridiculous to have some pages kept and others deleted. Keep all or delete all. The administration needs to make a ruling. John Smith's 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all "allegations of XXX apartheid" or delete them all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This meets wP:RS. Links to the economist and other reliable sources explicitly describing apartheid make this page one that belongs on wiki.Bakaman 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and delete them all. - Crockspot 18:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as these articles are very unencyclopedic, maybe the Israeli and French one also. Its bunch of unrelated references sorted together to make original research. I think it is mostly personal interpretation of the idea of apartheid, when in reality, it almost has no relation to what the word really refer to.--4.228.243.203 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Split into separate articles focusing on these disparate subjects that have nothing in common except a word used by critics. For those counting votes, lump this one in with the Deletes. Let's see, we have "Treatment of rural workers", also known as Hukou - hey, we have an article on that. That has nothing to do with "Treatment of Tibetans" - are most rural workers Tibetans? I don't know enough about China, but it doesn't seem that way from the article. "Treatment of foreigners" - surely most rural workers are not foreigners, and most foreigners in China are not rural workers or Tibetans. Then there's a Jimmy Wales quote, a blatant self reference, that should just be deleted -- our founder is a wonderful person, but not a recognized authority on China, any more than he is an expert on Microbiology or Jupiter. Keeping these bits in a single article is essentially putting together a random intersection of information. --AnonEMouse 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unecessary series of articles. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's illuminating that many "allegations of apartheid" articles have been nominated for deletion recently in what appears to be a pre-meditated campaign, while the one that started it all was not. Beit Or 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You already voted. But hey, since AFD is not a vote, you may as well vote twice. --Ideogram 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Targeman's statement

• Comment. For an edifying example of the thought processes of the authors of this article, and for a better understanding of why this AfD is bound to fail, I encourage everyone to read this. --Targeman 01:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't troll. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misuse the term troll. --Eyrian 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bringing other discussions into this one is definite post message about sensitive topic constructed to cause controversy in this AFD. I do not use the term lightly, and in fact I think it is the first time I have used it even in the face of pretty dubious debating. I am calling it like it is. The fact that the user made no comment about deleting/keeping this article futher strengthens this view. His comment was directed to inflame, not debate. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How so? It's an example of the same sort of debate that will happen here. A comment on the process that is entirely legitimate. --Eyrian 02:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You know very well what I think of this and all the other bogus "apartheid" articles. Delete them all per WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT. I'm not letting myself be dragged into this quagmire again because it's blatantly obvious (and candidly admitted here]) that these articles are junk written in the worst possible faith. And I'm not using these words lightly. --Targeman 02:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Except, as has been pointed out at least a dozen times, that person didn't create any of these articles, nor did he edit any of them, so his opinion about motivation is about as relevant as your own - that is to say, not at all. One cannot "candidly admit" something which one hasn't done and doesn't know anything about. Moreover, he didn't at all say that the articles were written in bad faith; on the contrary, he apparently believes they were written to uphold WP:NPOV. In any event, it's not a good idea to keep repeating obviously invented falsehoods as if they were admitted truths, as it detracts from more relevant discussion. Jayjg 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Quadell's statement

• Comment I understand the political (under)currents at play here. I know there are people who want to see as many apartheid allegation articles as possible, to dilute the effect of One In Particular, and I know there are others who want to see as few as possible, to single out that same One In Particular. I'm really not a partisan in this, and I'm probably in the minority in that respect. I know there are sourced allegations that various countries engage in something various notable people have compared to apartheid -- but I don't think it serves the encyclopedia to have "allegations of X apartheid" articles. Not China, not the U.S., and not That One Country either. These allegations should be incorporated into "Human rights in X" articles or allegations of apartheid, and not create a WP:BEANS-esque attractor for collectors of scandalous-sounding quotes about a country. (I would compare this to a hypothetical Allegations that Paris Hilton is a slut article. One could be written to be factually accurate, well sourced, and made up of quotes by notable people -- but it still wouldn't be an acceptable article. But you've all probably heard this sort of simile before.) That said, I can't in good conscience vote to delete this page while other similar ones exist, and I can't vote to keep this page since it's existence is counter-productive to our encyclopedia's goals. So this is a comment, and not a vote. (Hopefully there are one or two people listening whose minds aren't already made up.) – Quadell 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you Quadell, unfortunately the consensus is to keep these sorts of articles. I've made the same suggestion to merge everything into allegations of apartheid even though I think we could easily do without it as well. The problem here is that given that we do have these sorts of articles, there is nothing actually wrong with this one. It's properly sourced and written. <<-armon->> 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong's statement

• Comment - One look at the article and it's obvious that this is a gross violation of WP:Point. The article is extremely POV. I see exactly one sentence in the article that serves to provide a counter-argument. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that any editors who !voted Keep would be more than happy to see counter-arguments. It's still a young article. IronDuke 15:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • My comment goes more to the motivation of creating the article in the first place. There was no attempt to create something that was NPOV and encyclopedic. WP is not a soapbox for people to advance their political views. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79's statement

