Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. The arguments below that this was a WP:POVFORK and a synthesis were substantive and not credibly rebutted. The mere fact that the article is sourced, really the best defense I see below, does not prove otherwise, as the very nature of the problem is that it sticks together bits that belong in other, already existing, articles, and I do not see a strong argument or consensus establishing that those sources treat this as a singular, coherent topic. Numerous merger targets for such bits, to the extent they are valid and sourced, have been noted in the discussion below, such as racism in the Arab world. I find completely unpersuasive and not consistent with policy the claim that this article is necessary to maintain NPOV because an Allegations of Israeli apartheid article exists; each topic must be evaluated on its own terms and according to what reliable sources report, without regard to our own subjective notions of fairness within Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Accusations of Arab Apartheid[edit]

AfDs related to this article:


Accusations of Arab Apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article functions as a WP:COATRACK for every negative action that the Arab world has ever been accused of. Just because a commentator uses the word "apartheid" does not make the criticisms similar. Moreover, how can one Arab group (the Bahraini or Lebanese governments) practice "apartheid" against another Arab group (i.e. Shiites in Bahrain or Palestinians in Lebanon). It totally misconstrues the notion of what apartheid was. TM

Nonesense. If some Israeli Mizrachi/Arabic Jews are "blamed" for "racism" against Arabs... so can this be. The fact is that there's Arab discrimination against Arab-Palestinians is undisputed. there's NO COATRACK here, there are several well sourced articles that many Arab systems are accused of.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
namiba TM, "Never been accused of"? Excuse me??? How about in the Arab apartheid accusations already in the 1980s by the organization fighting for Mauritanians' rights. see my comment at the bottom.--Doogielien (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not true. What is OR here by citing the sources that specifically state apartyheid accusations?Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Words have specific origins, then their use broadens. Apartheid is an Afrikaans word coined in the specific conditions of South Africa. Today, however, apartheid is used in political discourse when one group is perceived to relegate another group into an inferior legal status. Gender apartheid, for example, is widely discussed, with no racial connotation. As is Israel and the apartheid analogy; the divide between Israelis and Arabs is certainly not racial, it is ethno/religious. Many students of Africa, including the distinguished George Ayittey see the treatment of the people of Darfur by the Arab government and dominant ethnie of Sudan as a form of Apartheid, Ayittey also applies the term to Mauritania. Nicholas Kristof sees an analogy to apartheid in the treatment of the discriminated against Shia majority by the Sunni ruling class of Bahrain. The distinguished Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh sees apartheid in the official Lebanese denial to Palestinian refugees not only of citizenship, but of the right to purchase real estate, hold jobs, or be admitted to hospitals, despite the fact that fully three generations of these families have been born and reared on Lebanese soil. This article admittedly needs significant expansion. As the sections about, for example, the practice of apartheid against the Coptic Christians of Egypt is improved and expanded, it could have a separate article , as gender apartheid does. What the sections have in common with one another and with apartheid era South Africa is the practice in a large number of Arab societies of essentializing individuals, of defining groups by ascribed status (Christian, Shia, Palestinian, women, marsh Arabs, non Arab) and denying all members of the group rights enjoyed by members of the dominant group in a society which may, in Bahrain as it was in South Africa, be a ruling minority.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots more material is available on this topic. In particular, google: sudan Darfur arab apartheid. Many scholars and journalists have described the pan-Arab nature of support for the apartheid-like policies of the Sudanese government discrimination against non-Arab Sudanese citizens.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well said.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep - There are sources, and the terminology is not unfitting, and has been used by sources (in both the Israeli and Arab cases). However, this is going to be an NPOV nightmare, so while it seems a credible article, I wouldn't be sad if it goes! Bennydigital (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NPOV. The criticism that some Arabs are racist has been made in reliable sources—and we have an article for it (Racism in the Arab world). The criticism that some Arabs are sexist has also been made in reliable sources, and our article for that is called Women in Arab societies. Last thing we need is a content fork.—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about racism. It is about social, economic and legal inferiority imposed on a racially indistinguishable group by the governing group. Like the Lebanese laws that bar Palestinians from owning property.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Racism in the Arab world covers an array of forms of intolerance against non-Arab groups, minorities in the middle east and Arab rule on Africans."—first sentence of Racism in the Arab world, as of the time of typing. This is clearly in scope.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What an odd opening sentence. The article itself begins and continues with extensive documentation of "old fashioned" hated of and discrimination against people with very dark skin in the Arab world. By contrast, I found the term Arab apartheid being used to deal with discrimination against people of the same skin color and physical type, but different identity, i.e. Egyptian Arab apartheid against Egyptian Copts. Lebanese Arab apartheid against Palestinian Arabs. Sunni apartheid against Shia in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The concept of apartheid is distinguishable from that of racism, there are, for example, articles about both Jim Crow laws and Racism in the United States.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so you mean this is a fork of Religious intolerance as well. Passionless -Talk 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When Sunni Arabs in Lebanon pass laws against Sunni Palestinians in Lebanon it is not religious intolerance. And don't look now, but the black-skinned people being killed by Arabs in Darfur are Muslim.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Evidence of apartheid in Mauritania is also damning, and practiced by Arab Muslims against black African Muslims.[reply]
