Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid

message: I've tried to put all the major standalone comment threads in a commentary section, so people can actually get navigate more clearly through this discussion. It really belongs on the Talk: page here, but people have objected, so I've left it on the project page. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed up the headers since they do weird things when transcluded. 132.205.44.5 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page re-organization

message: *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)
replies: text: Please don't troll. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't misuse the term troll. --Eyrian 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bringing other discussions into this one is definite post[ing] [a] message about [a] 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Targeman's statement

message: *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 (talk) (random) 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quadell's statement

message: *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)
thread_title: HongQiGong's statement

message: *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)
thread_title: Mackan79's statement

message: *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 Allegations of sexual abuse, committed by Nelson Mandela, 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)
replies: text: You obviously didn't understand the question.  --Ideogram 07:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Maybe you are pretending to not understand the question.  The question is whether you would accept a Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to take seriously the statement "this article discusses an encyclopedic, valuable, and interesting topic" when you've been trying to delete the much better "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". I like both articles, but then my loyalty to the project comes before any baggage I may be carrying. Perhaps you should explain why you like one but hate the other. PalestineRemembered 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Actually, the article says the exact opposite. Jayjg (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Feel free to create any article you like, if you think it's encyclopedic and of value. Jayjg (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your words are not so precious that you have to repeat yourself.  --Ideogram 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thw1309's statement

message: 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 Wikipedia.  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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: Is there a reason this incredibly lengthy commentary belongs here, and not on the Talk: page? Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason you think you OWN this page?  --Ideogram 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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 (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: G-Dett's statement

message: *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)
replies: text: I assume this is to Jayjg, not me. —Kurykh 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kurykh's statement

message: I believe that "Allegations of XXX apartheid",  is a system-wide issue, and as an ArbCom member commented in the rejection of the arbCom case, an article that starts with "Allegations of", forfeits any possibility of NPOV. My proposal stands:
*Redirect all articles named "Allegations of XXX  apartheid" to Allegations of apartheid, where all such articles can be summarized and read alongside allegations of all other countries about which these allegations are leveled. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an unnecessary proposal.  Let's just evaluate the articles on a case-by-case basis for their compliance with policy.  WP:N and WP:NOR provide a very clear and well-lit path out of this mess.  Articles that describe allegations that have themselves become notable, as is the case with the Israel article and the Cuba article, will remain.  Articles build around data-mined collections of primary-source instances of the word "apartheid" being used for various things, with no evidence that these disparate allegations have ever been collectively treated as a topic, much less a notable one, will be summarily deleted.   The WP:POINT violations involved in the serial creation of hoax articles constitute a behavioral issue that can be dealt with through other channels.--G-Dett 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hoax articles? I do not think so? Primary sources? Which? Behavioral issue? The fact is that the "apartheid" term is used as a political tool in all cases. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  And by the way, No article in Wikipedia gets "summarily deleted". That is what AfD is about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll be interested to know that one of the people voting to KEEP this article sent us to look at this. The BBC article he finds supportive puts the word "apartheid" in apostrophes (ie it's a neologism contained in a primary source, not a secondary source as required by policy). Read the article in question and you'll discover it's announcing the demise of this official system (at least within 11 of 23 Chinese provinces), making the potential notability of our WP article even more marginal. I'm still technically on your "side", I read the article, found it interesting and voted "KEEP". Little did I know it was history masquerading as current affairs! PalestineRemembered 20:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly don't intent to support this.  The "general" article is a spectacular piece of original research, a data-mining extravaganza which should be sunk at the earliest convenience.--G-Dett 00:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Jayjg has still not answered the key question, in fact, has not posted to this discussion at all since then, although a glance at his contributions will show he has posted elsewhere.
The question is unanswerable, and Jayjg knows that.  A strong leader would inform his troops so that they could withdraw in an orderly fashion.  Instead, you have been left without direction and are getting cut to pieces.  I suggest you choose more carefully who to follow into battle next time.  --Ideogram 19:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Name of editor removed from heading and placed in comment, see edit summary -- 6SJ7 04:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Jayjg is an exceptionally experienced administrator, having made some 40 times more edits than I have. We're certainly not expecting him to stop editing or cease to have particular interests, but we do expect him to be something of an expert on Wikipedia policy, to explain it to us less experienced editors, and to help us to produce good work. I'm sure he will want to answer your question about the difference between making allegations of apartheid and discussing allegations of apartheid. PalestineRemembered 20:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg doesn't post on a Shabbat. Hopefully he will answer your question when he gets back. -- ChrisO 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The key question