• Comment A couple things: 1. For those interested in factual discussions about China, the existing articles on these issues I could quickly find include Hukou, Tibetan sovereignty debate, Human rights in China, and Censorship in China. So far, I've seen no reason why we would combine all these together, even where no reliable sources have done so, but solely where the word "apartheid" is invoked. 2. For those talking about other AfD's, please note that some of these articles have been deleted, while some live on but remain contested. Allegations of Australian Apartheid was deleted, as was Allegations of Islamic Apartheid. Allegations of American Apartheid was also deleted, though it remains on deletion review, despite the clear history of racism, discrimination and segregation in the U.S. While one has to look to each discussion for the specific reasons, I would hope per WP:ALLORNOTHING that a similar individualized and policy-based approach can continue here. Mackan79 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and Allegations of Jordanian apartheid was deleted as well. You might note I didn't object to a number of those deletions, mostly because the material itself didn't warrant a separate article. Regarding your other argument, though, it applies equally well to all of the articles in this series; yet some editors insist on inventing spurious reasons as to why one specific article should be kept, and all others deleted, and others are insisting the article should be deleted based on their theories about the motivations of the creator, or simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. None of these are good arguments for deletion. Jayjg 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the special pleading argument is backwards, but I'll simply restate that I have not seen it in any of the arguments for delete here. As I've said months ago, an article on apartheid allegations clearly cannot neutrally discuss the factual conditions in any country. At some point, a discussion surrounding a concept/debate/controversy itself can reach encyclopedic proportions. When I've explained why the situation here doesn't meet this standard, and you haven't responded, I'm not sure how you continue to label this as spurious or special pleading. The idea of "comprehensive" solutions, meanwhile, meaning to find the same solution for a number of fundamentally different articles, is exactly what WP:ALLORNOTHING recommends against. This is not to ignore concerns with other articles, but to say they can't be resolved here. Mackan79 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Jayjg, this is not a legitimate series of articles that can be judged all together. Whereas the Israel article is an independant problem, the rest were almost entirely the work of the same group of people (largely you and Urthogie), in obvious response to the Israel article.--Cúchullain /c 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Cuchullain, it's as if you didn't read a word I wrote. I'll repeat it: "Some editors insist on inventing spurious reasons as to why one specific article should be kept, and all others deleted, and others are insisting the article should be deleted based on their theories about the motivations of the creator, or simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. None of these are good arguments for deletion." Jayjg 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg's statement

