Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 16: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
niteclub |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armagh Dart League}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grove Niteclub}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grove Niteclub}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connor Phillips}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connor Phillips}} |
||
Revision as of 20:57, 16 July 2007
- 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 Keep. (Comments from banned user NobutoraTakeda discounted.) WaltonOne 16:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This page is orphaned, lacks third party sources, lacks any information on the page, and could be mentioned as a link or evidence on a page about the War or Terror instead of having its own page stub. There is no evidence of its importance beyond being a part of topics that already have pages devoteed to them. NobutoraTakeda 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to War on terrorism#External links, then delete per nom. Shalom Hello 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I've performed some cleanup and sourcing. The document gets attention every time it's revised even slightly, although there is some distance between this E Ring paperwork and what the boots on the ground are actually doing at any given moment. --20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- But does the document warrant anything on its own? It talks about notable items, but so does every email the President writes, or every note that clerks of the SC write. The merge to War on Terrorism seems far better than a keep, because at least it could be put to use as a source for the page on what the US is planning. NobutoraTakeda 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that Topic A is the obvious parent of Topic B does not mean that Topic B must be merged. The issue is whether Topic B is itself notable. The examples you cite are important but not notable, because they do not receive the attention that this document does/did -- among them a 5000-ish word piece in U.S. News & World Report. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- This does not recieve a 5,000 word piece. The information collected in the document does and that information is the topic of the War on Terror, not the actual document. The document is itself a synthesis of other sources. The document is not notable. The information refered to, i.e. aspects of the War on Terror are. NobutoraTakeda 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, the strategic plan for the war on terror is the subject of the article. A strategic plan which took 18 months to write involving hundreds of stakeholders in and out of the Pentagon. A strategic plan which is notable because it has received coverage specific to itself. Your logic here escapes me. If the document is not notable, why are people writing about it in major publications? --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- This does not recieve a 5,000 word piece. The information collected in the document does and that information is the topic of the War on Terror, not the actual document. The document is itself a synthesis of other sources. The document is not notable. The information refered to, i.e. aspects of the War on Terror are. NobutoraTakeda 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that Topic A is the obvious parent of Topic B does not mean that Topic B must be merged. The issue is whether Topic B is itself notable. The examples you cite are important but not notable, because they do not receive the attention that this document does/did -- among them a 5000-ish word piece in U.S. News & World Report. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Since the book itself is frequently used as a source, and referred to as authoritative, it is notable. Many of the topics it talks about will be also, bu tthat is separate. DGG (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Being used as a source does not make it notable enough to have its own page. NobutoraTakeda 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Encyclopedic? When does Brittanica ever have "here is the whole document" as anything on it? There is no history of the document. No background to the document. And any of that is not notable. NobutoraTakeda 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. You may want to make yourself aware of the current state of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, how's that working for ya? [14] ~ Infrangible 01:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article is about the War on Terror. There doesn't need to be a second page on the War on Terror report that merely summarizes information that belongs on the War on Terror. Having them list it as a source of information does not make it notable. Sources must talk about the content on a critical or analytic level, not the material in the topic. This is the same as any book page and should be judged on that criteria. NobutoraTakeda 01:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you are trying to conflate things. The report on the War on Terror is not the same thing as the War on Terror itself. They are not the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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 no consensus. both sides does have valid and invalid reasons for both keeping the article and deleting it, the deleting agruements were weaker in my opinion, many delete as nonsense votes, and just because a certain user created the article. Those aren't reasons to delete. Another agruement I noticed is that it's PoV and was created only because of the Israeli article. ChrisO does have agruement with the move, but didn't have much support for it. In my opinion, for the sakes of WP:NPOV is to place all those apartheid articles in AFD and let the community decide. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 07:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} oder {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Allegations_of_French_apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
this article is a joke and a collection of clichés and lies. it has nothing to do with the apartheid definition and focus on algerian muslims living in france. this article is not serious and does not exist in the other wikipedia versions, i suggest its deletion. by the way there is nothing about northern ireland its real apartheid ha. Paris By Night 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- allegation of lies:
- France maintained colonial rule in the territory which has been described as "quasi-apartheid" :this is stupid and totally false. there was no such things as US buses for black and white in algeria, :besides algeria was truly part of france as made of département like today corsica. for example muslim :children went in public schools with european french kids, i've seen worst apartheids. this view is a :simplification by american editors, reads like all mslim in france are from algeria, but this totally :false many comes from morroco and tunisia and black africa as well, all of which are former french :colony or protectorates, there is not a single word about this. this article is totaly oriented and a :mystification this can be seen in "Criticism"'s POV authors selection. this article doesn't exist in :other language, don't ask why. Paris By Night 09:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- plus there is nothing like "race" in france, france is not the united states! there is nothing like Racial segregation in the United States and never was, not even in algerian departements. Paris By Night 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep article properly sourced and notable.--Cerejota 12:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this and the whole series. They are all irredeemable POV collections of slurs. Mowsbury 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- You might find that the whole series would be deleted if they whole series was nominated in a group nomination. Individual AFD's have failed in all but one case up until now. My reason for my AFD vote here is that it the article seems to completely follow all of Wikipedia policies and requirements for articles, as can be seen both by its content and the precedent for dealing with its sister articles.--Urthogie 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Urthogie is absolutely right, Mowsbury. This is a WP:POINT and WP:ALLORNOTHING hostage-type situation. The editors creating these articles don't believe in them, and are willing to "trade" their deletion for the deletion of an article they're ideologically opposed to.--G-Dett 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Correction, I do believe in these articles so long as one of them exists. If only Brazil's apartheid allegation article existed, then that would be singling out Brazil. It's an NPOV issue, not a POINT issue. And WP:ALLORNOTHING applies to justification for AFD votes, not suggested new AFD's or changes in notability policies.--Urthogie 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Urthogie is absolutely right, Mowsbury. This is a WP:POINT and WP:ALLORNOTHING hostage-type situation. The editors creating these articles don't believe in them, and are willing to "trade" their deletion for the deletion of an article they're ideologically opposed to.--G-Dett 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Well sourced article drawing from numerous notable publications. If there's a POV problem, fix it. JulesH 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - WP:POINT by the article creator who has been a frequent, noted critic of Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. Variations of this tactic have been used too many times to count. Tarc 13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Doesn't meet any criteria for deletion. Seems like a bad faith nomination. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. An encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - there is a precedent for keeping "allegations of apartheid" articles. If someone created an AFD for all of these articles, that would have a strong chance of succeeding. It is irrational, however, to apply differing standards from one article to the next. Also, to Paris by Night, I believe race does exist in the French mind-- at least according to Frantz Fanon!--Urthogie 14:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. There are a couple of sources that actually appear to pursue the comparison. Most on the other hand merely use the word "apartheid" once for what appears to be rhetorical effect. These passages are then presented in such a way as to make the rhetorical effect look like an extended comparison. All fifteen of the sources are listed twice, first as "Notes" and then as "References," in order to give the illusion of depth in sourcing. The fact that this article has been cobbled together by two editors who know nothing about the subject matter and are merely compiling quotes they've found through Google-searches, and that the WP:POINT of all this is to create a bargaining chip with which to bring about the deletion of an article they're ideologically opposed to, doesn't bode well for its future quality. I vote only "weak delete," however, because I don't know that much more about the subject than the authors do, so it's possible that there's a quality article to be written on this by an editor with genuine interest in and knowledge of the subject. If that's the case – that is, if there are sufficient RS-foundations for this and such an editor comes forward, I wish him or her the best of luck in coaxing the article out of the sweaty palms of the pranksters now clutching it. For the purposes of this AfD, the comments and recommendations of editors with experience editing France-related (or civil-rights-related) articles should be given much more weight than those of other editors.--G-Dett 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't it ironic to advocate that some people's votes should count more than others when discussing apartheid? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is indeed ironic. It seems that self-righteousness always brings the worse in people, regardless of the truth of their arguments. --Cerejota 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty weak as ironies go, given that Wikipedia is not a democracy, given that AfD's are explicitly not to be regarded as votes (because "justification and evidence for a response carry far more weight than the response itself"), and given that I'm not placing myself in the category of those whose recommendations should be given greater weight. But share your irony with the right people, and we might see an article called Allegations that arguments used in AfD discussions are like apartheid.--G-Dett 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Touché ;). I follow French politics very closely and my daily news fix comes largely from French-language papers. I have never, not a single time, encountered the word "apartheid" in the context of French racial problems. And let's remember they're not only limited to France, they've spilled over to Belgium, too. Cars have been set on fire here in Brussels as they were in France but I think the press here just knows what apartheid is, and what isn't. We're talking racial and religious tensions here, not official discrimination of any kind.--Targeman 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty strong, actually; you attempt to create two classes of "voters", with an ostensibly neutral classification, but in actuality affecting mostly editors who have argued that this article should be kept. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, drop it already. You're late on the joke and you're not making any sense. At the time I wrote that the comments and recommendations of France-focused editors should be given greater weight, exactly two France-focused editors had "voted": one for delete (the nominator), one for "speedy keep" (JulesH).--G-Dett 23:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty weak as ironies go, given that Wikipedia is not a democracy, given that AfD's are explicitly not to be regarded as votes (because "justification and evidence for a response carry far more weight than the response itself"), and given that I'm not placing myself in the category of those whose recommendations should be given greater weight. But share your irony with the right people, and we might see an article called Allegations that arguments used in AfD discussions are like apartheid.