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 None. There is an ongoing Arbitration case here about the whole Allegations of apartheid mess. There was a consensus to undelete and blank those articles that had been deleted for the purposes of gathering evidence for the case. The discussion can be found here. Because of the case, I am suspending/closing the AfD, without prejudice for keeping or deleting the article in question. If you wish to renominate it, please do so again after the ArbCom case closes. --Hemlock Martinis 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an inflammatory issue that exists solely to denigrate and delegitimize the State of Israel. By its very nature, it is not possible to say anything about it in a politically, ideologically, or epistemologically "neutral" fashion, and therefore it does not belong in an encyclopedia. - Skaraoke 08:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis nomination hasn't been processed properly. It therefore does not appear on the list of active nominations. You should check the process again. There is something you haven't done that the process requires. When you do process it, please note that this is the seventh nomination, not the second as you say. Look at the article talk page and expand the AfD list and you'll see the lot. I would also suggest looking at the arguments that have allowed this article to allow for over a year and these six nominations before putting forward yet another nomination.--Peter cohen 10:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I think its OK now. --Gavin Collins 21:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Thanks to you and Cerejota, it is much better now.--Peter cohen 08:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the "(second nomination)" part was added automatically by the afdx template, and it was beyond my control. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the reason that this inflammatory article has survived so many nominations for deletion is that it's heavily patrolled by members of the antisemitic, Israel-hating fringe and an (unfortunately smaller) group of people who know what these antisemites (and discredited self-loathing Jews, e.g.Norman Finkelstein) are up to and are dedicated to countering their propaganda. This situation creates the illusion there is a "bimodal consensus" about whether this issue is valid, when in fact if everyone in the English-speaking were to voice their opinions about this, there would be a clear consensus that the credibility of this issue should go the way of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which many anti-Israel groups sell at their rallies, BTW). The Israel-haters take advantage of the obscurity of this fringe issue. If the only people who had ever heard of Nazism were members of the Aryan Nations and the ADL, the same thing would happen with that article too. Luckily everyone in the country knows about Nazism, but they're not familiar with this lesser-known brand of antisemitism, so they're not there to reign in this problem. - Skaraoke 20:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the other explanation as to why the article has survived numerous nominations is that the subject matter is notable and verifiable. In fact, WP:V's main tenet is "verifiability, not truth". The article does not exist to push the claim or assert its truthiness (thanks Stephen Colbert!); rather, it exists to cover the issue. BTW, it would do you a world of good to strike some of your inflammatory comments above. Labeling those that are in favor of keeping the article as antisemetic is going to cause you more problems than its worth, such as a trip to WP:WQA. Tarc 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the etymology of the word "verifiability," this standard is a logical contradiction, and therefore it makes no sense. Anyway, if this "rule" really is part of Wikipedia's fundamental philosophy, it explain why Wikipedia has become such an epistemological cesspool, and why the lunatic fringe has found such a secure home here. - Skaraoke 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously trying to skip an editing dispute by way of AfD. If you have problems with it, join the debate in the talk page. An inflammatory, ill-advised, POV-pushing, disruptive AfD is the last thing we need. As to epistemology, I suggest you check Nigger. If you tolerate such an word being a title, you are being an hypocrite. And don't give me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS lip, if you are claiming systemic challenges, please act like it or don't claim it. All your nom and comments show is that you are just concerned about your own POV. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have gone through the differences between this article and Nigger. But again, this article is written from the perspective of the users as to why they believe the term is appropiate. Nigger is written from the persepective of a black person as to why the term is an insult. It is not written from the prespective of a white supremacist, describing why they believe the term is appropiate; if it was, I would nominate that article for deletion, as it would be a racist anti-black POV fork. But it is not, so you are not comparing apples to apples with that analogy. Unless the article begins with something along the lines of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid are made by antisemites who despise israel..." and make that the thesis of the article, there is no comparision between the two. If you have another example that is an apples to apples comparision, please mention it, so it can be nominated for an afd as well.