• Comment. Based on comments here, I've significantly improved the article, adding material from new top-notch sources, and re-organizing, re-working and clarifying the rest. I encourage editors here to re-read the article, as I think it's rapidly approaching some of Misplaced Pages's best work. Jayjg 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Citing sources to make an analogy" is still synthesis OR. The topic should only be written about if or when sources make that analogy. And none of them do. The article compiles sources to create a topic, which is not Misplaced Pages's goal. We only report what other people say. VanTucky 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What on earth are you talking about? The sources explicitly make the analogy, not the authors of the article. They're the ones explicitly saying "apartheid". Many even explicitly mention South Africa, or draw explicit analogies to its apartheid laws, for example:
      • "As in South Africa under apartheid, households in China faced severe restrictions on mobility during the Mao period. The household registration system (hukou) system... specified where people could work and, in particular, classified workers as rural or urban workers. A worker seeking to move from rural agricultural employment to urban nonagricultural work would have to apply through the relevant bureaucracies, and the number of workers allowed to make such moves was tightly controlled. The enforcement of these controls was closely intertwined with state controls on essential goods and services. For instance, unauthorized workers could not qualify for grain rations, employer-provided housing, or health care." Wildasin, David E. "Factor mobility, risk, inequality, and redistribution" in David Pines, Efraim Sadka, Itzhak Zilcha, Topics in Public Economics: Theoretical and Applied Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 334.
      • "The application of these regulations is reminiscent of apartheid South Africa's hated pass laws. Police carry out raids periodically to round up those tho do not possess a temporary residence permit. Those without papers are placed in detention centres and then removed from cities." Waddington, Jeremy. Globalization and Patterns of Labour Resistance, Routledge, 1999, p. 82.
      • "I’ll be drawing some comparisons to South Africa’s apartheid system, not because I think the analogy is perfect but because it’s revealing. Many ruling classes in developing countries have approached broadly similar problems of labor regulation by adopting some strikingly similar measures to divide the workforce, even if the apartheid ruling class was unique in finding its particular racial solution to the problem of controlling its labor force." Whitehouse, David. "Chinese workers and peasants in three phases of accumulation"Template:PDFlink, Paper delivered at the Colloquium on Economy, Society and Nature, sponsored by the Centre for Civil Society at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, March 2, 2006.
      • "The permit system controls in a similar way to the passbook system under apartheid. Most migrant workers live in crowded dormitories provided by the factories or in shanties. Their transient existence is precarious and exploitative. The discrimination against migrant workers in the Chinese case is not racial, but the control mechanisms set in place in the so-called free labor market to regulate the supply of cheap labor, the underlying economic logic of the system, and the abusive consequences suffered by the migrant workers, share many of the characteristics of the apartheid system." Chan, Anita. China's Workers Under Assault: The Exploitation of Labor in a Globalizing Economy, M.E. Sharpe, 2001, p. 9.
    • Has no-one actually bothered to look at the sources? Jayjg 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment All the "new information" that you've given legitimately....belongs in the Hukou article. Apartheid is racial segregation, plain and simple. Isolating rural residents from urban residents is just setting a caste system, and has absolutely nothing to do with race. Because, you know, you can't exactly racially segregate (sure, you can segregate through other means = not apartheid) within any one race. Pandacomics 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Your disagreement with the thesis of the sources is interesting, but not really relevant. But if you strongly feel that "apartheid" is related only to "race", then perhaps you should put the Social apartheid article up for AfD. Jayjg 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • WP is not a place for you to present your WP:Original research though. What this article is, is a hodgepodge of information about circumstances of seperate peoples, slapped together into an incoherent topic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • As explained, WP:NOR doesn't apply here since the sources themselves make the analogy, not the authors of the article. Reading previous comments (including the ones immediately above this), WP:NOR, and the article itself would be helpful; it's hardly "incoherent". Jayjg 23:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Sources who make the allegation are primary sources, Jay. I hope you're not up to some damn shell game with that basic definition.--G-Dett 23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Nonsense. In the case of hukou, for example, material that describes the hukou system in China, and material that describes the apartheid system in South Africa, are "primary". If a Misplaced Pages editor took those sources and created an article comparing the two, and saying that China practiced apartheid (or a form of it), then that would be original research. In this case, however, it is the secondary sources themselves that make these comparisons and analogies; the article, in contrast, just reports what they say. Similarly, regarding Tibet, one could take reports of the Chinese colonization of Tibet, and its impacts on native Tibetans, and compare it to the situation in South Africa, alleging "apartheid" - and that, indeed, would be original research. However, the article, in contrast, reports on secondary sources that make the analogy, and repeats what they say. Jayjg 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
              • What absolute rubbish, what a shell game. In an article on "allegations of Chinese apartheid," a source making the allegation is a primary source. A source discussing the allegations is a secondary source. Period. You have no secondary sources here, none, nada.--G-Dett 00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                • So if the article were renamed Chinese apartheid they would suddenly become secondary sources? Jayjg 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • Exactly. And you'd be out of the WP:NOR furnace and into the WP:NPOV fire. You can't have an article on Chinese apartheid, because it's a loaded POV phrase, relatively few people use it, and there are much more common terms and subject headings for the disparate phenomena you've gathered here. You can have an article on the comparison, if it's a notable one, as established by sufficient secondary-source commentary about the allegation itself, per WP:NOR and WP:N. After all we've been through regarding the Israel article, it's astonishing that you'd forget all this, all the while talking about a "comprehensive solution."--G-Dett 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                    • Amazing. The secondary sources all miraculously turned into primary ones because the article name starts with "Allegations of". Remove it, and they all become secondary again. Talk about a shell game. Thanks for "clarifying". Jayjg 00:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                      • Jay, please. Your very basis for these articles has been that they are supposedly on the allegations as such and not on the factual situation. We've discussed this many times before, as well as the relative status of primary and secondary sources. Have you now forgotten this? Mackan79 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                        • Interesting way you have of taking that statement out of context. The article in question was indeed about allegations of apartheid, as is this one; it's not a broader article discussing, for example, hukou in general, but rather, an article which reports the specific comparisons that secondary sources make between hukou and apartheid. Similarly, in the case of the other article, it wasn't a broader article discussing the social situation in the French suburbs (which would be a lengthy article indeed). Instead, it was an article which reported specific comparisons secondary sources made between the French treatment of Muslim and Arab communities, and South African apartheid. Secondary sources, not Wikipedians, have made these analogies and the articles just report what they say. Jayjg 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                          • Jay, your argument has been that the material can't go elsewhere, because we need to focus specifically on the allegations of apartheid. It's not about the underlying issues, you say, but only these "comparisons." Therefore it needs to stay here, and we need to discuss only people who talk about apartheid, because it's an article about allegations of apartheid. Now as far as I know, that means the article is about the use of the term, as otherwise I have no idea why we would limit the discussion in that way. But then you're also denying that we need any secondary sources discussing the use of the term. You're saying, rather, that anybody who makes the allegation is a secondary source and good enough. You're ultimately trying to have it both ways, by making the scope as if it were about the phrase, but then analyzing the sources as if it's about the underlying issues. If I'm misconstruing your comments, please let me know; either way your argument amounts to a complete circumvention of Misplaced Pages's policy on these issues. Mackan79 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                            • Mackan79, I've read your argument twice, and I honestly say that I do not understand it. All I can say is that the article contains only secondary sources discussing the comparison between China's actions and the South African apartheid policies, and an infinite number of shell games regarding the two words "Allegations of" in the title will not magically transform those secondary sources into primary sources. Jayjg 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                              • If you don't see the difference between an article about a thing and an article about commentary on that thing despite the longstanding discussions of this issue, then you should feel compelled to address why the article is not a POV fork. Is there a reason for an article to focus solely on sources who use the term apartheid in any particular context? Is this an encyclopedic basis to divide material? Since you keep asking for differences with other articles, I've noted that an article on a statement/theory/allegation itself can become encyclopedic if that s/t/a is extensively discussed as such by numerous secondary and tertiary sources. In such cases you can have a neutral discussion of the commentary, including all notable responses etc., since the debate has then grown beyond the issue on which it originally commented. If you merely have someone describing a thing as "apartheid," however, then you don't have a new issue; it's still the old issue, and one that can't neutrally be divided from the original subject. However you want to characterize the sources, I would think you could appreciate this point. Mackan79 05:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                                • Mackan79, I think I understand your argument, but it seems WP:POINTish to say I'm going to vote to delete the article because the title has "Allegations of" in it. Jayjg 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                                  • What a WP:POINTish attempt to distort a straightforward statement. What exact word is used in the title – "allegations" or "comparison" or "analogy" or whatever – is of no consequence. But there's a crucial distinction between an article about the comparison itself, on the one hand, and an article about foreigners and Tibet and religious minorities and rural workers and Google controversies, all dealt with through an incredibly loaded POV-lens, on the other. We've been through all this in the Israel article, Jay: the one thing everybody in that most fractious affair agreed on was that an article on the analogy was fundamentally different from an article about the phenomenon of Apartheid in X. How incredibly disingenuous of you to play dumb about that now. You can't have an article on the phenomenon of "Chinese apartheid," per WP:NPOV. You can have an article on the analogy, but only if the analogy's notability has been established by secondary sources, per WP:N and WP:NOR. This article lacks such sources, and the analogy appears to lack notability. Why do you keep playing silly games with these most elementary of distinctions?--G-Dett 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                      • "hether or not something is a primary or secondary source depends on how it is used. For example, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a primary source as discussed in that article; that is, it is a primary source which has been subjected to a great deal of secondary analysis." That's what you wrote on May 1 of this year, Jay. Forget, remember, forget, remember; that's the shell game.--G-Dett 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                        • I remember, but it's not relevant; the Allegations of French apartheid article isn't an analysis of Robert S. Leiken's article titled "Revolting in France; The labor-law protests pitted the privileged young against disaffected immigrants". Rather, it is an article that reports what Leiken (and over 20 other secondary sources) say about France's policies and their similarity to South Africa's apartheid. False analogies don't make good arguments. Jayjg 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                          • You evidently don't remember, as you wrote that not in the French apartheid article but on the New antisemitism talk page. The point is, you understood then what you affect not to understand now, that "whether or not something is a primary or secondary source depends on how it is used."--G-Dett 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                            • Of course I remember, including where I wrote it. And I've never effected not to understand that point. However, I pointed out, using an example from the French apartheid article, that your quotation from me was entirely irrelevant to the point you were making. If we write an article about an article/book/paper, then that article/book/paper becomes a primary source. However, if we simply report on arguments made in that article/book/paper, then the article/book/paper is a secondary source. In the case of this article, or the French apartheid article, or others, the sources are used as secondary sources. If you need an explanation from this article, it is not an article about Au Loong-yu, Nan Shan, Zhang Ping's "Women Migrant Workers under the Chinese Social Apartheid"; rather, it is an article that uses their paper as a secondary source regarding Chinese apartheid. Jayjg 14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                              • If you're saying this article is about Chinese apartheid, Jay, can I ask again why you think that is a good delineation of material? I would generally think if someone is making negative commentary on Hukou or the Tibetan sovereignty debate or Human rights in China or Censorship in China that we would discuss this in the context of those articles, not combine it into one topic even where no reliable source has done so. I thought you had addressed this by clarifying that the articles are about the commentary itself, but it appears now that your answer must be something else. Mackan79 15:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
                                • I'm sure it's possible that the material could be delineated and organized in a different way, and who knows, there might even be some great ideas along those lines; but that's not what this AfD is about. More Talk: on the Central discussion page would have been helpful in this regard (and I've seen several interesting proposals for how these articles could be better presented), but the current process, which can only decide delete or keep, obviously must be completed first. When you use crude tools to force people to make a binary decision like that, you severely limit the options. Jayjg 20:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
          • The fact that the hodgepodge of information was slapped together and thrown into one article is what makes this original research. This is an interpretation that there is a connected, coherent, and singular subject matter, based on sources that do not present this view and only present the circumstances of specific and seperate people groups. This is why it's original research. I fully believe that the content, if the sources are in fact reliable, do believe in articles like Human rights in the People's Republic of China, Tibet, etc etc. And the article was basically put together to advance a specific point. It's made to be POV and a violation of WP:Point. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm curious; do you think your argument applies to Allegations of Brazilian apartheid as well? How about Allegations of Israeli apartheid? Jayjg 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thw1309's statement