--G-Dett 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is indeed ironic. It seems that self-righteousness always brings the worse in people, regardless of the truth of their arguments. --Cerejota 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't it ironic to advocate that some people's votes should count more than others when discussing apartheid? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Apartheid in the strict sense means systematised segregation condoned by the authorities. France does not have apartheid. Either that, or every single western country has apartheid. All the quotes cited in the article are in the pejorative sense, "blatant, gross, discrimination or racism" (of which any country in the world can be accused of).--Victor falk 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete because these are allegations. Allegations are just allegations and unless proven in court or through media. This will be appropriate as a subsection of French apartheid, but not on its own Corpx 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- French apartheid does not exist as an article, it is a redirect to this page. It seems to be that you are actually suggesting a rename to french apartheid, not a delete.--Urthogie 18:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, not a rename. A french apartheid article would have to be created from scratch, which analyzes the orgins/history/ending etc of it, with the allegations being a part of it. Corpx 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Allegations are just allegations unless proven, yes. But "allegations" that by their very nature can never be proven or disproven – because they're subjective, evaluative, interpretive, comparative, vituperative, etc., rather than falsifiable statements of fact – are not, of course, "allegations" at all. But if you're asking for basic literacy from the scribes behind this hoax, you'd be asking too much.--G-Dett 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. Allegations can definitely be proven right/wrong. First hand accounts, court-proceedings etc all prove allegations to be true or false. It'd be better off in a form similiar to [[27]] instead of purely being a list of allegations Corpx 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Er, you agree then. "Allegations can definitely be proven right/wrong." Yes, exactly, that's my point. Things that can never be proven right or wrong are not called "allegations" – they're called comparisons, interpretations, analogies, critiques, whatever it is that they are. Thomas Jefferson allegedly fathered several children by his slaves, very well, no problem. But not: Thomas Jefferson was allegedly a hypocrite.--G-Dett 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, I disagree again. How exactly would one go about proving who Jefferson went around fathering babies with? I'm saying that these allegation against ____ have no merit to stand on their own, but instead should be part of the article in question. Corpx 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- DNA, maybe? The point is, allegations are statements of fact. They are things that either did happen or did not happen; proof/disproof are at least conceivable even if not practical. Subjective judgments, however – statements to the effect that X resembles Y, or is reminiscent of it, or whatever – are not "allegations." Oh, hell, it doesn't matter – when language slides, let it slide, you can't stop glaciers. --G-Dett 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Some allegations are noteworthy and encyclopedic. See Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example. If there weren't reliable sources, then I'd say they were unencyclopedic allegations, but these seem noteworthy. We can't pretend the allegations don't exist. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, quite obviously. A neologism. Let us not fool ourselves: everyone who comes here knows that this article's creation and continued existence is disruptive; it was created in response to the Israeli Apartheid article (which, I maintain, should be about the use of the term and not the mess of charges and counter-charges it is now) in order to indicate that allegations of apartheid are widespread. This is WP:POINT; however widespread segregation, even legal segregation is, the only term that is encyclopaedic is Israeli Apartheid. The others are all, quite simply, WP:POINT. The article is terribly written, largely OR, reading far too much into one or two op-eds. Delete with extreme prejudice. Hornplease 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The article is in line with other "Allegations of (country) apartheid" articles. Beit Or 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- That it's "in line with" some other junk created by the same authors is self-evident, but how is this an argument for its retention?--G-Dett 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Those articles have, like the Israeli apartheid article, survived AFD's.--Urthogie 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Allegations of Andorran Apartheid" would also be 'in line with' other articles. Clearly not a good enough reason to keep this junk.Hornplease 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Those articles have, like the Israeli apartheid article, survived AFD's.--Urthogie 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are no reliable sources dealing with "andorran apartheid."--Urthogie 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- And none here either. Use of the word 'apartheid' in combination with 'France' does not make a notable phrase, or even a notable allegation. Which you know. Hornplease 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are no reliable sources dealing with "andorran apartheid."--Urthogie 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- What does make a notable phrase, then?--Urthogie 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- There could be several standards. This isn't one by any reasonable standard.Hornplease 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- What does make a notable phrase, then?--Urthogie 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question for those who maintain that that Israel article is somehow unique. What is your basis for that? The Chinese apartheid article features quotes from the Dalai Lama and our lord and savior Jimmy Wales. Aside from length and controversiality, what exactly seperates allegations against Israel as unique, aside from the disproprotionate amount of press coverage the Middle East receives, thus resulting in more possible reliable sources?--Urthogie 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The disproportionate amount of coverage and analysis the Middle East receives. Oh, you answered it in your question. Hornplease 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, so, it's a completely subjective decision about a quantitative value, then? 20 articles is enough coverage, 10 is not..? Or is it 15? Please define an actual qualitative, rather than quantitative reason for keeping the Israel one and not the others. Thanks, --Urthogie 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, because you miss the point. Even if the conditions in Israel are not unique, the disproportionate coverage and analysis raises otherwise non-notable allegations to encyclopaedic notability. And as for 'qualititative, not quantitative" - that's not how we work. Horrible, apartheid-like conditions may prevail in Andorra, but until everyone and Jimmy Carter gets involved, WP doesn't care. Hornplease 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, so, it's a completely subjective decision about a quantitative value, then? 20 articles is enough coverage, 10 is not..? Or is it 15? Please define an actual qualitative, rather than quantitative reason for keeping the Israel one and not the others. Thanks, --Urthogie 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Israeli apartheid article existed for years before Jimmy Carter's comments. Would you have supported its existence before his comments?
- The article on alleged Chinese apartheid includes stuff from Jimbo Wales, from the Dalai Lama. Would you therefore support the existence of that article?--Urthogie 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not that it matters about my opinions, but the talkpage of that article shows I was highly ambivalent about it, and I did not vote to keep on any of the AfDs prior to the mainstreaming of the phrase.
- Chinese Apartheid is a phrase marginally notable purely because the Dalai Lama used it a few times in the early 1990s. I would not vote to keep or delete that article. Jimbo is irrelevant.
- I trust that satisfies you about my motives. I am not going to discuss them again.Hornplease 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Stuff" is a pretty good word for the China article's haphazard sourcing, though I still prefer "junk." Take a look at the Dalai Lama source: a BBC article in which the word "apartheid" appears once, in a pull-quote. This is what I mean by 'passing reference,' and it does absolutely nothing to support the legitimacy or notability of a subject. Move on to the Heritage Foundation block-quote, which a Wikipedian has misrepresented (deliberately?) as "discuss[ing] some of the reasons for the use of this term." No it doesn't. It's just juicy material from an article that in a subsequent passage, and in a different context, makes passing reference to apartheid: "Through what has been termed Chinese apartheid, ethnic Tibetans now have a lower life expectancy, literacy rate, and per capita income than Chinese inhabitants of Tibet." That's the only mention of apartheid in the entire article. What does the material Wikipedia quotes at length have to do with it? Nothing. It's just more "stuff." Move on to the Desmond Tutu stuff. Tutu tells the Tibetans God is on their side, and our boys type "Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has also drawn comparisons between the fight to end South African apartheid and the Tibetan struggle for independence from the People's Republic of China." If Tutu speaks to a room full of terminally ill patients and tells them not to lose heart, our boys will be able to create Allegations that Cancer is Apartheid. Now to the Jimbo Wales reference. Here the article suddenly becomes cryptic: the only direct quote is something odd from Wales about how Google has "damaged the brand image of 'Don't be evil,'" by giving in to Chinese authorities." Huh? Whuh? Then you click on the link and find that the original article didn't even quote Wales on apartheid, it just mentioned in passing that Wales himself had made a passing mention of apartheid. Jimbo objects to Chinese censorship in strong terms; the AP quotes his strong words, then mentions in free indirect that he also invoked South Africa; and our boys type up eagerly what AP could barely be bothered to mention, and throw in a driver's-licence/college-yearbook style photo of Jimbo to liven things up. There's no context, no explanation, we don't even understand what the comparison was, just the smiling snapshot, serene in its irrelevance. Stuff. Junk. Stuffed with junk.--G-Dett 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I fail to see how WP:POINT is involved, as there is no disruption here. Everyone seems to be assuming bad faith about the contributor who has written this article, and I see no reason to think that. The article discusses allegations that are, in fact, notable, having been reported in multiple reliable sources, and having apparently had significant impacts on French culture and politics. I see no reason to delete here. JulesH 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Head, meet sand. WP:Ostrich in reverse here. The fact of self-segregation may have had a significant impact on French society. Some commentators see such self-segregation as resulting in apartheid-like conditions. Sourcing the first and the second to reliable sources and then putting them together is the very nature of OR.Hornplease 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- No two things are being synthesized together. The entire page is about one thing-- the rhetoric of alleging apartheid against France.--Urthogie 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the page is about that, or so the title attests. My analysis of the sources, however, is one I recommend to all others who wish to comment.Hornplease 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- No two things are being synthesized together. The entire page is about one thing-- the rhetoric of alleging apartheid against France.--Urthogie 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment perhaps we should take "apartheid" and put it on the list of words that are not to be used for article titles; like "cult" (except when dealing with ancient observances called cults in their own time) and "tyrant" (except for certain ancient Greek rulers so-called as a neutral title in their own time). Allegations of Fooian apartheid is little differen that allegations that so-and-so is a tyrant, or allegations that Fooism is a cult, etc. Carlossuarez46 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would strongly support that proposal-- with the exception of the Crime of apartheid and History of South Africa in the apartheid era articles. Allegations of apartheid articles should be renamed to a far more neutral name.--SefringleTalk 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with 2005 civil unrest in France. The allegations of "apartheid" are largely limited to this period and its aftermath. Please let's not devalue the word "apartheid" which means an official policy of segregation --> South Africa before Mandela, the US before Luther King, Nazi Germany. There is not and never has been any such policy in France. --Targeman 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Either Keep all Allegations of X apartheid or Delete them all. Per NPOV, no preferential treatment. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- NPOV does not require equal treatment of articles of unequal notability. Hornplease 21:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Of course not. And the loudest scream is not an indication of being right. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- And being right has got nothing to do with being notable. I trust you will keep to reasonable arguments for deletion in future.Hornplease 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Either Keep all Allegations of X apartheid or Delete them all." Thanks, Humus, for aptly summing up the hostage situation and making clear your demands.