  • Delete So a few people used the word apartheid instead of racist or discrimatory, these few acts should be added to their respective article rather than creating a content fork. Things like "Lebanese laws that bar Palestinians from owning property." are common in most nations of the world like how Mexican laws bar Americans from owning property. Passionless -Talk 23:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact uncommon for a group that legally resided in a country for three generations to be forbidden to buy property, hold a job, or get hospital care because their great-great-grandparents were born in a specific country. The Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are in a fairly unique position.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily that's all irrelevant to this discussion and my reason that this article needs to be deleted is still WP:POVFORK. Passionless -Talk 23:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Supported by reliable sources, here and here. Article meets basic requirements, editors should be wary of SYNTH and OR. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, do you realize that those are both opinion columns and therefore not reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malik, the reliability of source is not necessarily dependent on how information is delivered (editorial). The first source is an editorial, but it is still hosted by a reliable news organization. Israel and the apartheid analogy is dominated by editorials and opinion pieces (by experts and notable persons of course). See WP:NEWSORG. Mainstream writers and experts have compared numerous Arab governments to the South African apartheid state as well as apartheid-style governments in general. This is notable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here has questioned notability, the problem with the article is inherent WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. Passionless -Talk 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::What is this a POV fork of Passion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Arab societies, Racism in the Arab world, and Religious intolerance. Passionless -Talk 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malik is absolutely wrong, of course jpost is reliable. any accusations of apartheid on Israel or about others, is an "opinion." So what? If you object that it's Malik's personal opinion again.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree; I've added a template taken from that page and updated so that the links to previous AfDs are readily available. There definitely seems to be a bit of a history with this and similar pages. Prioryman (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Merge. At the moment, this article is a bit of a synthesis - it has plenty of sources demonstrating that allegations of apartheid have indeed been made against Arab countries, but few about the phenomenon of 'Arab apartheid' as such, suggesting that collecting these instances into one article may not be justified. I would be more happy with it if the scope were broadened to include non-Arab countries, and it were renamed to something like Apartheid outside South Africa; or alternatively if it were merged into the article Racism in the Arab world. The content here is worth keeping, but not in the way it's currently presented. Robofish (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , per applicant.--Severino (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware that there had been previous pages about Arab apartheid deleted from Wikipedia. The debates are interesting, but they are also ancient history. As far as I can tell, the last of them was deleted in July 2008. The application of the term "apartheid" to the mistreatment of ethnic minorities or majorities by the governing group does date back to about 1990, but as near as I can tell it has only become widely popular since about 2010. I only first heard it used quite recently, I think it was in a Nick Kristof column. The idea caught my eye because it fit with what I already knew about, for example, the abuse of Christians in Egypt, Iraq and Syria. To me, apartheid is a reasonable analogy. In the process of writing this article, I would say that it was a series of hard hitting articles using the phrase "Arab apartheid" by Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh beginning in the spring of 2010 that popularized the concept of Arab apartheid. He wrote 2 such articles in 2010 and another just this month. "Apartheid" has been used to accuse Arab regimes of abusing minority groups by such distinguished people as former Canadian Minister of Justice Irwin Cotler, professors George Ayittey, Koigi wa Wamwere and Alan Dershowitz, and by journalists including Nicholas Kristof, Ben-Dror Yemini, Rami Khouri and Irshad Manji. You may agree or disagree with the analogy being made between the way Arab governments treat disfavored groups and apartheid, but denying that the analogy is being made regularly, by distinguished people, in major periodicals (The Economist) and in serious articles and books is like denying that the tide is coming in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. But the Economist doesn't have a policy called Neutral Point of View.—S Marshall T/C 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*The Economist is a reliable source. The title of the article suits the content it is based on. Notable figures are drawing parallels between apartheid policies and Arab governments. This is precisely what Israel and the apartheid analogy revolves around - a long survey of people who claim Israel is/isn't an apartheid state. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*If the article is a response to Israel and the apartheid analogy, the content and quality of the sources remain unchallenged. Wikipedia is predicated on not simply neutrality but balance. It is a reasonable to create an article about allegations of Arab apartheid if reliable sources exist to support it. There is even more reason if another article exists (precedent) that includes identical claims. Whether or not the original author has an agenda is simply irrelevant. We should AGF naturally. IMO, I think the title of the article is suspect. Arab is an ethnic and social identity, not a government. We don't have Allegations of Jewish/Turkish/Kurd apartheid. Assuming this AFD is revolved, I would support a speedy move to something like Allegations of apartheid in Arab governments or Muslim governments/nations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • QUESTION? I understood form the notice box that it was permissible to edit the page while this argument goes forward. I have expanded the article (the evidence that Arab Apartheid is a significant idea seems to me extensive and valid, I hope people writing on this page will read the article objectively) I also put links to Accusations of Arab Apartheid on relevant pages. I understood this to be standard practice on Wikipedia. An individual named CJCurrie who has asked that this page be taken down has on March 22 at 23:33 taken all of the links down excepting only the link to the page on Apartheid in Israel. Is this correct behavior? A scholar like George Ayittey who has made accusations that Arab governments in Mauritania and the Sudan practice apartheid against non-Arab Muslim citizens can surely be linked to this page.I.Casaubon (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more accurate to say that User:I.Casaubon tagged several articles with links to Accusations of Arab Apartheid and that I subsequently removed these. This is not in any way contrary to policy or past practice, particularly when the article in question is of dubious quality. Readers should also note that I did not delete Ayittey's accusations against Mauritania and Sudan; I only removed a link and changed the wording.