• Question: Do I understand right? If I say that the Pope, the Dalai lama and Nelson Mandela meet once every month to to rape and kill children, get convicted for telling this falsehood, some cheap newspapers report this crime I committed, and someone creates an article ], then this nonsense is a well-sourced good article, as long as the citations are correct? Next question:Does wikipedia still want to be an enceclopedia?--Thw1309 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have any reliable sources making that claim? Do you have two dozen of them? Let us know when you do. Jayjg 07:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn't understand the question. --Ideogram 07:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I clearly did. The hypothetical case Thw1309 presents could never happen in real life, because there isn't even one reliable source making such a claim, much less the two dozen found in the Allegations of Chinese apartheid article. And these aren't citations from "cheap newspapers" either. Jayjg 07:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not need any sources that this claim about the rape and murder is correct. By calling it allegation of... I only need sources, proving that I said so. That´s the trick. You can bring any furtiveness or lie to wikipedia because you do not have to prove your content, you only have to search for someone who told your lies in advance and make him your source.--Thw1309 07:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Provide me with two dozen reliable sources making that allegation. You won't be able to. Jayjg 07:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want to tell me, if two dozen reliable sources would have reported, that an unimportant schmuck like me made false claims and therefore was convicted, you would really make such an article and spread such lies. Oh my god!--Thw1309 08:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are pretending to not understand the question. The question is whether you would accept a Misplaced Pages article that had those two dozen reliable sources, and the implied answer is yes, but you refuse to admit that and change the subject. Here's another example: how many reliable sources do you think I can find documenting "Allegations that X is a Nazi"? --Ideogram 08:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pretending at all. It's not a real question, it's a fallacy of misleading vividness. Reliable citations for these outlandish examples could never be found in the first place. Jayjg 08:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of us are telling you what the question means. Questions cannot be fallacies, even if they are based on hypotheses that you claim cannot occur. And we all know what your answer is, even if you refuse to admit it. Your repeated assertions that the example cannot occur is a change of subject, and is also answered by my "Allegations that X is a Nazi" example. --Ideogram 08:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Living people are governed by WP:BLP. Anyway, you still wouldn't be able to find two dozen reliable sources supporting you, whereas this article discusses an encyclopedic, valuable, and interesting topic. You keep premising your questions on a faulty notion, your bad faith assumption that these articles were created for WP:POINT. This is a good article on an important topic. Feel free to create any articles you like, and think can stand up to the scrutiny of the ArbCom case you've started. Jayjg 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah yes, the "and your shirt doesn't match your socks" argument. Scrambling for a rejoinder, you come up with forms of attack that have nothing to do with the question at hand. If you read and thought more carefully, you would note the example applies equally well to dead people. There's no way I can AGF about you when your many arguments for deletion of Allegations of Israeli apartheid are public record, and you keep asking people to comment on it. And as you yourself noted, the ArbCom case is not about content, but rather your tactic of creating disruptive deletion debates to draw attention to your pet peeve, which, although I threatened to use below, I will not resort to, because, you know what? I'm better than you. --Ideogram 08:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you love reliable sources, Jayjg, here's one from a VERY reputable publication that has the quote "Many equate Israel to Nazism, claiming that "yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators": last year, Louis de Bernières wrote in the Independent that "Israel has been adopting tactics which are reminiscent of the Nazis"". Wouldn't you know it, Israelis aren't Nazis! You know why? Because the "many" that are being mentioned here are anti-Israel people who feel that Israel is just being a dick to them. Does that make Israel a Nazi state? Certainly not. But by your logic, this is a reliable source, and I don't see why it would be neglected in, say, Allegations that Israel is a Nazi Nation. I could even dig up some more sources from Islamic News Sources, but as we all know, Islamic sources are written with an anti-Israel bias. Should we take things into context, like for, say, this article? Naw, so long as there are citations from reliable news outlets, we can trust them right? Pandacomics 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article says the exact opposite. Jayjg 08:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! But oh, would you look at that, I can just very well use that quote to put in an article on Allegations that Israel is a Nazi Nation to support such allegations. Sound familiar? Pandacomics 08:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to create any article you like, if you think it's encyclopedic and of value. Jayjg 08:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But see, that's the catch. If I were to create an article on the allegations that Israel is a Nazi nation, I'm just finding sources just to synthesize a point that supports my point of view. (BTW, I don't think Israel is a Nazi nation.) Pandacomics 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep forgetting something; unlike you, and your assumptions, I actually think this is an interesting and valuable analogy. Whether it is a good topic for an article in general can certainly be debated, but that's a bigger question than just this article. Jayjg 08:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe if you had spent the last year editing China-related articles, as most of the delete voters here have, you would have some credibility here. Instead, you have spent that time trying to kill Allegations of Israeli apartheid and earlier versions, so we all know what interests you. --Ideogram 08:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what the article says? It is a reliable source documenting quotes that allege Israelis are Nazis. By your logic, and using your tactics, I should instantly rush off to create Allegations that Israelis are Nazis, filled with "over two dozen sources" and ask all the delete voters on the inevitable AFD what they think about this article here. Now, here's the part I want you to think about: would such an action convince participants in that AFD that they should run over here and take my side? Or would it make a bunch of new enemies? What do you think you are doing here? Yeah, feel free to piss off as many Wikipedians as you like, to prove a POINT. --Ideogram 08:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget to justify the encyclopedic value of your article with all those Guardian and Economist sources! Anyone who objects to such credible sources is just playing the emotional card! Clearly! Pandacomics 08:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you still wouldn't be able to find two dozen reliable sources supporting you, whereas this article discusses an encyclopedic, valuable, and interesting topic. You keep premising your questions on a faulty notion, your bad faith assumption that these articles were created for WP:POINT. This is a good article on an important topic. Feel free to create any articles you like, and think can stand up to the scrutiny of the ArbCom case you've started. Jayjg 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your words are not so precious that you have to repeat yourself. --Ideogram 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett's statement