--G-Dett 21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pfft. To make my "demands" clear, Keep. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Of course not. And the loudest scream is not an indication of being right. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Article is well written, encyclopedic, and uses high quality sources, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deleting. Nor are the various ad hominem comments that have peppered this AfD. The article also uses sources that all refer directly to French apartheid, and multiple sources refer to the same issues, so there are not WP:NOR issues. Finally, I did an experiment last night and hit the "Random article" button twenty times; the majority of articles didn't even have any references, and the best article only had four. This one has 15, and the article itself was longer than all but 3 articles. I recommend this test to other editors, to see how this article stacks up against the Wikipedia norm. Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- That the article is well-written is debatable and, in any case, irrelevant. That it uses high-quality sources is possible, but that those sources have been used in synthesizing original research is likely, which is something I notice you have not addressed. Such misuse of sources is a concern as endemic to this project as unsourced assertions. Hornplease 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since you have edited your post in an attempt deal with my concerns, which should perhaps have been done in response, I hope you will permit me to reply: the sources to not refer 'directly' to French apartheid. The quotes say things like "France is disintegrating before our eyes into socioeconomic communities, into territorial and social apartheid. The rich live in their own ghettos.". "Algerians encountered France's 'civilising mission' only through the plundering of lands and colonial apartheid society.." etc, etc. In each case, apartheid is used as a convenient signifier for a stable segregation. None of the sources make any effort to categorically compare France to apartheid-era SA; none of the sources make an effort to analyse a discourse which would use that term; practically none of the sources even use the term "French apartheid". (Perhaps because most of the people writing, polemicists though they are, seem to be better researchers than us.) Put simply, this could be held up as a textbook example of bad original research. Hornplease 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Dezidor 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As I have said elsewhere, I generally do not like "Allegations of" articles (or articles that amount ot that even when not so-called). However, what I'd like would be cherry-picking which allegations are "true" and deleting the rest. If someone wanted to put all of these articles up for an AfD, I'd be willing to vote yes. IronDuke 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep together with all other "Allegations of XXXX apartheid", or better, delete them all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING (and same goes for the numerous "per jossi" on this page). Please, let's be constructive. What are you trying there ? Benjamin.pineau 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Kommentar: If this article is to be kept, please get rid of the word "apartheid"! This is an intolerable abuse of language. As I said before, let's not water down the meaning of apartheid. What next, Allegations of French genocide of Muslims? "Apartheid" is waaaaay over the top. And it's an insult to the memory of the victims of true apartheid. --Targeman 00:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is the use of the term "apartheid" an "intolerable abuse of language" only in the case of this particular article, or is it an "intolerable abuse" in all six "Allegations of apartheid" articles? Jayjg (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Apartheid" is an incorrect term for all of the mentioned countries except Saudi Arabia, which has a clear, unambiguous and systematically enforced official policy of segregation - of sexes in this case. For other countries, "widespread discrimination" or "officially endorsed discrimination" or similar would be a more appropriate term. --Targeman 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, many editors here insist that it is only applicable in the case of Israel. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is applicable not so much to Israel as to the Occupied Territories - which only Israel recognizes as its own territory. In Israel itself (i.e., the part internationally recognized as Israel), racism and mistrust permeate all levels of society but there's nothing like an official policy of segregation.--Targeman 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per jossi. --tickle me 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable in and of itself. Although the Algeria aspects should be keep and integrated into the article on Frances involvement in Algeria. French apartheid really should be about apartheid in France proper. Right now the article is too much of an arbitrary collection without a focus, something that Wikipedia is NOT. --CGM1980 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Based on User:Targeman's comment, I'm wondering if people would be more generally happy if the article were renamed to Racism in France and its scope expanded to cover this subject more fully? JulesH 07:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: not really. Racism is just an expression of universal human stupidity. If we had an article about everything stupid humans have ever done, Wikipedia would need a server the size of the solar system. What I'm objecting to is the awful word apartheid in this context. Nobody talks about Stalinist gulags in Putin's Russia or the resurgence of Nazism in Germany because there are a few Hitler nuts left around. I personally propose to merge this article into 2005 civil unrest in France. Racism is widespread in France as it is everywhere but it has never, ever been a matter of public policy. What France is facing are the usual effects of a massive and largely monoethnic immigration of blue-collar workers into a sclerotic economy that just can't cope. Sure this breeds disgruntlement but apartheid, no way. --Targeman 11:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Kommentar: JulesH's suggestion is a good one, given that most of the sources for this article are articles about racism, and few if any of them are about "allegations of French apartheid". Targeman's demurral is also well-reasoned, but this is a moot discussion either way. The authors of this article will never permit the title to be changed, no matter what the substantive support for such a move, because their very WP:POINT in cobbling this page together was to use it as a bargaining chip to secure the deletion of a different article. For the hoax to work, both the original article and the hostage/bargaining chip article need to have parallel titles. Have a look at the demands made explicitly by HumusSapiens and Jossi (and insinuated by Jayjg) above, and by Amoruso below, and the mechanics of the hoax will become clearer.--G-Dett 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't suppose it would help to request that you focus on the article, and the relevant policies, rather than your impressions regarding other editors? And is there any point in requesting that you tone down your rhetoric while you're at it? Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep no valid problems with article unless all apartheid allegations against democracies are removed for policy reason/encyclopedic - see jossi. Amoruso 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why all or nothing? The point here is if there is a noticeable debate of allegations of apartheid against the French government. Debates against other governments may or may not be substantiated, but there are not in this article. It is just a collection of quotes from articles using "apartheid" as hyperbole for racism and discrimination in France.--Victor falk 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Quadell Taprobanus 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The article is well sourced to notable scholars, all using the apartheid analogy. Isarig 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- No it is not. Please read them. I don't call an article that first has a section "Notes" which contains footnotes and then a section "References" that contains almost but not all the same sources in the former "well-sourced". The sources are not to notable scholars, or even unnotable ones, but mostly to massmedia news items. And hardly any of them uses the word "apartheid" more than once, and generally in a wholly incidental manner.--Victor falk 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me? The very first reference cites David Scott Bell – a professor of French Government and Politics at Leeds university, and the author of several authoritative books on contemporary French politics. The second cites a peer reviewed book published by one of the leading publishers of academic research which discussed French policy in Algeria. He third is yet again, a book published by the University of California Press, by a noted UC professor of History considered by some to be one of America's best historians of post--World War II French politics. How are these non-notable academics or "massmedia news items"? Isarig 17:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- 1st ref: the word "apartheid" appears once (p.36) in a 286-page book on Presidential power in Fifth Republic France. 2nd ref: the word "apartheid" appears once on page 3 of a 233-page book called France and the Algerian Conflict: Issues in Democracy and Political Stability, 1988-1995. 3rd ref: "apartheid" appears once, on p.262 of the 335-page France, the United States, and the Algerian War. The problem with this article is not that it lacks sufficient scholarly sources; the problem is that none of these sources talk about "allegations of French apartheid." They just use the word "apartheid," once apiece. They do not even pursue the comparison; they just use the word and move on. When Wikipedians gather up stray instances of a word's use from primary sources, and then describe the pattern of use they see and create a narrative around it, the result is original research.--G-Dett 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was responding to the (obviously false and ridiculous) claim that "The sources are not to notable scholars, or even unnotable ones, but mostly to massmedia news items". When such patently false objections are raised, it seems likely that the people making them have not bothered to look at the article. If you'd like to raise a different objection, such as that in your view the scholarly sources do not make the allegation of Apartheid strongly enough, that's quite a different matter, and probably not something for which we can find an objective metric. Isarig
- Again, the problem is that next to none of these sources talk about "allegations of French apartheid." To have a Wikipedia article on a subject, you need reliable sources who talk about it. That a pattern in various writers' use of the word "apartheid" is detected by two Wikipedians and the mayor of Montpellier does not make it a notable topic.--G-Dett 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was responding to the (obviously false and ridiculous) claim that "The sources are not to notable scholars, or even unnotable ones, but mostly to massmedia news items". When such patently false objections are raised, it seems likely that the people making them have not bothered to look at the article. If you'd like to raise a different objection, such as that in your view the scholarly sources do not make the allegation of Apartheid strongly enough, that's quite a different matter, and probably not something for which we can find an objective metric. Isarig
Keep per Isarig Jayjg Zeq Humus SlimVirgin Shamir1 and co.DeleteThe subject is non-notable, but the article should be kept as an instructive example of how far the Zionists will go in their attempts to deflect criticism from their regime. If they spend their time and energies attacking the French, they might give the rest of us a break. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Changing my vote:I have reviewed the keep votes, and they all boil down to WP:ALLORNOTHING which is not a valid argument in deletion debates. These editors have stated that they do not care if this article is deleted, as long as Alegations of Israeli Apartheid also gets deleted. But other articles are irrelevant to this debate.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 07:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- So you are advocating keeping an article you believe is non-notable, as a way to make a point, while conducting a personal attack on other editors. Considering how little regard you have for WP policies, you should really rethink your involvement in the project. Isarig 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- My good friend Isarig! Even when I agree with you, you are not happy.... I did not create this artcile. But if you and your friends decide to go to war against France, Cuba, Brasil, and the rest of the world, who am I to stand in your way. Good luck... 