--SefringleTalk 03:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was very much a non-response. The material is notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced. No original research, no synthesis of disparate opinions. Just an article about a notable event. Controversial and somewhat incendiary? Of course, but that is not a reason to delete, any more than your insult-laden WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale is. Tarc 00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your own bias is pretty clear from looking at your edit history. - Skaraoke 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As is yours, as is most everyone else's here. When you can address actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines as to why this article should be deleted, I will gladly respond. If all you're going to do is engage in ad hominem asides, then that really isn't a productive use of our time. Tarc 02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's time to put an end to this whole Allegations of apartheid mess. However, I think the nominator does his cause more harm than good with his inflammatory rationale. --Groggy DiceT | C 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls under the category of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. There is not possible non-POV answer. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. MarkBul 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given in my above comments and in several of the past AfDs. Subject matter is notable and verifiable. Nominators rationale misrepresents the article's point and rather disgustingly drags out the "antisemite" slur for his opponents. Tarc 00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually kind of like this, except that I would prefer it to say "Proposed Analogy with Apartheid." And, the article needs to be more honest about the character, credibility, likely motives, and conflicts-of-interest of the specific people who are promoting this analogy. As it stands now, people with an obvious anti-Israel agenda are using strong-arm tactics to whitewash these folks in the article. - Skaraoke 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI for OfficeGirl -- In recent renaming efforts, a proposed title using "analogy" and a proposed title "Israeli apartheid debate" have failed. For a view of why titles structured like "Israeli apartheid analogy" is unlikely to pass muster, you may want to look at the typology of titles within a draft sythesis of arguments on AoIA renaming. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply Oh, what a quagmire. "Israeli Apartheid" would be a perfectly good title, since that is the name used by the accusers and the most likely search term for those seeking information on the topic. The name that is being used now is more POV than anything in the article, though the "Opposing Views" section sounds more like the response in a debate rather than a dispassionate reporting of the published record as found in reliable sources. I see you've dedicated quite a bit of energy to the problems inherent in renaming this article. But I still think it needs to be renamed. OfficeGirl 01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for nominator (or others). First, most importantly, please clarify how you distinguish the grounds for this AfD from the previous ones. Second, please clarify what "it" refers to in your statement "By its very nature, it is not possible to say anything about it in a politically, ideologically, or epistemologically "neutral" fashion, and therefore it does not belong in an encyclopedia." If "it" is an "inflammatory issue", then how would you explain the existence of encyclopedia articles (Wikipedia or otherwise) on such topics as abortion. If "it" refers to the current Article Name, would you deny that it is possible to formulate a neutral title about the similarities and differences between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa? Thanks for elucidating the grounds for yet another AfD. HG | Talk 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It" in this case refers to the accusation that Israel practices "Apartheid." Abortion is a clinically recognized medical procedure. It's a fact that it has been performed. The contentious issue of its legality and/or morality is notable because, for example, it has been the subject of several cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, which body is established by the United States Constitution to be the highest-precedence Federal court in the land. Every person living in the United States is affected by its decisions. Therefore, issues brought before it are per se notable within American society. On the other hand, in this case we're talking about an idea being debated by people whose own notability (to say nothing of "objectivity") is in question. (i.e. Not every tenured English professor is considered "notable" just because she says what she thinks about Shakespeare, so why do we assume that every Middle East Studies professor is "notable"?) Also, as I've said elsewhere on this page, certain issues such as abortion are much more widely known than this "Israeli Apartheid" thing, so the articles on Wikipedia have a larger and more representative "gene pool" from which to draw contributors. I hope that these explanations help to answer your question. - Skaraoke 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this one speaks for itself:
Please do not feed the trolls.We've had two move requests in the last week, with no consensus for a move. We don't need to have this discussion again in yet another location. It's time for the people who want to rename the article to just stop for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as no consensus, as I can promise with absolute certainty that such will be the end result, one way or another. CJCurrie 01:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as no consensus. Why go through this again? We all have better things to do. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, possible speedy close - Nominators comment is not supported by the wealth of notable, reliable, and verifiable sources that provide complete encyclopedic value to the topic in itself. Deletionism around this article seems to always be based around POV WP:BATTLE ideological reasons: since the topic includes politics contrary to the existence of Israel, or against policies put in practice, historically or currently. The nominator obviously has not read the article (which needs work) and is obviously having a knee-jerk reaction to the existence of the topic, because the article as it stands doesn't support his nomination comments: In fact, the bulk of the sourced material that uses the analogy is from self-described Zionist sources or sources that are sympathetic or support the existence of Israel, but think certain policies are harmful to a peace process and in fact contribute to increased insecurity in Israel itself.