What began as a slapdash WP:POINT violation has evolved into something of a grand hoax. There are two levels of deception to it, both involving serious misrepresentation of source materials (in addition to the violations of WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT outlined in the nomination). First, there is the shell game a key editor is playing with the topic of the article. As he knows very well from the prominent role he's played in negotiations over Allegations of Israeli apartheid, there is a fundamental distinction between having an article about the comparison itself (as a controversial piece of political rhetoric or "epithet" as he calls it), on the one hand, and an article about the political system of "Chinese apartheid" (or "Israeli apartheid") on the other. Virtually everybody involved in the disputes over these articles agrees that only the former is legitimate, because the latter would constitute an incredibly loaded approach to the subject(s) of this and related articles. He and I and just about everyone else involved has agreed to this: the comparison itself is the only legitimate subject in apartheid-outside-of-South-Africa articles. When the topic of an article is a comparison, or an "allegation" if you will, then sources making that allegation or comparison are primary. Period. Secondary sources would be those that discuss the background or political dimensions or whatever of the allegation. WP:N and WP:NOR require that an article rely on secondary sources. There's an excellent reason for this, and it isn't some legalistic technicality. To demonstrate that the comparison itself is significant, as political rhetoric or as an analytical concept or whatever, you need to have sources that have actually discussed the comparison. The distinction WP:N and WP:NOR make between primary and secondary sources is precisely what prevents articles like Allegations that Paris Hilton is a ho-bag from finding a toe-hold in Misplaced Pages. You could source such a thing to the nines, but all would be primary sources. The shell game the editor in question is playing consists of insisting on the one hand that the article is about "allegations" only, so that it won't run afoul of WP:NPOV, while insisting on the other hand that it's about "Chinese apartheid," the thing itself, so that he can claim these sources are secondary.