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- So you are advocating keeping an article you believe is non-notable, as a way to make a point, while conducting a personal attack on other editors. Considering how little regard you have for WP policies, you should really rethink your involvement in the project. Isarig 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Whatever one thinks of the Israel apartheid debate, the fact is that a prominent, fractious and complex discussion and evolved. You have big names, you have wide opposition, and you have a standard list of points, facts, and arguments that recurringly come up. The end result is a topic that can't effectively be discussed in any other articles that have been suggested. With this article, I don't see any of that; solely a principle that all countries should be treated the same, never mind whether the issues or discussions actually differ. If we have a discussion of apartheid in Algeria, then it seems that would much better fit in French rule in Algeria. If we have a discusion of the Social situation in the French suburbs, then a neutral article also already exists. Unless those are somehow inadequate, then I don't see why this article is needed or appropriate. Mackan79 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Mackan is right that the sheer volume of RS-foundations for Allegations of Israeli apartheid dwarfs that of this article, but it's worth noting that the difference is not only one of scale but of kind. In the Israeli case, there is a large, long-standing and multifaceted debate and discussion of the allegations themselves. That debate and discussion is the subject and raison d'être of the article. The only rationale for having an article on allegations or analogies (as opposed to articles on the policies in question – the Israeli occupation, French colonial history or current socioeconomic inequalities, etc.) is that the allegation/analogy is itself a notable subject. This is simply not the case of this article. It is wholly unlike the Israel article in this respect. Not one of the fifteen sources for Allegations of French apartheid is about the analogy; each is about some other topic (Algeria, post-colonial inequalities in France, the debate about the veil, gender relations within Muslim immigrants), and in the course of talking about that other topic the word "apartheid" is used metaphorically. Usually only once. That's right: even in the several academic studies cited for this article, which are hundreds of pages long, the word apartheid appears only once. The only statements about the analogy/allegation in the entire article that aren't pure original research by Jay or Urthogie are 1) a diverseeducation.com reference to the opinions of a Professor Hutchinson; and 2) the comment from the mayor of Montpellier, which is misattributed to a Guardian article in which it never appeared. In short, unlike the Israel article, this article presents a topic that almost none of its supposed sources have even addressed. It's an article about a pattern of linguistic usage, and one noticed not by RS's but rather by Jay and Urthogie. This isn't a Wikipedia article; this is a piece of investigative journalism, carried out by editors using Google and Googlebooks to track down every instance in which someone used the word "apartheid" in connection with anything French. The results of this original research cum investigative journalism have then been cobbled together and made to superficially resemble the Israel article, for the WP:POINT-purposes I've detailed above.--G-Dett 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep ??? Ya got 4 references where apartheid appears as a key word in the title, don't go interpreting for us that it's "only a metaphor" and therefore "unlike the Israel article", etc. "a pattern of linguistic usage" indeed. that phrase alone oughta enter the wikipedia halls of verbal obfuscation. Gzuckier 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the statement by the Mayor did appear in a Guardian article: France wakes up to plight of its forgotten cities. Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The posters glued above the entrance to the flats call on locals to join the fight against a state policy of "urban apartheid". [...] "Terms like urban apartheid are overdramatic," [Montpellier's socialist mayor, Hélène Mandroux,] said. "We recognise the problem and we are trying to deal with it, but this is not Johannesburg in the 1980s. Those are the two only and only two instances in the article where "apartheid" is mentioned. And this is supposed to be a source establishing widespread and scholarly allegations of systematic racial segregation by the French authorities?--Victor falk 18:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please review straw man. I'm curious, how many comments do you and G-Dett plan to make on this AfD; will you be responding to every single vote and comment in favor of keeping the article? Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jay, the problem is that you're foisting highly controversial material on diverse areas of Wikipedia, while refusing to consider whether it could be better covered under another title. Can you explain why this material can't fit under Social situation in the French suburbs, French rule in Algeria, and/or 2005 civil unrest in France? I so far haven't seen anyone address these points. As one benefit, while nobody appears to have actually responded to the allegations in this article, the existing examples are able to attempt a balanced look at the situation. Mackan79 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to propose a split, the way to go is through the talk page, not an AFD.--Urthogie 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mackan79, as I've explained to you before, I'm not "foisting" anything on anyone - there have been 10 of these articles, I created only one, and the material is arguably even more controversial in other articles than this one. As for the non ad hominem part of your statement, it would seem to apply equally well to every single article in the series, not just this one. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- My reason for deletion is that it's a POV fork, which isn't an argument against Jay, but against the article. As to proper names, I don't see how that can possibly be determined across 10 articles. Social situation in the French suburbs strikes me as a surprisingly good fit, partially because I don't see that the allegations themselves have gained enough momentum to disrupt that article if properly weighed. The constant refusal and/or inability to defend this article on its own merits, though, but instead to demand contrasts with other articles, seems to me the major problem. Mackan79 19:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- POV fork? That's a new one. Quite odd for material that hasn't existed anywhere else, and that reasoning has been soundly rejected in previous AfDs on similar articles. Anyway, quite a number of people have stated why the article should be kept on its own merits; perhaps you should re-read their comments. Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- In the AoIa debates, we entertained a number of suggestions for where to better cover the material, without any solid case being made. While some suggested an article on Human Rights in Israel or in the West Bank, it was pointed out that any adequate discussion of the apartheid debate would clearly disrupt such articles, while "Human Rights" also doesn't really cover the issues. Here, it seems that Social situation in the French suburbs is exactly on point, is neutral, and would fully allow for any apartheid discussion, while also solving the problem not seen in the AoIa article of an otherwise completely unanswered allegation. Can you imagine the Israel article, and the response, if it lacked any statement of disagreement with the analogy whatsoever? As I said, I'm not talking about your intentions, but if this title completely prevents a two-sided examination, and if a more appropriate article can hold the material, then it seems an open and shut case that this article should be deleted or merged as a POV fork. I have still yet to see a response. Also, I think you're incorrect that this has been rejected, as at least one of these articles was soundly deleted.[28] Mackan79 00:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article is about allegations of apartheid, though, not about the social situation in the French suburbs. Also, this article already contains opposing views. Regarding the argument being rejected, I was referring to more recent arguments. Actually, I wasn't even aware of that Australian article. It appears to have been deleted mostly because it was just a stub and wasn't properly developed. Fortunately, however, this article, while it still has room to grow, suffers from none of the flaws of that one. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article may be about allegations of apartheid, but none of its sources is – except, for a split second, that thing about the mayor.--G-Dett 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in order to maintain consistency with other articles, pending a "global" resolution of the issue of "apartheid" articles, as discussed in the Arbitration Committee decision almost a year ago. I also think this discussion might go better without the personal attacks against the editors who created/worked on this article. 6SJ7 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The Guardian is a strong RS as far as I'm concerned. The fact that the comment from the mayor of Montpellier is misattributed doesn't mean it does not exist: France wakes up to plight of its forgotten cities. Chesdovi 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is your reason for keeping? A single sourceable statement that's actually about the purported topic?--G-Dett 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article is 3 days old. Instead of voting to delete it, have you tried sourcing this subject further to bring it up to standard? Give it a chance! Chesdovi 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Chesovi. I voted weak delete, and clarified that I'd support the article if serious editors came forward and made a serious case for it. I don't know much more about France than the authors of the article do, and I'm not aware of any notable discussion/debate about the topic among reliable sources. That, coupled with my experience of the two editors in question collaborating on frivolous articles that seriously abuse source materials in order to fight a bizarre rear-guard action against an article about Israel-Palestine, makes me skeptical. I am ready to be proven wrong. If evidence emerges that there is a notable, extensive discourse about alleged similarities between France and South Africa (as opposed to a miscellany of quotations on colonialism, urban poverty, gender relations within Islam, ethnic assimilation and secularism, and the headscarf controversy, each data-mined quote bejeweled with the searchword "apartheid", and arrayed together in a constellation of idiosyncratic pointlessness), then I'll happily eat my words and support the article.--G-Dett 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article is 3 days old. Instead of voting to delete it, have you tried sourcing this subject further to bring it up to standard? Give it a chance! Chesdovi 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. This is a frivolous nomination. The article is well-researched and contains copious sourcing, and concerns a subject (French racism) that is very much in the news every day. --Mantanmoreland 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to what news channels you follow, that speak of French racism every single day.
- Comment Quite a few people here just asserting that this article is well sourced or researched. I enjoin everybody to really check those sources, and see for themselves that they are mostly irrelevant. Eg, they do not in any meaningful manner claim and argue that the French government consciously makes systematic racial discrimination an official or unofficial policy.--Victor falk 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Urthogie altmany 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Allegations of Israeli apartheid per Jayjg. -- Y not? 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep per Humus Sapians. It is very POV to have articles accusing some countries of apartheid while not allowing a similar attacks against others. Allegations of apartheid is an attack against that country, and cannot be written in a neutral manner. The closest thing we can do to make it neutral is allow the allegations against every country. This is the only way to balance it out. Not to mention this article seems to be pretty well sourced.--SefringleTalk 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: has anyone else noticed this debate is already longer than the disputed article and its discussion page combined? --Targeman 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's nothing compared to this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination) or this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination) or . Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Most of this however is from Israel-Palestine-focused editors. It would be good to get more input from France-focused editors. Targeman, Victor falk, JulesH et al, is there a Wikiproject for France where you could post this?--G-Dett 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding your exquisitely ironic attempts to create two classes of "voters" on this AfD, it is unclear that "France-focused editors" would have any better an understanding of policy, nor is it clear that they would be any more neutral when it came to making these kinds of determinations. On the contrary, given the topic, one might expect them to be less neutral; indeed, their comments so far generally indicate that, User:Paris By Night's nearly inarticulate rant about "a collection of clichés and lies" when listing it being a good example. In any event, it has already been posted on the France Wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/France. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- As for me, I'm based in Belgium but I'm intimately familiar with France and the French press, from the Canard enchaîné to Le Figaro. Here is my, I believe, fairly objective summary of what's really going on in France:
- Racial tensions exist and are due above all to the high level of unemployment in France (about 10%).
- Racial hatred is expressed nearly exclusively toward Muslim immigrants. Although they are not the most numerous minority, they are the most visible and vocal and thus attract unwelcome attention.
- France is arguably the most secular state in Europe. (Radical) Islam, indeed any in-your-face religious observance, is a major social faux-pas.
- Ghetto warfare and the alleged "apartheid" are mostly limited to the overcrowded, low-income suburbs of large cities like Paris and Marseilles. Vast swaths of rural and small-town France remain free of any such tensions.
- France has never allowed, tacitly or openly, any form of racial or national segregation. On the contrary: huge emphasis is placed on applying the same laws to everybody without accomodating anybody's religious or political sensibilities. The aim is a "melting pot" as opposed to the "patchwork" multiculturalism practiced in the UK and US. Whether the results so far are promising is debatable.
