Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Apartheid outside of South Africa

message: I voted on the proposal as it stands; or rather on the multiple proposals, and tried to keep them straight.  I am posting here to make a comment outside the confines of a specific proposal.  What I think really needs to happen is, delete everything and start over with some sort of moderator in charge of guiding the development of the article, or else hand the whole thing over to some authority-figure and let them make a decision.  I do understand that either of these would be un-Wiki-like, but that's really the whole point:  What is happening here demonstrates that the Wiki process cannot handle this subject matter because it is too controversial and involves too many people who will not back down or compromise, nor can a consensus be reached either way on keeping or deleting a particular article.  So as I (and others) have suggested before, maybe Wikipedia needs to recognize that some subjects are outside its capabilities.  How to deal with that realization is another issue.  There are several options:  Don't have articles about the most controversial subjects; have them but allow some authority figures to determine content when the usual process fails; or allow POV-forking as (I understand) Wikinfo does.  And yes, I do realize none of these things are going to happen.  But there has to be a better solution that what we have now.   6SJ7 21:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought I voted but now I do not see my vote and it doesn't show up in my contribs... I may not have saved it properly.  Great, I wrote an explanation and now am going to have to re-create it...   6SJ7 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have posted this recommendation on at least 5 pages now.  I agree in that I think things have progressed so far that maybe this whole set of related articles, AfD, merge proposals and moves and various WP:POINT and WP:AGF accusations be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and be settled properly.  We have two partisan groups that are fairly incapable of seeing things from their opponent's point of view -- thus debate between the parties doesn't work too well here and thus a mediator (or set) would be the best solution.  --Ben Houston 21:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's very logical in my opinion for Jayjg to recurse himself and I think that Jayjg would quickly agree to that if the ArbCom did take it up.  I do not see why he should completely resign though.  --Ben Houston 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Give me a break, "Jay's questionable content"? are you kidding me? How can you acutally consistently act so hypocritical, it really cannot be good for you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Homey's suggestion is ridiculous and his motives obvious.  6SJ7 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't necessarily agree with you Homey on this.  Recursal should be enough.  --Ben Houston 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If ArbCom is complicated by Jayjy then it may be useful to just go towards more straightforward mediation.  I am inexperienced with these mechanisms in general.  --Ben Houston 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

message: Why can't we just treat the Israeli apartheid article the way we have Islamofascism?  I'd like to share some quotes from that article's talk page which seems to have had a similar discussion to this series of articles:
"How about merging this into a new article called Fascist (epithet).... --Lee Hunter 19:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the ICC has set out the meaning of 'apartheid' as detailed in Homey's link, then his use of it is exactly like 'war criminal' and exactly not like 'Nazi'.  You may not like that they've defined it in such a way, you may not think it applies to Israel, but it really is more than just an epithet if they have defined it as a particular crime. --Coroebus 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Murder is a crime too, but if I keep calling someone a "murderer" isn't that also an "epithet"?  Especially if they aren't a murderer?  6SJ7 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you suggesting we move murder to murder (epithet)? The point is just because a term *can* be used as an epithet doesn't mean every instance of it being used *is* an epithet yet Israeli apartheid (epithet) and the proposed Apartheid (epithet) suggest precisely thatHomey 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, and the two articles you name suggest nothing of the kind.  Murder is a thing, specifically an action.  Presumably, the article Murder deals primarily with that action and its consequences.  In addition, "murderer" may very well be used as an epithet, but such usage is not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia.  "Apartheid," used as an epithet against Israel, did warrant an article according to you, which I know because you created the article "Israeli apartheid."  You chose to give it a name that didn't include the word epithet or any other qualifier -- in fact, at first, you fought against even the innocuous qualifier "(phrase)".  Others found that unacceptable, and put in a qualifier, which eventually became "(epithet)".  I would be fine, by the way, with just one article on Wikipedia named "Apartheid," dealing with the apartheid era in South Africa, with no mention of your anti-Israel propaganda in that article or anywhere else.  But I don't think that's about to happen.   6SJ7 00:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I keep making this point, but it hasn't been answered by anyone yet, why is it only this Israeli apartheid article that needs qualification with (epithet), and not Islamofascism or New anti-Semitism? People are quite welcome to accuse Homey (and me) of bad faith editing and POV pushing, but motes and beams come to mind. --Coroebus 06:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The very first sentence in that article makes it clear that it is a political epithet, in fact it makes it more clear than the Israeli apartheid article does.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet it still isn't Islamofascism (epithet), which was rather my point. --Coroebus 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "New anti-Semitism" is not an epithet, it's a description of a phenomenon.  You don't call something a "New anti-Semitism", or someone a "New anti-Semite". Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the motes and beams, I'd respond for by saying that it's pretty clear from just looking at the word that "Islamofascism" is an epithet, whereas "Israeli apartheid" sounds like it could either be an epithet or the name of a phenomenon whose existence is not disputed. It would probably be a good idea to add "(epithet)" to the "Islamofascism" title anyway, just to make it clear. That article has a lot of history and I don't feel like I understand the history well enough to suggest it myself at this time, unfortunately. Su-laine.yeo 05:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I've significantly revamped the article; it no longer contains information not relevant to the term "Apartheid", and hardly contains any information found in the racial segregation article.  Instead, it contains information from reliable sources regarding various accusations of apartheid, or apartheid-like situations, in various countries around the world.  While this is still a work in progress, this should help deal with the nominator's objections. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the problem you had with the article was that it "duplicates (word for word for the most part) material in racial segregation."  I think Jay did a good job of addressing the concerns you expressed. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And instead you replace it with a duplicate of Apartheid#Apartheid_in_international_law???  That's a bit inconsistent. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course the article (and subject) is strengthened by providing proper context.  It's not a huge article, there's plenty of room in it for that Israeli apartheid (epithet) stub, along with the information about all the other countries.  The "International law" stuff didn't really fit, so none of the references there are from lawyers or court cases. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Bearcat, I am in favour of a more comprehensive review. However, having that discussion right on this page could present some logistical problems, i.e. this page will be archived in a few days with a "do not edit" notice on it. May I suggest we move discussion about the whole set to Talk: Apartheid outside of South Africa? Also, was any action taken in response to the urgings to get this case to ArbCom? Su-laine.yeo 06:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article revamp