This source-laundering shell game is the first level of the hoax. The second level has to do with how the source material itself is presented. In almost every case the word "apartheid" is used in passing, with the Misplaced Pages article tendentiously elevating the metaphor to a thesis. Take a close look, for example, at the four sources that have been proudly presented above as "top notch sources." In the first, second, and fourth of these (Pines-Sadka-Zilcha, Waddington, and Chan), the block quotes offered represent the only passages (in works running to several hundreds of pages each) where apartheid is even mentioned. The third of these sources, by contrast, actually pursues the comparison as a thesis, so it's worth looking at more closely. The source is a six-page conference paper delivered at the University of KwaZulu-Natal by a Mr. David Whitehouse. Whitehouse is not an academic or a specialist of China; he's a writer for The Socialist Worker and an editor for the International Socialist Review. He had evidently planned to subsequently publish his conference paper (conference papers are not considered "published" work by the academic community) in the International Socialist Review, but has yet to do so. Whitehouse's magazine has published some 29 articles on "Israeli apartheid." Here's a sample quote from one:

Until 1977, when self-described terrorist Menachem Begin became Israel's first Revisionist prime minister, the Labor Zionists effectively represented "Zionism" in most people's minds. But Labor--the Zionist "left"--and the Revisionists--the Zionist "right"--differed on means, rather than ends. Both supported an exclusively Jewish state. Like apartheid South Africa's rulers, the Revisionists were willing to employ the native Palestinian population. Labor sought to replace Palestinian workers with Jewish workers. Both looked for support from imperialism.

Anyone curious about the extent of the editor's commitment to his new "top-notch sources" might try sticking that paragraph into Allegations of Israeli apartheid.