- So there you are, this is what I had to say. The article's subject matter is valid but the title is not. Over to you. --Targeman 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is illuminating, Targeman, but with respect, the question of this article's legitimacy depends not on the validity of the "apartheid" comparison, but rather its notability. It depends, that is, on whether there is a prominent, notable, and enduring debate/discussion about alleged similarities between France and apartheid South Africa. The article in its current form obviously doesn't support this, but then the article in its current form has been written almost entirely by editors with little knowledge of or interest in France or civil-rights issues. So it's theoretically possible that there is a notable debate going on that they haven't been able to track down in their data-mining google searches. To get a sense of what the evidence for such a wide-ranging discussion and debate would look like, have a look at Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The quality of the article at any given moment fluctuates wildly due to all the edit-warring, but the bibliography is pretty stable, and gives a good idea of what's missing from this article.--G-Dett 00:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Racism as a social debate in France is 100% notable. Try talking to a French person 5 minutes and the subject will be brought up. But apartheid? Nonsense. There is no such social debate. Well, maybe amongst Muslim immigrants themselves, but it's not mainstream and is totally absent from the French press. Which is not known for shying away from difficult debates. --Targeman 00:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is illuminating, Targeman, but with respect, the question of this article's legitimacy depends not on the validity of the "apartheid" comparison, but rather its notability. It depends, that is, on whether there is a prominent, notable, and enduring debate/discussion about alleged similarities between France and apartheid South Africa. The article in its current form obviously doesn't support this, but then the article in its current form has been written almost entirely by editors with little knowledge of or interest in France or civil-rights issues. So it's theoretically possible that there is a notable debate going on that they haven't been able to track down in their data-mining google searches. To get a sense of what the evidence for such a wide-ranging discussion and debate would look like, have a look at Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The quality of the article at any given moment fluctuates wildly due to all the edit-warring, but the bibliography is pretty stable, and gives a good idea of what's missing from this article.--G-Dett 00:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Ludo29 11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hello, I'm french (and sorry for my english). Informations in this article could be preserved, I don't know. I speak only about linguistic. Nobody in France use this term of "apartheid" : nor for thoses mentioned facts neither for anything else in France. The use of the word "apartheid" has in France an unique meaning : qualify what's were in South Africa. The word "discrimination" is frequented used, for example to mention racism (in politically correct language), but this word also is used about handicap, gay, women and so on. So if the use of the word "apartheid" is correct in english language about french racial discrimination, ok, but if this use is to qualify a french expression for that, it is false; and wikipedia has not to create expression. Sincerely, --Epsilon0 19:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as per Allegations of American apartheid but I strongly suggest to exclude the propaganda by Le Pen and The Guardian from this article. It also needs more explanation, who alleges or accuses who and for what? There is no separate link to Islamists or French apartheid explaining things in plain English in this article. There is only a hint on Islamism but someone might mistake them for Moslems. greg park avenue 20:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Arbitary section break 1
- Keep per jossi, and please, no attacks. TewfikTalk 08:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please show some consideration for the template shown at the start of this discussion: If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia.--Victor falk 08:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not move my comments. Per means I read the rationale, and agree with it, and do not want to duplicate it. TewfikTalk 08:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- My expertise on France is limited to being born there, spending less than half the three decades I've lived there, and visiting relatives at most twice a year, but I concur with Targeman; though racism is one of the most vigorously discussed subjects in politics, that there would be a serious and notable debate in France about wether apartheid reigns is nonsensical. But this is irrelevant. This article has nothing to do with eventual apartheid in France. It has been created as a disinformation device in a propaganda war. Together with other articles in the same vein its purpose is to create white noise in which to drown one sides' allegations against the other. This is exactly the type of article that bring the worst kind of disrepute on Wikipedia, much worse that it has low quality, low standards, is error-prone, or simply biased: that it is helplessly captive to the gross attempts at manipulating public perception by the participants in some local middle eastern conflict. --Victor falk 07:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mu. I find the {{Allegations of apartheid}} "series" of articles extremely fishy and WP:POINTy in general; see G-Dett's comment above. Most of them focus on a stupid enumeration of instances "who compared the situation in country X with Appartheid". I recommend thorough re-reading of WP:SYN, and recent flood of deletions of "Anti-Fooian sentiment" articles on the basis of WP:SYN; I think I should add WP:LOOKHOWMANYSOURCES to WP:ATA. That being said, some of the contents of this article are salvageable, provided that the editors focus on legitimate issues of segregation problems in said countries (which are sometimes not even ethno-religiously based, see Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba). A casual glance over Google search for segregation in france reveals a lot of scholarly and serious analysis of Segregation in France, which is a) much less loaded and value-neutral term than Apartheid b) can be reasonably proven to exist as a real issue, even despite (or because) the government efforts. The term "segregation" is perhaps not ideal, but at least it does not have the connotation that the governments actively promote the separation. And it will remove the artificial, navel-gazing connection between various {{Allegations of apartheid}}, leaving the fate of each of respective articles to be resolved on its own merits. The "series" should be dissasembled. This one has merits but has a wrong focus. So, rename for the start; resolve the scoping problems against Social situation in the French suburbs. If not improved in that direction, submit to AfD again. Duja► 15:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. I took a thorough read of the previous discussion after writing the above, largely for the purpose of not allowing myself to be biased. Upon reading, I fully endorse Mackan79 and G-Dett's comments on this being largely a POV-fork. In case it wasn't clear from my previous statement, I equally endorse merge to appropriate article(s), with their organization left upon editor's discretion. The title and the focus of this article are hugely inadequate, on several grounds WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK. Duja► 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yours is by far the most useful contribution to this discussion so far. I hereby rescind my vote of Delete and now endorse Mu. A detail: the allegations of apartheid could be rewritten to a disambiguation page pointing to Segregation in X, Y, Z,...--Victor falk 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Rename and rewrite. I can only echo what Duja and Targeman have said, and I have to say that the creators of this article plainly know little and understand less about French social issues. I can't think of anyone in French politics or the media who uses the comparison. The issues of racism and social exclusion have a very high profile in French politics, so it's not exactly a hidden subject. This article seems to me to be a fairly desperate attempt to cobble together a number of random quotes to create a narrative that nobody with any familiarity with French politics would recognise. It's practically a case study in POV forking, synthesis and undue weight. Duja's suggestion of a way forward is very sensible (I would propose Social exclusion in France as an alternative title). On a personal note, I wish people here would stop misusing the term "apartheid" for POV reasons - it cheapens and degrades the memory of that inquitous system, much as it's insensitive and inappropriate to use "holocaust" as a generic term to refer to any act of mass killing or depopulation. -- ChrisO 19:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I completely agree with your last sentence, in fact it sounds a lot like something I said more than a year ago, on another talk page. If we could all agree to apply what you have said to all of the "allegations of apartheid" articles -- not counting the South African apartheid article -- then we would finally have a solution to the problem. We need to have consistency. 6SJ7 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need to have artificial consistency. We may both dislike the abuse of the term "apartheid", and we may both agree that it's inappropriate to use the term in relation to Israel, but the fact is that those allegations are extremely widely made and extensively sourced (see G-Dett's comments of 16:31 17 July 2007, above). In other words, there's already a noteworthy pre-existing narrative for us to document. That's plainly not the case in this article, which is just an exercise in quote-mining to support an original synthesis produced by Urthogie - the very thing that WP:OR is supposed to prohibit. -- ChrisO 00:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well ChrisO, nice try at explaining the distinction, but I don't buy it. Certainly more has been written about the term's use in relation to Israel than about France, but it's a difference of degree, not of kind. If one is a POV fork, original synthesis, etc., then so is the other. As part of an article on human rights and/or discrimination in each country, a discussion of the use of the term would not be an issue. Obviously that section might be a bit larger for some countries than for others. But once there is an insistence on a separate article for one country, it is inevitable that there are going to be corresponding articles for some other countries. 6SJ7 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and why not : "let's keep all bad articles as is for consistency, since wikipedia contains some bad articles". Not constructive. Benjamin.pineau 16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well ChrisO, nice try at explaining the distinction, but I don't buy it. Certainly more has been written about the term's use in relation to Israel than about France, but it's a difference of degree, not of kind. If one is a POV fork, original synthesis, etc., then so is the other. As part of an article on human rights and/or discrimination in each country, a discussion of the use of the term would not be an issue. Obviously that section might be a bit larger for some countries than for others. But once there is an insistence on a separate article for one country, it is inevitable that there are going to be corresponding articles for some other countries. 6SJ7 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need to have artificial consistency. We may both dislike the abuse of the term "apartheid", and we may both agree that it's inappropriate to use the term in relation to Israel, but the fact is that those allegations are extremely widely made and extensively sourced (see G-Dett's comments of 16:31 17 July 2007, above). In other words, there's already a noteworthy pre-existing narrative for us to document. That's plainly not the case in this article, which is just an exercise in quote-mining to support an original synthesis produced by Urthogie - the very thing that WP:OR is supposed to prohibit. -- ChrisO 00:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I completely agree with your last sentence, in fact it sounds a lot like something I said more than a year ago, on another talk page. If we could all agree to apply what you have said to all of the "allegations of apartheid" articles -- not counting the South African apartheid article -- then we would finally have a solution to the problem. We need to have consistency. 6SJ7 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Sorry for my bad English, I'm French. It seems it's only a minor interpretation of the situation in French suburbs, made by very few experts. IMHO these interpretations may be mentioned in Social situation in the French suburbs, but don't deserve a specific article. --Bsm15 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Rename and rewrite. I can't improve on what Duja and ChrisO have said - I think they have hit the nail on the head. - Mu 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Simply because there are no such allegations of apartheid in France. Google "french apartheid" (exact phrase) gives 151 hits, and on french version of Google "apartheid français" gives 221 hits... That's an ideological spam. Gedefr 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete'. Another exemple of anti-French POV on the English wikipedia. It sounds like all quotes where France and apartheid were both present have been put in this article without caring if it was just irrelevant. This is sad to see that much POV here. HOW DARE YOU COMPARING THE FRENCH SITUATION TO SOUTH-AFRICAN APARTHEID AND US SEGREGATION (have you heard about "Jena 6" in the US ?) ? There is NO SEGREGATION LAW, NO APARTHEID LAW IN FRANCE (actually you don't even have the right to make statistics based on ethnicity). Furthermore, this isn't fun because this article is clearly instrumentalized in an edit war by Jews and anti-Jews. Apparently, another article has been written about Israel and thus Isrealian want the "French" article to be linked to the serie in order to have theirs deleted as well. Poppypetty 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, you Frogs are touchy ;) Just kidding. "Apartheid" pisses me off, too. --Targeman 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or delete all articles in the series per Jossi. Apartheid happenned in one place - South Africa. Anyone else using that term is both ignorant and also degrading that issue. Can someone tell me if there was apartheid in Nazi Germany? Please don't mix-up apartheid and discrimination. Keep all or nothing. --Shuki 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Kommentar "Apartheid" is a South African term, but it has existed under other names in Nazi Germany, in the USA, in the Occupied Territories (Jewish settlements in Palestine), and in many other places and times. --Targeman 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and on these articles, the phenomenon is called by its proper name. Just like the article on the segregationist in South Africa in, appropriately, called "apartheid" rather than "South African Shoah", or some Godwin-inspired slur. Rama 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Kommentar "Apartheid" is a South African term, but it has existed under other names in Nazi Germany, in the USA, in the Occupied Territories (Jewish settlements in Palestine), and in many other places and times. --Targeman 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no connection with reality, as clearly demonstrated by the abysmal number and quality of notes and references. Also, the title of the article is provocative and does not match any commonly used expression. Rama 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- PS: I am appalled to see that User:Urthogie himself created
- Allegations of Brazilian apartheid (27 March 2007)
- Allegations of American apartheid (4 June 2007)
- Allegations of Chinese apartheid (13 July 2007)
- Allegations of French apartheid (14 July 2007)
- and even Template:Allegations of apartheid (27 March 2007).
- Thanks to his efforts, we now have a whole category of highly disruptive articles based on vague allusions, and vituperation by a handful of ill-informed polemists. I strongly advise blasting this lot, and probably also the other members of the "Apparetheid outside of South Africa" series not created by Urthogie. Rama 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Kommentar : With this serie (can't wait to read what's next), we can say that Wikipedia English is publishing anything, no need to be relevant and exact... no wonder why you guys have almost 2 millions articles! Regarding this marvellous serie of articles, guess that you'll have (once again) the world against you! Pitiful!
- This is sadly true for low-profile articles on political or sociological subjects, especially relating to some particularly tricky subjects like the Middle-East, cults, etc a few others. On the other hand, the quality of high-profile articles on en: tends to be good because they are polished by lots of people, and because people who have first-hand knowledge of the matter can contribute.