I didn't realize there was still a link on the Israel page, btw. CJCurrie (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the individual sections are probably all notable, but connecting them all for being in the Arab world even though they're otherwise unrelated is far too much of a synthesis. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why they're not connected.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment LMFAO. Article looks good. If Israel can be accused of apartheid then ti is fun to see the Arabs accused of it. The only thing that should stand in the way of an article is if a source does not connect Arabs with apartheid but only individual countries. From what I have seen, some sources say "Oh noes: Israel apartheid. Oh yeah, well they say Arabs do it, too". That makes me lean towards keep. On second thought is good enough for me. This is just a preliminary search and it shows some biased sources but for sure some RS. It is a topic discussed by a significant amount of independent sources. GNG is fulfilled. Keep an eye on it to make sure it does not become a POV coatrack (same should have been done for the Israel one but editors have tunnel vision). GNG is GNG even if it is just a stub and the garbage is riped out. Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "If Israel can be accused of apartheid then ti[sic] is fun to see the Arabs accused of it" is precisely the kind of mentality that makes this topic area a hostile battleground. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is funny. If you do not see he humor in it then I don't know what to tell you. But regardless of any mentality or POV: GNG is GNG. Sucks, huh?Cptnono (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FWIW, I agree with a lot of the criticisms of the current version of the article, but I think that the notability of the topic has been established. I think that it would be possible to re-write this to solve the NPOV and SYNTH issues. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A synthesized mess of an attack article, apparently created to serve as some sort of pointy counter-balance to Israeli apartheid, and article still on the hit-list of many, many POV warriors. I really don't see why we allow the continued recreation of the same material under slightly different article titles. Honestly, delete this, salt it, and take the proponents to WP:AE; this disruption has been tolerated long enough. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand! Wide noteriety for Arab apartheid (A quick google search shows that too). this is not as TM tries to suggest about "every negative action," but about clear cut apartheid features, and this info about oppression in Arab countries with clear discriminatory practices/laws resembling apartheid is much more facts based than the pseudo [attack article] claims of "apartheid" on democratic Israel fighting off attacks. Expand on: Syria VS oppressed Kurdish minority [1] who are denied basic human rights, and on Gender Apartheid in Arab-Palestine. It is NOT included in 'Racism in Arab World' because it is also about Islamic Apartheid such as FreedomHouse accusing Saudi Arabia of religious apartheid, which is not race based. Moreover this is not charging officially Arab apartheid but citing claims of accusations of Arab Apartheid, fair enough. Disliking a page does NOT constitute an 'attack article."

comment Please provide a valid reason why this should not be stayed on, thank you.Maresi (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note Maresi is an account created today...Passionless -Talk 18:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note Passionless is baselessly attacking maresi, not to mention his "reliablity" contributions that show a standard anti-Israel bias.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My position is that all these wp:coatrack (as nomintator puts it best) should be deleted. However, to the extent we have Israel and the apartheid analogy, per WP:NPOV we must have this article. Before anyone jumps all over me with wp:othercrapexists, let me explain. The Israel apartheid runs into the same coatrack and misconstruction that this article does. However, if that article is kept despite those deficiencies and passes the relevant Wikipedia policies, there is very little to distinguish this article from the israel-apartheid article. Thus, this should be kept not due to wp:othercrapexists, but due to wp:gng and wp:npov.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPOV is not a zero-sum game, achieved by simply creating negative content to balance the positive, or in this case balancing a perceived negative article with the creation of another negative article. This approach to editing is generally held to be tendentious and has led to many blocks and bans from past ArbCom cases, both in this topic area and in others. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You can always question the content of an article. But the content that are disputed can often be removed or re-written in a better way. I see no reason to delete the article in full. Also I am saying Keep per Brewcewers reasonings which is closest to the truth on this matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing an WP:OTHERCRAP argument by another user is probably not the most beneficial use of a !vote. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERCRAP doesnt apply to my valid Keep comment. But good try.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since that is precisely what brewcrewer argued...that he sees the same problems with the Israeli article, so if that is kept then this has to be kept as well...yea, it kinda does apply to your argument. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Tarc's arguments. NickCT (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To NickCTs comment WP:OTHERCRAP does really apply.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment I think I should amend my previous comments on this discussion. When I first intervened, I said that Accusations of Arab Apartheid was an attempt to revive the "Allegations of Apartheid" fiasco from a few years ago. It now appears that I was mistaken on this point, and I will withdraw that comment. I will also attempt to provide further context to this discussion as based on past precedent; I hope that my remarks will considered in a fair light by other contributors and by whoever decides to close this debate.