There you have it. There are no secondary sources that actually describe the topic of this article, naturally, because that topic is a species of rhetorical statement discovered and classified by two Wikipedians. The article consists entirely of primary sources who with one exception invoke the comparison in passing, as they pursue theses quite different from the one ascribed to them by this hoax article. The one exception – the only source in this entire article that actually pursues the metaphor – is a writer for two obscure socialist magazines to whom you can be absolutely certain neither of these two Wikipedians would ever grant reliable-source status in the context of the Israel article.

This article's radical distortion of source material may initially have been the inadvertent if inescapable result of its mode of creation (robotic assemblage of random quotes data-mined by a pair of editors with no knowledge or interest in China but an axe to grind about Israel), but the various obfuscations and wikilawyering defenses of the resulting rubbish have crossed over into outright deception.--G-Dett 15:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason this incredibly lengthy commentary belongs here, and not on the Talk: page? Jayjg 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you think you OWN this page? --Ideogram 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty incredible that someone as deep in this mess as you are thinks you have the right to make presumably "objective" judgments about what belongs on this page. --Ideogram 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ideogram, your posts are becoming increasingly uncivil. Please focus on the discussion, not other editors. Jayjg 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jay, my post was absolutely relevant to the deletion discussion, addressing crucial sourcing issues as well as directly rebutting some of the red herrings and strawmen that have run riot over the discussion page. A great number of lengthy comments and back-and-forths have been posted here, many of which my post addresses. You've even pasted in a batch of four long block-quotes from the article itself. The talk page had not been in use at all when you moved my comment there; naturally I'd object. If you'd like to move everything to talk that isn't a straight Keep/Delete, I'd be fine with that.--G-Dett 16:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you created your own section for an incredibly lengthy (almost 900 words) re-hash of your views. This seems excessive. Jayjg 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A) This belongs on the Talk page. Nobody is trying to shut G-Dett down, Jayjg is merely suggesting that the article move to the right place. B) G-Dett, I think accusations of "hoax," "sophistry," are kind of ridiculous, given that everything that happens here is in the open. Anyone can read the arguments, check the history, etc. I can see why you're frustrated, but I think these attacks only bring the debate lower not higher. As an editorial aside, I just don't understand what upsets you so much about the addition of all articles except the Israeli one? Don't you think readers will be able to discern whatever meaningful differences there are? --Leifern 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, G-Dett, you did get an initial statement when you created this AfD, and it alone was over 500 words, one of the longest I've ever seen. Jayjg 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Leifern, my only position on the creation of "allegations of apartheid" articles is that they should comply with policy. Some of them have been up for deletion and I've never voted on them (Cuba, Brazil, and others) because, even though they are rather poorly written quote-farms, they may be potentially notable. In those two cases at least, there are one or two sources that actually discuss the allegation and suggest that it's a recognized concept. Not enough in themselves to establish notability, perhaps, but then the articles have been written mostly be Israel-focused editors making a WP:POINT. If more knowledgeable editors can do something good with those articles I would be pleased, so I've held my fire where they are concerned. With the articles that are obviously data-mined quote-farm constellations of primary sources, like this one, with no evidence of notability, and even evidence of non-notability, I've been fairly merciless. I do not like the deletion-by-other-means strategy they represent; I do not like the coy, insinuating way their creators try to recruit dissatisfied customers into joining their campaign against the Israel article; I do not like the misrepresentation of source materials, of which the examples I've given are the tip of the iceberg; and I do not like the false and question-begging invocations of "consistency" and "comprehensive solutions," which speciously insinuate that if a series of articles share a title word in common, then they are perforce equivalent in all other ways, such as in their compliance with core policies and notability requirements; and last but not least, I do not like the strawman sophistry, borderline smearing suggestion that those who want all "apartheid" articles to be held to rigorous standards on their own terms with regards to policy, letting the chips fall where they may, are somehow "singling out Israel." The idea that "allegations of apartheid" articles are slapped onto a country for bad behavior is absurd ("...draw an analogy from the policies of apartheid era South Africa to those of Saudi Arabia" ? – at some point, South Africans will have a right to get offended). I'm not involved in apologetics for anyone. The reason "American apartheid" isn't a notable concept is because we've got our own legacy of racial oppression and few have felt the need for an imported rhetoric. Why isn't "Saudi apartheid" notable? Gee, maybe because Saudi Arabia's human-rights reputation is so appalling that the comparison doesn't resonate? Comparisons between Israel and South Africa are notable because they've been enormously and prominently controversial, and because they've become a focal point for ethical, historical, strategic, and pragmatic debates about the nature of the I-P conflict. If "tourist apartheid" in Cuba is also notable, then let's keep that article and improve it. But enough of this passive-aggressive subterfuge and childish manufacturing of endless bogus quote-farm articles to create negotiating leverage, or to create a spurious "template" that makes its none-too-subtle point.--G-Dett 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram's statement