Furthermore, it being a controversial topic, which has been over many AfDs in the past (some of which have been bad faith, but most of them have been solid and well discussed.), is currently under ArbCom, and has been the subject of several RfMs and very active discussion in its talk page, the nominator should at least have had the common decency of asking for the opinion of editors before jumping the gun.
This nomination is a best a mistake by an unexperienced wikipedia, and at worse one of the most egregious example of WP:BATTLE disruption. Either way it is disruptive and should be speedy closed.
Lastly, this is not the "Second nomination" and this needs URGENT admin attention, so that people are no confused as to this issue being a long-standing controversy. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't going to be a speedy close as long as there are delete votes.--SefringleTalk 02:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trolling: this is not a vote, and just because you and your meatpuppets continue to be disruptive and unproductive doesn't mean it cannot be speedily closed. Edit, don't delete. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"We" do not appreciate being called trolls. Remenber to mantain WP:CIVIL and don't make personal attacks.--SefringleTalk 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and enough no-consensus closes. It is unlikely this issue will ever be resolved. as long as the closing admin closes this debate as "no consensus." The last few nominations closed that way and that has created major conflicts which lead this issue to go to arbcom. My opinion is this article is an insult to Israel and zionism, and should not be kept. Sure, it may be notable, but sourced insults (even from scholars) are still insults. Notability alone does not mean a topic is encyclopediac. But even th notability is questionable, as most of the material is original primary sources claiming to prove some form of notability. The criticism section is the largest section, but most of the critics do not use the term "apartheid" in their rebuddle; instead they explain how the anti-israel, anti-zionists are wrong in their statements. If the primary sources were removed, there would probably be only 3 paragraphs remaining, which could easily be merged into Human rights in Israel, where the topic would at least be given all the weight it diserves, and would at least be presented in a neutral manner. Garbage like this should not be kept, as it is proof that WP:NPOV does not apply to afd debates. As for Malik Shabazz's comment, why go through this again? The answer is because we haven't resolved the previous issues. The article is still an anti-Israel, anti-zionist POV fork, and attempts to move this article to a more neutral title have all failed so far. --SefringleTalk 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is a gross exaggeration of reality. "This issue" went to Arbcom not because of the article's controversial content (which you well know Arbcom does not rule on) because a group of editors (including you) have been accused of disruptive editing in relation to this and the subsequent POV forking articles, most of which have been since deleted or moved. Tarc 03:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what should happen to this article.--SefringleTalk 03:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc: please, please, please, do not feed the troll. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technical Note I have moved nomination to the correct title (it is the seventh nomination), and nominated the redirect for deletion and recreate protection here. This is to fix the technical clusterfucks around this nomination. I am operating under WP:SNOW, and hope this is not controversial in anyway. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to move afd's 3,4,5,6,7 back one number, so the afd's are in the correct order.--SefringleTalk 03:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are miscounting. Whichever their quality, there have been seven nominations for deletion. There are two who allude to "2nd" and "second" nominations, and there is no "third/3rd" nomination. What needs to happpen is one of those gets renamed "third/3rd". No complex and error prone "rollback" of numbers needed. Although in all honesty, I would leave the past alone, less issues. Thanks! --Cerejota 03:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. It's thrid.--SefringleTalk 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I've said in the previous AFDs of this kind, this is synthesis Corpx 04:32, 4 September 2007 (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.