The "apartheid" debates have a long, though not necessarily a noble, history on Wikipedia. In 2006, the page currently known as Israel and the apartheid analogy was created. There were several attempts to delete the page during the first two years of its history, and I believe that many of these efforts were politically motivated. This notwithstanding, the page remained on the project and a consensus eventually developed that the subject was encyclopedic.
Let me be very clear on this point: when I say that Israel and the apartheid analogy deals with a subject of encyclopedic merit, I am neither endorsing the analogy nor suggesting that the reality or non-reality of "Israeli apartheid" should be the standard by which the page's suitability should be judged. Rather, the page has encyclopedic merit because there has been an extensive public debate on the subject. There are numerous volumes of academic literature on the subject, former Israeli cabinet ministers such as Yossi Sarid have endorsed the analogy, and Jimmy Carter's Palestine Peace not Apartheid brought the debate into a much wider sphere of discourse. Today, it's unlikely that any serious contributor to the Wikipedia would dispute the suitability of a page on this topic, whatever specific issues they may have with Israel and the apartheid analogy in its current form.
For the same reason, Wikipedia also has pages on Social apartheid, Social apartheid in Brazil, Gender apartheid, and so forth. These are also controversial and disputed topics, but there's a sufficient body of credible, secondary-source information to justify articles on all of them.
"Allegations of Apartheid" was a different matter entirely; it was essentially just a list of references to accusations of apartheid against different countries. Many of these references were based on very weak sources, and some were based on passing references in journalistic documents to apartheid-like conditions. It was a terrible entry -- not appropriate as a list page, and not suitable in its own terms. In other words, it was the definition of a coatrack.
The current page, Accusations of Arab Apartheid, is perhaps less bad in this respect than was "Allegations of Apartheid," but not by terribly much. It's based on a synthesis of various sources, not on sources that address the specific issue of "apartheid" in Arab states. Some of the sources are fairly weak here as well -- I've checked one of the George Attiyey articles referenced in it and discovered that the article mentions the words "Arab apartheid" only in passing, as part of a much longer comment on corruption and factionalism in governments all throughout Africa (see Talk:George Ayittey for details). I've removed the reference from the Ayittey article, as it was patently unsuitable.
In assessing the suitability of Accusations of Arab Apartheid, the only vital issue is this: is there a significant body of credible, sustained secondary sources (at least some of which should be scholarly) that address the issue of "apartheid in Arab states"? From what I can gather, the answer is "clearly not." There are several accusations made against specific states, but the number of sources looking at "apartheid in Arab states" is much smaller, and most of these would seem to be journalistic articles, often polemical and written for short-term consumption. The debate simply hasn't reached a critical level of discourse to justify this article, nor is it suitable as a "list page" for the individual countries in question.
It is possible that there's a level of discourse concerning "apartheid" in individual countries (such as Sudan, perhaps) to justify pages for those countries. If so, I will not object to the creation of those pages.
Some people have suggested that this article provides "balance" to the Israel and the apartheid analogy article. This reasoning is entirely contrary to the purpose of the project and to reliable past practice on this issue.
I should raise one further objection to this article: its title. Although Israel and the apartheid analogy deals with a very controversial topic, all sensible commentators on the subject will acknowledge that "the State of Israel" and "the Jewish people" are distinct concepts. Although many supporters of Israel regard the phrase "Israeli apartheid" as coded anti-Semitism, it is nonetheless not the same as "Jewish apartheid," which would be recognized by most people on all sides of the Israel-Palestine debate as a far worse phrase.
The same logic applies to the phrase "Arab apartheid." It's not uncommon for some of Israel's most vocal supporters to refer to "Islamic state apartheid" or perhaps "Arab state apartheid" in describing conditions in other countries. I happen to think that these phrases are often used very cynically and that they imply sweeping, simplistic, and ultimately unjustifiable claims against diverse and multi-faceted societies. However, neither phrase is quite so problematic as "Arab apartheid," which is capable of being read as targeting Arab people generally.
The specific title of the current page is inherently unsuitable, unless the point is to document instances of the incredibly specious claim that Arab people generally are guilty of "apartheid." (And as such sources would by their very nature represent only a fringe element, one wonders why such a page would be necessary or desireable in the first place.) If this page is retained, which I truly hope is not the case, then at minimum its title should be changed.