Jayjg has tried to remove material he didn't like here and here. There is nothing POV or false about the removed commeents, since in fact there are sixteen editors voting Keep here who are from Allegations of Israeli apartheid and have never been involved with China related articles. And facts are only disruptive when you don't like them. --Ideogram 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your POV, incorrect attempts to influence the decisions made here by labeling editors who voted in opposition to you are entirely unwarranted. I notice you didn't apply that label to any of the "Delete" voters, though it would well have applied to editors like User:G-Dett, User:CJCurrie, User:Mackan79, User:PalestineRemembered, User:Victor falk, User:Tiamut, User:Bless sins, User:Tarc, etc. It is you who has attempted to control this discussion, by increasingly disruptive actions, including various attempts at AfDs, all in order to get your way on this. The discussion is supposed to be about the merits of the article, and whether or not it complies with various policies. It is not supposed to be about other editors; in fact, that is a violation of Talk: page guidelines. It is unpleasant, unseemly, and unhelpful to do these things. Please stop. Jayjg 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First, that doesn't change the fact that you have NO RIGHT to remove comments from someone you are heatedly arguing with, since you are obviously not neutral. Second, there is nothing POV or incorrect about a direct statement that these sixteen editors are involved in Allegations of Israeli apartheid and have little or no contributions to China related articles. And I also noticed that I didn't label the "Delete" voters, and you know why? Because that's your job. Third, it is childish and pointless to revert comments on a wiki, where everything is visible in the history and you can't pretend to "unsay" something.

And I'm not controlling you. A chess player does not force his opponent to make bad moves. You reap what you sow.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideogram (talk • contribs)

It's not "my job" or "your job" to place pejorative labels on anyone. In fact, it's not anyone's job; rather, it is actually against Misplaced Pages guidelines. And this is not a game. Please be civil and treat this page with respect. Jayjg 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing pejorative about noting that sixteen editors who were all involved in Allegations of Israeli apartheid and never in China-related articles suddenly showed up to vote "Keep". Or are you ashamed of that fact? --Ideogram 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg 18:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review that article yourself. In particular, what fact does my question presuppose that has not been proven? Are you disputing the fact that sixteen editors involved with Allegations of Israeli apartheid and never with China-related articles showed up here to vote Keep? --Ideogram 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Or are you ashamed of that fact?" = "Have you stopped beating your wife?" See fallacy of many questions. See also special pleading. Jayjg 18:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You know, repeating yourself doesn't answer my question. There is only one fact presupposed by my question, and it isn't that you are beating your wife. Whether you are ashamed or not is the question. How exactly can I tell you that your logic is abysmal in a civil manner? --Ideogram 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Compare the sixteen editors identified above with the Keep votes on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba. Nine are the same. --Ideogram 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So? Many of the "Delete" votes on these recent AfDs are identical as well. The articles are all linked by a template, and the big grey AfD box at the top of the article is a dead giveaway that there is an AfD going on. It unsurprising that people who feel this article should not be deleted feel the same way about the others (and vice versa). Jayjg 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there is not a large and active Cuba-related WikiProject so your little clique, none of which cares the slightest about Cuba, can display an impressive but false "consensus" there.

Oh, and this lovely quote was found by a participant in the French article, it's a pretty damning indictment of your mindset. --Ideogram 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It seems a pretty sensible approach to this issue, not a "damning indictment". Jayjg 17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see that making a big messy discussion and directing people who try to fix it to your pet peeve looks bad, you really are deluding yourself. --Ideogram 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I think the problem with your inconsistency in arguing with Ideogram and, as far I can see from here, evidently losing this match, lies here: Ideogram has never before visited any articles concernig Israel/Palestine (see his last 500 entries, almost anything on China but nothing on Israel). Now, China is not a sandbox like Saudi Arabia or Israel you can play in, about 1,6 billion people, you better don't mess around with. You just made the stupid mistake to trespass on their backyard, and I'm pretty sure they don't like it. I wouldn't too. I always say to trespassers on my property: "My house is no bullshit". Jay, find smaller country for fishing or hunting, not this one. Uncle the Good Advise. greg park avenue 20:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kurykh's statement

• Comment Before anyone further comments, may I comment on the definitions of the word "apartheid" according to dictionary (in no particular order):
  • Merriam-Webster:
    • racial segregation, specifically a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa
    • SEPARATION, SEGREGATION <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>
  • Oxford:
    • the official system of segregation or discrimination on racial grounds formerly in force in South Africa.
  • Cambridge:
    • (in the past in South Africa) a political system in which people of different races are separated
  • Collins:
    • (in South Africa) the official government policy of racial segregation; officially renounced in 1992
  • American Heritage:
    • an official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites
    • a policy or practice of separating or segregating groups
    • the condition of being separated from others, segregation.
  • Wiktionary:
    • the policy of racial separation used in South Africa from 1948 to 1990;
    • By extension, any similar policy of racial separation.
  • Reference.com:
    • (in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid policy of segregation of the nonwhite population
    • any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.
• Scant research done by Kurykh 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop refactoring the page. Now. --Ideogram 19:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume this is to Jayjg, not me. —Kurykh 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I want to Jayjg to not touch anyone else's comments, since he is an involved party. --Ideogram 20:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates