This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jahiegel (talk | contribs) at 00:25, 30 May 2006 (keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:25, 30 May 2006 by Jahiegel (talk | contribs) (keep)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Israeli apartheid (phrase)
offensive phrase. Delete or merge with Israeli occupied territories Fullsome prison 23:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete not an offensive phrase, but OR and POV magnet. The article is essentially about comparing the Israeli-Arab relations with South African aparthed. The comparisons are OR. In addition, this is unencyclopedic: let's put out verified sourced statements about what exactly the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians and let the reader decide whether or not to draw comparisons to South African apartheid. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Disclosure for those who are checking: though I was solicited by another user to comment on the article, it was not by the nominator, and it was before this AfD was started. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable phenom. Article seems balanced. 200,000 google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 23:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. I've done a few hours of research on Israeli apartheid, and the term is nothing more than a focused, targeted propaganda campaign for a political platform that according to Abraham Cooper, is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state". Merge anything useful into Zionism and racism, Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and World Conference against Racism. (See also: Cooper, Abraham, and Harold Brackman. "Through a glass, darkly: Durban and September 11th. United Nations World Conference against Racism, 2001." Midstream 47.7 (Nov 2001): 2(7)). —Viriditas | Talk 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or at best merge per above arguments. — RJH (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a phrase that, even as it expresses a POV, is notable (toward which proposition see, e.g., Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace (second nomination)). Were we to be using the terminology as descriptive in an article, I'd object; here, though, our article is apropos of a trope that is increasingly common (to be sure, if the article is not/cannot be properly sourced w/r/to the frequency with which the term is used/the prominence of certain users, deletion would be in order). The article oughtn't to include original research, of course; instead of attempting to prove the correctness of the phrase, it ought to detail the arguments of others who make claims for and against the phrase. We don't take original research, but we can compile opinions recorded in secondary sources, even where the primary sources are individuals who undertake original research or push a POV (Charlie Sheen's conculsion that something other than an airliner hit the Pentagon on 11 September is original research but nevertheless notable). Our article Better dead than red, about another notable tendentious locution, provides a fair examplar around which this article can be developed. Joe 00:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)