Comments and respectful discourse are welcome. Again, I hope whoever closes this debate will take these arguments into consideration. CJCurrie (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support all that was said, and on a side note, Gender apartheid was changed into a redirect in 2006 and only recently brought back by a single editor. I think that that article should also be changed back into a redirect for all the same reasons. Passionless -Talk 01:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per CJCurrie. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CJCurrie and Tarc. --John KB (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as per CJCurrie and Tarc. As CJCurrie says, if there's appropriate material, an article specifically on, say, the Sudanese case can be created. Part of what happened with the Israel and the apartheid analogy article is that it moved from a back-and-forth about the accuracy of the criticism to an article about the debate as a phenomenon in itself. That clearly has not happened here. People making accusations of "Arab apartheid" is insufficient for an article, so Google searches of the phrase are unhelpful. There would need to be appropriate articles about the criticism to avoid this being WP:synth and WP:coatrack. Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All these requests for SALT are ridiculous. So I will pretend that you provided a reason instead of just a meaningless !vote: This article can be deleted per WP:DEL#REASON WP:NOTADVOCATE but notability is shown in a google news archive search with the likes of the Washington Post. So this article should be recreated when it meets our standards. Hopefully by then you guys voting to salt will understand policy and the notability guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) The objectionists here have a history of anti-Israel bias.
2) There are roughly 4,000,000 results on google for 'Arab apartheid.'
It is well sourced.
3) Accusations have been made on both: Individual Arab countries and on the Arab world as a whole.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to double-check your Google hits. I see only 655 distinct pages on "Google Everything"; and only 20 on "Google Books". --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the User:Chorleston account has made fewer than twenty edits. CJCurrie (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There does seem to be the distinct odor of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point about this article. The sources do appear to be legitimate, but they are rather lightweight. The corresponding Israel article was created only after a President of the United States and a Nobel Laureate made the analogy. Perhaps this article should be deleted, and revived when sources with more gravitas have established notability for this topic? --Noleander (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that it is unfortunate that well-known words for things become used in less appropriate contexts (I am thinking of the word Fascism which really should pertain only to the Italian WWII era political group), but that does not mean that WP can pretend that they are not in wide use. The photograph says it all; it does exist. So the subject is valid; I do not have time for anything other than an assumption that sources exist. I will take Benny and Wikifan, etc's word for it. Anarchangel (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite beside the point. As I've said above, the relevant question is whether or not there's a credible public discourse on the specific subject of "apartheid in Arab states." The sources, which you don't appear to have checked, do not back up this assertion. CJCurrie (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it appears that all is sourced and quite clear that it is as real as 'the other one'. no reason to delete at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soosim (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just added a quote from the book written by Walid Phares. He is a known scholar of Middle East, and he calls the discrimination against Copts, blacks, women an "apartheid" . Also this book by the same author has lots of information about apartheid in Arab world.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how this article is different from the other articles of it's kind. It is a documentation of reality, has good and reliable sources, and the subject is very notable. Broccolo (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a textbook example of original research by synthesis; a collection of unrelated quotes stitched together to support an original argument of the existence of "Arab apartheid". The author's approach seems to have been essentially to cherry-pick any book that contains the words "Arab" and "apartheid" in proximity to each other. There is no context and no assessment of whether the assertions made are in any way credible (only one point of view is represented - the accusatory one). It's very obvious that this article has been created as a POV counterpart - or retaliation - for the corresponding one about Israel. Comments like this one make it obvious what is going on with this article. Prioryman (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - thanks for the shout-out p-man! (truth is, comments like "that" one just show that things do exist, whether you like them or not. there are dozens of examples of those who say that israel apartheid is nonsense, and there are dozens of examples of those who say that arab apartheid is quite real. they are not "separate but equal", rather, they are intertwined, with both being validly (nice word!) sourced and referenced. Soosim (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to look at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The existence of one article doesn't justify the existence of another article. Each article has to stand or fall on its own merits. The problem with the article we're discussing is that it so clearly fails on multiple grounds, most obviously original research by synthesis - as others have pointed out, it's merely a coatrack for a collection of quotes which someone has dug up from Google Books to support a novel argument for a general phenomenon of "Arab apartheid". That is an absurdly broad-brush term anyway - the Arab world covers 21 countries and territories inhabited by 360 million people; it's as absurdly general as "South American apartheid" or "Slavic apartheid". The whole premise of the article appears to be to highlight claims of discrimination in individual countries and extrapolate them to an entire region and ethnic group. That is not only original research, it strikes me as bordering on racism as well. Imagine an antithetical article about Israel, "Accusations of Jewish Apartheid" - that would be equally problematic (I'd vote for its deletion in a heartbeat) and I suspect that those voting to keep this article would not hesitate to call for its speedy deletion. Prioryman (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Prioryman. Don't you see anything wrong with the article Israel and the apartheid analogy, and, if you do not what exactly is wrong with the discussed article in your opinion? Maybe, if it is renamed to Arab countries and the apartheid analogy or Arab world and the apartheid analogy, you'd like it better? See, I might agree with you that naming article Accusations of Arab apartheid could look like it is all Arab people who are accused in apartheid, but what is a good name. There's only one Jewish state - Israel, and there are 22 Arab countries that all have apartheid - kind of hard to come up with generic name.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the existence of one article doesn't justify the existence of another. But let's compare the two anyway (though I should clarify it's not a topic I know much about - I'm commenting only on their quality as articles). Israel and the apartheid analogy describes an issue that has been the subject of high-profile debate among academics and politicians, including entire books on the subject. It discusses arguments pro and con in what looks to me like a fairly neutral way.
Accusations of Arab Apartheid takes a completely different approach. It assumes (as you appear to do as well) that all instances of discrimination in Arab counties constitute a generic form of "apartheid". However, it never actually makes that case. No source is cited to support that argument, hence the original research problem. Nor is there any indication of a general debate about "apartheid" in the Arab world. Instead, it cobbles together quotes from people using the term "apartheid" rhetorically to refer to discrimination in different countries, arising in different circumstances and involving many different groups in many different countries. It is completely one-sided - it never presents alternative points of view, which fundamentally ignores the NPOV principle. The whole premise of the article, as a quote-mined list of accusations, is incompatible with NPOV.
To illustrate how silly the premise of the article is, I could quite easily create an article called "Accusations of Slavic Apartheid" covering discrimination by Czechs and Slovaks against Gypsies, Serbs against Albanians, Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians against Caucasians, and so on. There are plenty of sources that use "apartheid" rhetorically to refer to such discrimination. However, it would plainly be absurd to quote-mine such sources to support an unpublished argument about the existence of a general pattern of "Slavic apartheid". Yes, discrimination exists in various counties and yes, some people have rhetorically called it "apartheid", but those two facts can't be used to present a novel argument that separate issues in different counties can all be described as a general system of "apartheid", as this article tries to do. Prioryman (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) arab apartheid as a term is used in reliable verifiable sources and references. not made up, no original synthetic research, etc.... b) i promise you, if there were reliable verifiable sources and references for jewish apartheid, it would most certainly be a wiki article (regardless of your personal preference to delete it). Soosim (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • matters of fact
someone asserted above that the article accusing Israel of practicing apartheid was only written after Jimmy Carter's book was published. I checked the dates, Cater published in the fall of 2006, the article was written in the spring.
someone asserted that the series of articles on Arab Apartheid by Khaled Abu Toameh were not reliable because they were published by a think tank. All three in fact appeared in a national newspaper, the Jerusalem Post. They were reprinted widely. I linked to the articles on the Hudson Insititute website since Hudson runs a stable website and despite Israel's prowess in all things computer, the Jerusalem Post has a lousy website. A case of the cobbler's children going barefoot.
it has also been asserted that the concept of Arab apartheid has not been asserted reliably, only instances in specific countries. I added two sentences with sources making clear that reliable people have asserted that "Arab apartheid" in the sense that major public intellectuals have made claims of apartheid or apartheid-like policies being practiced by Arabs against disadvantaged gorups in many countries.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't say that Israel and the Apartheid Analogy predated Carter's book; I said that Carter's book brought the debate concerning "apartheid and Israel" into a broader public discourse. I could add that the publicity accorded to the book finally settled the question of whether or not the article currently titled Israel and the Apartheid Analogy dealt with an encyclopedic subject.
I hope whoever closes this discussion will realize that most of the "votes" to keep this article (which aren't really votes in the proper sense, but anyway ...) are wide of the mark. The question we should concern ourselves with is not whether "Arab apartheid" or "apartheid in Arab states" exists or does not exist. Likewise, it's not particularly relevant that some authors have used the phrase "Arab apartheid" in published books and articles, and it's certainly not relevant that there's a separate article entitled Israel and the Apartheid Analogy on Wikipedia. The only relevant question is whether the specific concept of "apartheid in Arab states" has itself been the subject of serious scrutiny, at least some of which should be scholarly. The answer, quite plainly, is that it has not.
As I've said before, I won't object to the creation of articles such as Sudan and the Apartheid Analogy or Saudi Arabia and the Apartheid Analogy (which I see already exists as a redirect), if and only if these concepts have received serious scrutiny, at least some of which must be scholarly. CJCurrie (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School describes "serious problems of real apartheid in Arab and Muslim nations." I.Casaubon (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - this account was only created yesterday and has only three previous edits. Prioryman (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Umm... so... what? And actually, I joined Wikipedia over a week ago.... so... yeah.... AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of "Articles for deletion" above is almost completely irrelevant, since so much of the discussion of this topic has taken place in 2010 and 2011. I created the article because Apartheid in the Arab world is a topic that is being widely discussed now. This was not so much the case when these old discussions were held.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's highly relevant. CJCurrie highlighted above a previous AfD discussion which resulted in the deletion of an article which - though I can't now see it - sounds from the description like it was very similar to this one. The arguments put forward in that discussion are certainly highly relevant. In particular, I'd like to draw your attention to comments of the closing administrator in that discussion:
The core contention of the delete side is, as I understand it, that a large number of disparate uses of the word "apartheid" in reliable sources do not make the single subject "Allegations of apartheid" a valid subject, and that the collection of these uses into one article linked only by word choice is a violation of WP:OR (and, more specifically, WP:SYNTH). In response, the keep side argues that a great many incidents of allegations of apartheid have been covered by reliable sources, and that there is nothing WP:OR-violating about grouping these worldwide incidences of a phenomenon together in one article. I believe that the delete side did a better job of making its case - one particularly strong question that I believe went unanswered was posted by User:Ceedjee, when he wrote "who are the scholars (here sociologists or political scientists are expected) who studied, as a whole, the allegations of apartheid carried against the different countries or regime around the world ?" This strikes me as an enormously salient issue. Moreover, in going through the references in the article, I was unable to find one whose topic was "Allegations of apartheid". I think this has to be a litmus test: if there isn't a single source (broadly defined to include chapters of larger works and the like) that has its primary subject a topic on which somebody wants to make a Wikipedia article, there have to be alarm bells. It may well be so that the collection of these various allegations together is eminently reasonable, but if that is so why has nobody else, to all evidence, ever so-collected them?
The same is very much true for this article. It seems to me, on reading that earlier discussion, that you have managed to create a new version of a very controversial article that was ultimately deleted - but unfortunately your version has the same fundamental flaws as the deleted version. Prioryman (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Prioryman, I clicked on the deletion discussion that you linked to, and I am frankly puzzled that you think them relevant. The topic of those articles was "Accusations of apartheid" or "Apartheid outside South Africa" There was nothing to indicate that they were about Arab Apartheid Why did you bring them up?I.Casaubon (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the box because the articles you had linked to werre actually about topics like "Tourist apartheid in Brazil" Not relevant to the topic of Arab Apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only assume that you didn't click on any of the links in the box, otherwise you would have seen that almost all concerned AfDs on a now-deleted article called "Allegations of apartheid". Your article essentially seems to be that old article minus all the non-Arab countries. The arguments against that article are identical, as the quote above shows, to those being made here. Please do not delete others' contributions simply because you do not agree with them. That is not acceptable at all and will get you into trouble. Prioryman (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brand new article about Apartheid in the Arab world. It was provoked by a Kahled abu Toameh article that ran this month. Much of the material is very recent, postdating the articles you link to. You have not answered my question. I have raed the discussions (Not the articles, can they still be accessed?) Question? Why are these old articles relevant, reading the discussions about the articles, I see a great deal of material about accusations of Apartheid in Brazil and France. Not about Arab Apartheid. What do accusations of apartheid in Brazil or France have to do with Arab apartheid?
It seems the old articles can't be accessed - presumably if they're deleted they go completely and we can't see their histories? I can't comment about Brazil or France, but the descriptions of the article at the centre of the previous AfDs - "Allegations of Apartheid" - make it clear that that article was constructed the same way as this one, i.e. as a collection of quotations to support an original contention of a worldwide phenomenon of "apartheid" in various countries. You have cast the scope of this article more narrowly to cover just the Arab world but it suffers from the same problems identified in the 2008 AfD. When CJCurrie posted a link to that AfD I was struck by how very similar the comments were to those on this article. While this article might not be a direct descendent of the earlier one, it's clear that Wikipedia has faced a very similar issue before, so the previous discussions are highly relevant. Prioryman (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are making assertions about how these old articles were "constructed" without having read them.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of them survives as Social apartheid in Brazil and appears to be a reasonable article. It could be a useful model for the improvement of this article on Arab apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The facts here are very simple.
Several ancient articles existed on topics more or less (often far less) similar to this. They were deleted 3 years ago and up. Political conversations change.
A large number of Arab regimes (Sudan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the palestinian Authority, Mauritania, Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and probably others not yet in the article) have been accused of practicing forms of apartheid.
The use of the term apartheid has been applied increasingly to these Arab governments in the last 2 years.
Political conversations frequently discuss the Arab world in much the same way they discuss the West or the Nordic countries The reason is that these culturally coherent areas are often swept by political trends that happen in tandem across a culturally similar area. So we have sentences such as "the wave of pro-democracy protests now sweeping the Arab World." and we have Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School writing about "serious problems of real apartheid in Arab and Muslim nations."
A growing number of journalists, statesmen and scholars have, in recent years, discussed the concept of apartheid in the Arab world It is a concept, not a phrase. I chose the title to state simply that these accusations are being made because I understood wikipedia to require an objective approach to information. it is the concept that is significant. As proven by the fact that it is being widely and increasingly used.
American University economist George Ayittey: "In Sudan and Mauritania, the Arabs monopolized power and excluded blacks - Arab apartheid."
Ayittey accused Sudan of "deftly manipulat(ing) Arab solidarity" to carry out policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing against non-Arabs in Darfur."
And this month journalist Kahled Abu Toameh published a widely circulated and cited article asking "Where’s the international outcry against Arab apartheid?"
There is more in the article, and more that I have not had time ot add to the article yet, but you cannot google a phrase Accusations of Arab Apartheid to delegitimize a concept.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Arab Apartheid The core concept. This will satisfy the objections expressed by Prioryman and CJCurrie.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid it doesn't answer my objections. The objection is not to the title of the article, it's to the basic conception of the article. To borrow from the administrator's comments in italics above, a large number of disparate uses of the word "apartheid" in reliable sources do not make the single subject "Allegations of [Arab] apartheid" a valid subject, and ... the collection of these uses into one article linked only by word choice is a violation of WP:OR (and, more specifically, WP:SYNTH). That objection is valid whatever the article is called. Prioryman (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • compromise my fella wiki-wikis...deleting the article is not any sort of compromise. there is sufficiently clear material, well sourced by well known people to have this article exist. i understand someone might not like it, but that is not what this is about. 'just the facts', please. put up the information, source it reliably and let it be. i still don't see any reason for all of this hesitation to let it stand. the time spent twisting and turning every WP:this and that could've been used to just editing the article and making it WP:PERFECT.Soosim (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still waiting for someone on the "keep" side to address the core issue: that this article is simply a coatrack for a series of disparate sources that use the words "Arab apartheid" (or the words "Arab" and "apartheid" close together) in passing. There appear to be few, if any, sources that actually consider the subject in any detail -- there's certainly not a significant body of credible secondary sources (at least some of which must be scholarly) that address the issue of "apartheid in Arab states."
On another matter, I'd like to request that whoever closes this discussion be someone who's (i) familiar with past "apartheid" debates on Wikipedia, and (ii) not aligned with either side in those discussions. CJCurrie (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am continuing to add material on Arab apartheid from Arab commentators, Arab academics, think tanks, and more. A lot of ink is being spilled on this topic.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you are not addressing the fundamental flaws that have been pointed out on this page - you are merely adding to the pile of cherry-picked quotations, from a very biased starting point (I mean, "Apartheid road in Saudi Arabia"? - come on). Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources discussing the specific concept of Arab apartheid are very solid. As are the many descriptions of countries such at Saudi Arabia where Shia, Christians or some other despised group live under a separate set of laws. Legal Christian residents of Saudi Arabia cannot hold public services of worship or build a church. I find the idea of a highway system that directs non-Muslims to a separate road offensive in the extreme. And an exact parallel to the buses, schools and drinking fountains that America used to have for blacks.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely irrelevent to the present discussion. As I've said before, I'm not opposed to the creation of a Saudi Arabia and the Apartheid Analogy page (beyond the current redirect) if there are enough valid sources to back it up, but that's not the present issue. I'd ask you to read my objections again more carefully, please. CJCurrie (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per I.Casaubon. Comment As you can see in the following Arab apartheid was already charged in the 1980s by a Mauritanian Organization FLAM and publicized a leaflet about it.

Africa after the Cold War: the changing perspectives on security - Pages 126-127
 Adebayo Oyebade, Abiodun Alao - 1998 - 228 pages - Preview
This ethnic crisis is invariably between the Arabs and the black population. Although the conflict had been on for some time, it was only in the late 1980s that it came into the open. In 1984, the Force de Liberation Africaine de Mauritanians (FLAM) was formed, and in June 1986, it published the "Manifesto of the Oppressed Black Mauritanians."
The manifesto denounced what it called "Mauritanian apartheid" and the " Arabization of the Mauritanian society."... The Black/Arab ethnic conflict inside Mauritania has influenced the neighboring states of Mali and Senegal. The largely black state of Senegal [2]

Sudan: Volume 3, Issue 3 - Pax Sudani Network - 1993
Moreover, they have committed to a program of de-Africanization through forced Arabization and Isalmization of the people in South Sudan, the Nuba Mountains and southern Blue Nile regions.
Had the African Sudanese succumbed to this policy of Arabism and Islamism, Islamic apartheid would have prevailed in the Dusan said Elias N. Wakoson. In 1955, a group of Southern Sudanese revolted against the system... they have maintained a passive stance on the Arab apartheid and enslavement of black Africans. [3]

Negative ethnicity: from bias to genocide - Page 152
 Koigi wa Wamwere - 2003 - 207 pages
When racial apartheid fell in South Africa, Arab apartheid against the black southerners did not in Sudan. Arab insen- sitivity to the suffering of Africans in the South has led to an ongoing war that sends Arab militias from Khartoum ...By 1997 Moorish apartheid in Mauritania had driven 55000 black Africans into Senegal, Mali, and surrounding countries. Judging by the numbers slaughtered, black, Arab, and Moorish apartheids have killed more Africans than white.[4]

Africa betrayed - Page 124
 George B. N. Ayittey - 1992 - 412 pages
ARAB APARTHEID In some parts of Africa there is a dominant Islam which allows practically no room for other ... by Arabs against black Africans has become a growing problem in Africa, especially in Mauritania, Sudan, and Tanzania.[5]

Indigenous African institutions
 George B. N. Ayittey - Transnational Publishers, 1991 - 547 pages - Page 29
Arab apartheid reigns supreme in Mauritania and Sudan. In Mauritania, blacks have no political power and cannot vote. Like their counterparts in South Africa , they are persecuted and discriminated against by Arab masters. [6]

Africa in chaos - Page 50
 George B. N. Ayittey - 1999 - 416 pages - Preview
In Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs held power and blacks were excluded (Arab apartheid).. [7] Suggestion Maybe merge with accusation on Israel by creating a page "Accusations of apartheid in the Middle East."--Doogielien (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh ... this account has fewer than ten edits. CJCurrie (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Accusations_of_Arab_Apartheid&oldid=1137536774"