- As a matter of fact, this very request for deletion is a rather encouraging symptom. What is less encouraging is seeing people swallowing irrelevant sources, counting external links and deeming the article "appropriately sourced" without regard for the relevance of these sources. But occosional failure of proper critical judgement is not specific to en:. Rama 10:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as well as all similar articles. Apartheid refers to a specific historical period of South Africa, with certain laws with de jure legal discrimination between whites and other skin colors. This article does not deal with South Africa, does not deal with de jure discrimination, but is a list of opinions on de facto discrimination in present-day France. At best, it should be renamed/folded into something like "ethnic and religious discrimination in France". In addition, I note that it consists mostly of long-winded opinions; this is non encyclopedic. David.Monniaux 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as it is nonsense. Thierry Caro 21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no more comment, it's better, I could be coarse. --ArséniureDeGallium 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and recycle the content. There seems to be no point in making an article on a subject that does not exist. Even a cursory analysis of the article and of the sources allows to see that if the word "apartheid" has been used in certain debates or essays about certain issue in France, it was merely as a striking and powerful metaphor. For instance Ramadan, who speaks of "territorial and social apartheid" because "certain French citizens are treated as second-class citizens". Another refers to "The modernist housing experiments of the sixties have produced apartheid du Corbusier". And so on, it is just about using apartheid as a word that appears to be more striking than another one that can be find in the article and that is probably more correct: "ghettoization ". Bottomline is that this article is building a concept out of the blue based on the use of a word in political debates about the ghettoization of certain areas in France, with the purpose to develop about the responsibility of Islam in the issue (note the very large extracts that are a bit too large). Bradipus 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. About time I took a specific position. The more I think about this article, the more I find it artificial and biased. Plus, User:Urthogie's editing pattern convinces me he or she knows precious little about what (s)he's writing about. --Targeman 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Urthogie and jossi et al. I've said elsewhere regarding these sort of "apartheid" articles that I'm not crazy about them period. However, the nom and delete votes in this case looks like simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. The article is properly sourced, and is perfect alignment with the other similar articles. I haven't read a good explanation why an exception should be made in this case. I'd also ask that the "deletionists" in this case try and ease up on the ad hominem arguments. They're poor and don't work. <<-armon->> 22:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Racial tensions are a fact of life in France and only an idiot would try to deny it. What irks me (and what you take for an ad hominem argument) is that the author of the article is politically motivated (see those other "apartheid" articles) and writes about complex questions concerning a country he or she doesn't know. I firmly believe you should refrain from writing articles on such extremely sensitive issues if you don't speak the language (no sources in French!) and have never spent any significant amount of time in the country. I don't write articles about the Kashmir conflict. Why? Don't speak the language, never been there. Sure I've read a lot about it. Does that make me feel sufficiently informed to write an encyclopedia article? No way. So back on topic, at the very least the contents of this article should be merged with an appropriate one, and the terribly misguided word "apartheid" dropped altogether. --Targeman 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article is not properly sourced. It is all too obvious that the article was started with the idea "I am going to prove that there is something about Apartheid in France no matter what", and a posteriori collected articles which happened to contain theboth the words "France" and "Apartheid", without regard for accurately citing the spirit of the article, not taking into account the notability of these articles. In fact, the mere scarcety of the sources should be enough to convince anyone that there is not such thing as a debate on "Apartheid in France", given that those who are desperate to claim there is one have to resource to such thin references. Rama 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Where have you read ad hominem arguments by deletionists ? As Rama, Targeman, Bradipus, etc. have pointed out there is simply no allegation of apartheid in France, period. This article is a complete fiction, and has no source relevant to its subject. WP deals with the real world, not with the fantasies of Urthogie and the like.Gedefr 22:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "no source relevant to the subject"; every single source in the article alleges apartheid by France, and they're all reliable. A number are by academics, and some are French sources; Le Monde Diplomatique for example. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I meant what I mean : no source. For instance, your quote from Le Monde Diplomatique is completely measleading : the author refers to a process of ghettoisation, and uses the word apartheid only once in the text, and only as a metaphor, as the adjectif urban (urban apartheid), makes it clear. That's even clearer if you read the article of Laurent Bonelli to wich he refers to when using the words urban apartheid: Bonelli does not use at all the word apartheid, and does not event think that the riot where the product of racism -but of the decline of the french working class as a whole. So, we are left with a few quotes (some perfectly measleading as Le Monde, where the author denonces the supposedly multiculturalism produced anglo-saxon apartheid). And for a good reason: there is no such accusation of apartheid in France. Once more : just google "french apartheid" or "apartheid français" (exact phrase) and you'll get less than 300 hits...Gedefr 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- All of them use the word "apartheid," in most cases once only, never again mentioning it or South Africa. The article weaves these fifteen data-mined quotes into an original research essay about a supposed linguistic trend detected by two Wikipedians.--G-Dett 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "no source relevant to the subject"; every single source in the article alleges apartheid by France, and they're all reliable. A number are by academics, and some are French sources; Le Monde Diplomatique for example. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Where have you read ad hominem arguments by deletionists ? As Rama, Targeman, Bradipus, etc. have pointed out there is simply no allegation of apartheid in France, period. This article is a complete fiction, and has no source relevant to its subject. WP deals with the real world, not with the fantasies of Urthogie and the like.Gedefr 22:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article is not properly sourced. It is all too obvious that the article was started with the idea "I am going to prove that there is something about Apartheid in France no matter what", and a posteriori collected articles which happened to contain theboth the words "France" and "Apartheid", without regard for accurately citing the spirit of the article, not taking into account the notability of these articles. In fact, the mere scarcety of the sources should be enough to convince anyone that there is not such thing as a debate on "Apartheid in France", given that those who are desperate to claim there is one have to resource to such thin references. Rama 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Apartheid is a strong word, with a very special meaning. Nothing to do with France, yesterday or today... Clio64B 22:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I've re-organized a bunch of the material to create a more coherent flow, and added other reliable sources with interesting viewpoints on the subject. I encourage everyone to read and re-assess the material in that light, particularly all the French editors who have recently joined at the invitation of the French Wikiproject, and who seem to be taking this all very personally. Please try to adopt a more impartial and less emotional view, if possible. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Israel-focused editors can teach y'all to be more impartial and less emotional about these things.--G-Dett 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's still a flaky compendium of out-of-context quotes that has been spun into an original synthesis for political reasons completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Quite honestly, Jay, neither you nor Urthogie are doing yourselves any favours when you pretend that you've suddenly acquired an interest in French social policy; the arrival of the usual clique of (pro-)Israeli partisans all voting in lockstep with you shows rather clearly what's going on here. There may be some salvageable content in the article that could be repurposed elsewhere, but let's not fool ourselves that this is anything other than a continuation of the silly political games concerning your objections to the existence of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. -- ChrisO 00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- ChrisO, would it be possible for you to refrain from making ad hominem statements in future comments? Please leave the POV political analysis and negative characterizations of those who you disagree with for the various Wikipedia attack message boards. Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Analysis
- OK guys, here comes an in-depth analysis of the article's sources, each and every one of them. Nothing but cold, hard facts. Grab a beer and enjoy:
- Sources 1,2, and 3 refer exclusively to colonial-era France. Needless to say that colonial discrimination half a century ago and modern French society have precious little in common.
- Source 4 says “urban apartheid”, and only once, in its title. Read what it’s really talking about. Quote: “lifetimes of rampant unemployment, school failure, police harassment, and everyday racist discrimination… regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion.” That has nothing to do with apartheid, as any first-year history student will tell you.
- Wow, racism regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion ! That's rather original. Rama 08:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Source 5: same thing. “Social apartheid”. This is a metaphor as above. Please look up “metaphor” in a dictionary.
- Source 6: dead link.
- Source 7. Quote: ““Some of these individuals will likely find work in the underground economy and will continue to have poor long-term prospects as the law of unintended consequences continues to discourage French employers to take the risk and employ marginal workers,” he says. Hutchison adds that in this sense, France will continue to mirror apartheid-era South Africa”. That’s like saying that because I’m vegetarian, in a sense I live like a Hindu.
- Source 8. Quote: “"We will have a sort of apartheid," says Kepel. "Everyone will be proud to defend his own identity — I am a Muslim, I am a Christian, I am a Jew first. And then a Frenchman, second. This is not acceptable.’’ Do you call this an allegation of apartheid?
- Source 9. Quote: “France cannot be 'a juxtaposition of communities', must be founded on common values and must not follow the Anglo-Saxon model which allows ethnic groups to barricade themselves inside geographical and cultural ghettos leading to 'soft forms of apartheid'”. 1989. Anything more solid and recent perhaps?
- Source 10. Quote: “The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.” Please read that again. (Side note, different subject: this is a source from Saudi Arabia. How low do you have to stoop to get your sources? This source is 100% controlled by a theocratic dictatorship.)
- Source 11 and 12. Please read them. These are about Muslims retreating into self-imposed “apartheid”.
- Source 13. “Urban apartheid”. Notice how apartheid never stands alone in any of these sources? It’s a metaphor.
- Source 14: subscribers only. Thanks a lot.
- Source 15. “Apartheid du Corbusier”. I assume you’re not familiar with Le Corbusier. Please look him up, come back, and tell me what it is about.
- Source 16. Quote: “Montpellier's socialist mayor, Hélène Mandroux, denied that her authority had been slow to help. "Terms like urban apartheid are overdramatic," she said." Need I say more?
- To conclude: not a single one of this article's sources contains any sort of allegation of segregation policies of the French state toward anybody. I rest my case. Thanks for reading. --Targeman 00:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Judging from your analysis, I'd say that the sources are using "apartheid" solely as a shorthand or metaphor for social exclusion. Would this be a fair summary, in your view? -- ChrisO 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Precisely. --Targeman 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this nonsense, as soon as possible. I trust that whomever closes this discussion will take into account the transparent vote-stacking among those favouring retention. CJCurrie 00:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Should the closer of the discussion take into account just this alleged "transparent vote-stacking among those favouring retention", or should he/she also take into account the explicit and shameless canvassing and recruiting of votes by those favoring deletion? Isarig 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Shameless vote-stacking? More like inviting debate from people who may be familiar with the subject. Is this prohibited/discouraged? And no, nobody should take into account anything but the facts. The number of people voting is irrelevant: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion --Targeman 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note also that there's an important difference between inviting knowledgeable people and inviting non-knowledgeable partisans to make up the numbers. Actual French people tend to have a rather more informed perspective than non-European partisans playing silly buggers. -- ChrisO 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do you also think that Actual Israelis have a "more informed perspective" on issues like, oh, say, Allegations of Israeli apartheid than "non-Israeli partisans playing silly buggers"? Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, because the focus of the dispute is completely different. See my reply to 6SJ7 below. -- ChrisO 07:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen it, but I have to disagree. Attempts to create two classes of "voters" on this AfD, and, indeed, two classes of countries to which the "apartheid meme" is applied are a marvellous, yet unsustainable, irony. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed Israelis are more informed for that precise article. But why the hell do people keep talking about Israel in this page ??? This country has nothing to do with the article we're talking about. What's that mess ? Let's not add further confusion, please. Benjamin.pineau 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ouch, that's harsh, man.--Targeman 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- But accurate enough, I think. I should add (per CJCurrie's comment) that I'm not aware of any evidence that people have been trying to rope in partisans, though a fair number of them certainly seem to have ended up here somehow. Off-wiki communications, perhaps. -- ChrisO 02:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- (Response to Targeman about "vote counting") For whatever it's worth, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion does not say that the number of people expressing opinions on one side or another is irrelevant. (I avoid the word "voting" so as not to upset the purists among us.) That guideline (and it is only a guideline, and a somewhat contested one at that) contains a section on "Deletion, moving and featuring" that specifically says that an AfD (or similar process) "is not decided based strictly on the number of people choosing one side or another, but on the strength of the arguments presented." So it's not decided strictly on the basis of numbers, but numbers surely are not irrelevant to the outcome. They are one of the factors that is taken into consideration. 6SJ7 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the clarification. --Targeman 02:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- (Response to ChrisO about "actual French people) So let's see if I have this straight, ChrisO. For the corresponding article on Israel, we should just rely on the sources, but for this one, the opinions of the people from the country in question should get more weight? How about following the same set of criteria for each article? 6SJ7 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The two aren't comparable, because they're starting from different points. In the case of Israel, nobody disputes that there's a widespread, well-documented meme that compares Israel to apartheid South Africa. The nature of the political dispute is over whether the accusation is justified, not whether anyone makes it. In the case of France, however, a "French apartheid" meme simply isn't part of the political discourse. Our French editors are best placed to advise us on whether such a meme exists in French politics - to which they're exposed every day, don't forget - and so far they've unanimously said no. That's the difference. In the case of Israel, Wikipedia describes an existing meme that's been widely discussed in numerous reliable source - there are even entire books about it. In the case of France, Urthogie has invented a non-existent meme and "documented" it with out-of-context quotes mined from Google. It's pure original reseach. -- ChrisO 07:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Except, of course, that the French editors aren't making that argument at all. Rather, they are simply outraged that anyone would use the "meme" in relation to "la belle France"; their national pride is insulted. On the other hand, more dispassionate French authors and academics are much more comfortable using that "meme". And the "meme" is a general one, used in relation to all sorts of situations of alleged discrimination; it's not an "Israeli" meme alone. Now, it's true that the meme is used more often in relation to Israel, but that's a reflection of the currently fashionable demonization of Israel, based partly on ignorance, partly on geo-politics, partly on good marketing efforts by Palestinians, and partly on much darker forces. Regardless, there is an apartheid "meme" or "analogy" or "epithet" that is in common used in regards to all sorts of things, and it's no more nor less valid in any one situation than in any other. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Outraged because "apartheid" insults "la belle France"? Nonsense. First of all, why the hell are you people bringing up Israel here? What does that have to do with France? Secondly, I'm not French and I have no ax to grind here, although your last comment strongly suggests you do. The article we're discussing is a perfect example of selective sourcing meant to support a theory. It insults me as someone who knows France and who knows what good writing is to read an article written on a high school level and defended by emotionally charged, non-scientific arguments. --Targeman 16:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Should the closer of the discussion take into account just this alleged "transparent vote-stacking among those favouring retention", or should he/she also take into account the explicit and shameless canvassing and recruiting of votes by those favoring deletion? Isarig 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I used to be a teacher at college. If any student of mine were to submit such a shamelessly ill-sourced paper, boy would I have savaged him. --Targeman 01:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- No wonder you used to be a teacher (I think they call them professors or lecturers). Certainly it is obvious that a notable litany of allegations of apartheid have been sourced. It is for our readers to decide the merits, but that is a content issue, not a reason to delete. If you are so preocupied with quality, you can chose Allegations of Jordanian apartheid, whose sources are certainly not notable or even relevant. And teh few that are belong in Allegations of apartheid.--Cerejota 02:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not only a teacher (or lecturer if you will), but a journalist, interpreter, and researcher, if you feel like questioning my qualifications. Language is my trade and calling this list of completely distorted arguments a "notable litany of allegations"... No, I'll not comment on this.--Targeman 02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- And yes, I am preoccupied by quality. The article you mentioned is badly sourced right now but is infinitely more plausible than an article about allegations of "apartheid" in France. The situation in Palestinian refugee camps bears no comparison to living on dole in France, I'm sure you're aware of that. Now would you care to address my analysis of this article's sources? --Targeman 02:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- And you qualifications are relevant why? However, since you have indeed addressed the matter at hand, I must point out that your WP:OR is not supported by sources. It is your opinion, but ultimately irrelevant to wikipedia. If a source like Le Monde diplomatique can spend time dealing with these allegations as they apply to France, then they have merit. You are making an unsupported claim that flies in the face of sources. I suggest you take it up with Le Monde diplomatique, not us. I am sure your credentials would come handy over by them. --Cerejota 02:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hang on. I'd never dream of questioning the reliability and independence of Le Monde Diplomatique. In fact, it's one of the best French publications available. And I've never accused this article of being original research. The author(s) have clearly invested time and effort to source the article properly. Here is what I'm talking about: the word "apartheid" is used in each of these sources as either a metaphor or in a context which has nothing to do with the definition of the word "apartheid". There is no allegation of apartheid here. What we have are grievances concerning the integration of foreigners (more specifically, Muslims), into French society. That could be a viable article (if it weren't so one-sided, but that could be improved). However, this haphazard collection of - once again - mostly solid sources, but whose choice was dictated only by the word "apartheid", really doesn't justify the title. It's like saying "USA is a fascist country". Go ahead and Google it. 2,600,000 hits for USA + fascism. Among the sources mentioning both words in one article, you'll find the Guardian and the University of Texas, among others. Are you beginning to see what happened here? Cheers --Targeman 03:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The introduction of the article clearly state the the use is as analogy, not as direct comparison, so this is recognized a priori. It explores the policies of the French state (current and historical) that have been notably analogized with apartheid. Along with the Israel and Brazil articles, the French one is actually one of the better ones in the whole sorry lot. Why delete this one while keeping around aberrations like the United States and China around? The Francophilia is running way too thick...--Cerejota 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The introduction talks about analogies with South African apartheid. There is not a single analogy of this kind in the sources provided. And none of the sources talks about any French policy that would in any way resemble South African policies under apartheid. If I'm wrong, please correct me. And please, let's try to judge this article on its own merits. I haven't read the others. I'm not interested in the consistency of deletion policy; I'm concerned by the intellectual honesty of this article. Its contents have nothing in common with its title or summary. It is simply misleading. And it's a shame that you mistake objectivity for Francophilia.--Targeman 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Any volunteers to address my analysis, point after point?--Targeman 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- why would there be anyone interested in this? It is, as you say "your analysis" - in other words original research, which is entirely irrelevant. Isarig 04:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are joking, aren't you? In case you haven't understood, I mean: who is willing to challenge the validity of my arguments? I have read the article multiple times and all of the sources, from A to Z. If nobody steps up to prove me wrong, we shall have to conclude that nobody is seriously interested in discussing the merits of this article. And I have reasons to believe I'm the only one here who's actually took the time to read it all. I'm too old to engage in childish tug-o-wars and name calling. Once again: serious people, raise your hands please.--Targeman 05:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your arguments boil down to "they're using it as a metaphor". Well, duh! Of course it's used as a metaphor; only South Africa actually had a policy of apartheid, in all other contexts it's a metaphor, analogy, epithet, etc. Your "analysis" applies equally well to all the "Allegations of apartheid" articles, and you don't even need to look at the sources to know that. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- No. There's an enormous difference between accusing a government of apartheid-like policies and comparing the social conditions of a country to South Africa under apartheid. "Allegations of apartheid" means "accusations of apartheid-like policies". Now, were this article named "Comparisons between life in France and life in South Africa under apartheid", that would be consistent with its content. But hey, I can think of at least 150 countries where one could draw such comparisons. Are there 150 articles like this in the pipeline? --Targeman 05:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- However, the sources make clear that it is indeed government policies that have created this situation; first, the rather obviously apartheid-like colonial policies in Algeria, and then their transference to France, where, As such, the colonial dual cities described by North African urban theorists Janet Abu-Lughod, Zeynep Çelik, Paul Rabinow, and Gwendolyn Wright—in which native medinas were kept isolated from European settler neighborhoods out of competing concerns of historical preservation, public hygiene, and security—have been effectively re-created in the postcolonial present, with contemporary urban policy and policing maintaining suburban cités and their residents in a state of immobile apartheid, at a perpetual distance from urban, bourgeois centers. Apartheid is a policy of separation, impoverishment, class difference, etc., typically linked to "race". The Africans forced into suburban cités by French government policies experience all of those things as a result of government policy. Well, at least according to the sources. On the other hand, opposing views are brought as well (per NPOV). Some sources insist that the apartheid is a self-imposed one. Others say various other things. Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Shit, we're cornering ourselvesAll you've mentioned is indeed true. The problem is, the article's title doesn't reflect all this. If you want to discuss segregation in the French colonies, create a separate article. If you want to compare that period with the supposed segregation nowadays, call your article History of racial segregation in France. As for self-imposed apartheid, it's not apartheid, just like choking on a pretzel is not the same as being strangled. If you want to discuss the social phenomenon of withdrawal or seclusion, create a separate article. If you want to write about Islamism in France, create an appropriately titled article. If you want to discuss the influence of brutalist urbanism on living standards, create an article to that effect. This article mixes all these things into one big bag and gives it the name of only one of the subjects discussed. It's like having an article called Dogs which discusses dogs, cats, hamsters, and zoophilia, all on one page.--Targeman 05:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
moving back to the left side of the pageTargeman, those who object to the "apartheid" analogy/metaphor/meme/epithet always insist that it is inappropriate for reasons x, y, and z. In every single country and situation to which it is applied (aside from South Africa itself), there is always a counter-argument that says "yes, but don't you see that it's a bad analogy in this case because...", and "really this topic should be discussed more rationally and neutrally in articles a, b and c". It's as true for Brazil, China, Cuba, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States as it is for France. And the solution you propose works equally well for all of the articles in this series. However, based on my experience on about 10 related AfDs, it seems so far that the will of Wikipedians is to avoid that solution. Maybe you'll have more success. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, my solution applies equally well to all the articles you mention. If the "will" of Wikipedian is to avoid that solution, as you say, more should be done to convince. The problem sure won't go away if we pretend there is none. Maybe that's what the authors of this infamous series actually want - to be left alone and write their drivel in peace and blissful ignorance. And you know what? I'm so tired of this shit, I'm tempted to drop it and let them play in their sandbox. --Targeman 16:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, don't lose heart here Targeman; you've gotten much farther here than ever before. Even some of the worst of the POV-pushers who defended the inflammatory titles and articles in the past seem to be coming around to a more reasonable approach, though some are still fighting a valiant rear-guard action in defense of "equal but separate" treatment for one specific article. However, ignoring their inevitable furious fulminations and ad hominem analyses, and focussing on a solution, might well solve this once and for all. Jayjg (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Targeman, the authors of this infamous series don't want to be left alone to write more drivel. They want their drivel to enrage people to the point of proposing to delete everything that resembles, however superficially, their drivel. The strategy is to create as many bogus "apartheid" articles as possible, in the hopes that the resulting gooey blob of verbal muck will envelop an article they're opposed to (but have been unsuccessful in deleting) in its deathly embrace. Please have a long look at that article, Targeman, I implore you. If you're tired of the sh!?-stupid strawman arguments you've been subjected to on this page about French sensitivity and national feeling, as well as all the sophistry that tries to alchemize an original thesis about the use of language into a notable topic, and primary sources into secondary ones, then just imagine the sophistry and strawman-arguments you're being bombarded with in regards to the original article. That article, unlike the fake "sister" articles, has a subject. --G-Dett 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think that this situation sparks from the deplorable habit of making articles out of propaganda terms without the slightest critical distance, which is common on Middle-East-related articles. Typical instances are Allegations of Israeli apartheid (anti-Israel POV) or New antisemitism (Isaeli right-wing POV). These articles share the pattern of commenting on outrageous concepts with no proper definition, and spinning out of control (One day, someone will start a Berlin Wall of Israel and noone will find the geographical absurdity disturbing).
The root of the evil is in the failure of distancing self from the propaganda lexical field and isolating the substencial meaning. For instance, the so-called "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" are, in fact, accusations of segregationist policies, Human Right violations, or something like this. That these criticism happened to be formulated using the word "apartheid" is barely relevent: it is maybe footnote-worthy, sub-section-worthy at most, but certainly not a proper title.
Only taking the surface words into consideration is stupid, worthy of first-generation search engines. It is failure to address the problem at its root which causes the present annoyance. Generating bogus articles which contain only noise out of exasperation is human, but it is unacceptable. Rama 10:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Arbitary section break 2
- Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I'm french and honestly I have never heard such a thing about France. It's a pure WP:POINT in reaction of the page Allegations of Israeli apartheid... Markadet fr 03:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- comment WP:IDONTKNOWIT. --SefringleTalk 03:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete this is not founded and discriminatory. Apartheid is a very strong word and NEVER in my french history I had to read something like that. The person who wrote all apartheid articles don't know much about history, and sources are questionnable! Have a nice vote... --Antaya 05:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:IDONTLIKEIT--SefringleTalk 05:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- B.T.W., where are Germany, England, Portugal, Spain, Danmark... Every country have blood on their hands. It's pretty easy to write something like this based on questionnable sources... --Antaya 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Except that the sources are highly reliable, and include noted academics among others. Jayjg (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think "Apartheid" is an appropriate word for explaining the integration problems in France (or anywhere else in the world)... and espacially on Wikipedia! Everywhere you can hear about xenophobia : shall we call that apartheid? I think the title is not appropriated. --Antaya 06:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is, regardless of whether or not you like it, reliable sources actually use the term, and various Wikipedia editors have already insisted that the will of Wikipedia is that these articles have that word in the title. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is clearly no consensus that "these articles" are properly grouped together in the first place: no one has ever produced a single reliable source supporting the linkage, many editors have explicitly rejected it as a transparent POV ploy, and a recent TfD discussion on precisely this question ended acrimoniously in "no consensus." So to talk about "these articles" is already begging the question. But I'm curious anyway, where do "various Wikipedia editors" insist this about the "will of Wikipedia"?--G-Dett 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is, regardless of whether or not you like it, reliable sources actually use the term, and various Wikipedia editors have already insisted that the will of Wikipedia is that these articles have that word in the title. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, apartheid and segregation imply that the state is involved in the discrimination. This isn't the case. This discrimination is a really complex problem where they aren't guilty people and organizations at one side and "immigrant" victims at the other one. They are responsible for part of it and the state is responsible for other reasons. Why not writing a good Discrimination issues in France instead ? Poppypetty 06:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- These sources are absolutely irrelevant and not reliable. Nowadays, you can source every single stupid idea if you want to. As mentioned above, you can create an article on Allegations that USA is (are ?) a facist country with The Guardian and University of Texas sources. That doesn't make the article relevant. This is disastrous to see people making POV-pushing here. Let's try to create quality content. Poppypetty 06:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Youa re saying a former Prime Minister of France is not a reliable source? Le Monde diplomatique? The things people will say when they want to push POV...--Cerejota 12:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is indeed absurd; not only the sources you mentioned, but also notable academics who study and write on exactly these issues have used the analogy. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Once each, in passing. There's no indication whatsoever that their use of it was notable or even noted.--G-Dett 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is indeed absurd; not only the sources you mentioned, but also notable academics who study and write on exactly these issues have used the analogy. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Youa re saying a former Prime Minister of France is not a reliable source? Le Monde diplomatique? The things people will say when they want to push POV...--Cerejota 12:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think "Apartheid" is an appropriate word for explaining the integration problems in France (or anywhere else in the world)... and espacially on Wikipedia! Everywhere you can hear about xenophobia : shall we call that apartheid? I think the title is not appropriated. --Antaya 06:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Except that the sources are highly reliable, and include noted academics among others. Jayjg (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- B.T.W., where are Germany, England, Portugal, Spain, Danmark... Every country have blood on their hands. It's pretty easy to write something like this based on questionnable sources... --Antaya 05:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:IDONTLIKEIT--SefringleTalk 05:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. High quality, relevant sources, interesting topic, should not be censored just because people don't like it. FeloniousMonk 05:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't a matter of liking it or not. It's more a question of relevancy and accuracy. Poppypetty 06:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete It's a caracteristical french bashing, on a allegation which does not recover any reality in France. For the one who will probably comment with a WP:IDONTKNOWIT oder WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I will answer : IKNOWTHISISALIE and ICANNOTSUPPORTSUCHINSANITIES. To be a little more bit serious WP:POINT, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground and, most of all, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Grimlockfr 11:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- There might be french bashing in the article, but most of it is provided by French sources.Thats the gist of it. There is no original research and your argument and similar arguments are invalid in so far as all material is sourced and balanced. I think we can fix the quotefarm and re-write a bit, but this article far from bashing France, touches upon a notable debate. Those who have commented they have never heard of the debate in France are either ill-informed or disingenuous: as sourced, even French prime ministers have see fit to address the analogy.--Cerejota 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wait a second. That there's a notable debate and that it's a central part of French politics is undeniable. It's just that the title is absolutely ignorant. Racism, social exclusion, integration. Rename the article. Apartheid? Nonsense. "Urban apartheid" and "social apartheid" have nothing, zero, zilch, nada to do with apartheid in South Africa, as I would expect any high school graduate to know. The article's defendants argue the sources are reliable (well, they're silent on the Saudi source). Sure. But for Chrissakes please read those sources. If after reading them, you're still able to say without blushing that they contain serious allegations of apartheid-like policies, you belong in politics, not in academia. A reliable source per se is not enough; it has to directly concern the topic of your article (paper, dissertation). If you're arguing that there are allegations of apartheid, choose sources that say so. If you're writing about, I don't know, paper manufacturing, don't use sources talking about Greenpeace, deforestation, or sustainable development. It's intellectually dishonest and will not make you pass the exams. Class dismissed. --Targeman 12:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Except, of course, that the reliable sources chose to use exactly the term "apartheid", and the apartheid analogy. "Dismissing" the "class" will not make that inconvenient fact go away, and that fact also make hash of any claim that the sources do not "directly concern the topic of the article. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The topic of the article is "allegations of French apartheid." None of the sources deal with that topic at all, except the one with the thing about the mayor.--G-Dett 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, and respectable sources also use words like "fuck" and "bullshit". How about Allegations of fucking bullshit in XXX? You could very easily find respectable sources using both in one article. Would such an article pass your scrutiny? Would you then find that kind of argument valid? --Targeman 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- "and the apartheid analogy." -> analogy, you named it, and that's the point (for every article's source). But the article isn't titled "Analogies between France's social situation and apartheid". As is, the title states that we're talking about true apartheid. Well, even it would be retitled as such, how much strongly POV (if not insulting and xenophobic) articles should we introduce everytime a journalist made a catching metaphor ? Benjamin.pineau 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your argument is equally applicable to any of the "Allegations of apartheid" articles; you should be thinking of systemic solutions. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and I said my judgment applies to all "Allegations of apartheid" articles (see my "delete" statements). Deleting all of them is indeed the preferable achievement. I just can't see how them being all bad would justify to keep that one. Benjamin.pineau 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The topic of the article is "allegations of French apartheid." None of the sources deal with that topic at all, except the one with the thing about the mayor.--G-Dett 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Except, of course, that the reliable sources chose to use exactly the term "apartheid", and the apartheid analogy. "Dismissing" the "class" will not make that inconvenient fact go away, and that fact also make hash of any claim that the sources do not "directly concern the topic of the article. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is a debate about discrimination, ghettoization, not about apartheid or segregation which are irrelevant. I just don't see the point about this article which is just a succession of quotes without real analysis of the discrimination phenomena. Poppypetty 12:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that these sources are misrepresented. Twisting references and making up connections between unconnected sources is Original Resarch (to be polite). And for your information, Le Monde Diplomatique is a heavily op-ed paper which occasionally runs totally ludicrous stories. Rama 12:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is a debate about discrimination, ghettoization, not about apartheid or segregation which are irrelevant. I just don't see the point about this article which is just a succession of quotes without real analysis of the discrimination phenomena. Poppypetty 12:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Yeah, this is just what we need... more inherently POV crap. At least move the article to something less inflammatory. Apartheid has a very distinct meaning and those who know it would be deeply disgusted by attempts to compare debates over scarfs to that. That said, I'm not sure what is causing the most harm... AfD'ing these articles or denying the trolls who edit them the recognition. Judging from past AfD's the best approach is just to ignore them at let them have their precious articles. MartinDK 11:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The article is very well cited. It has multiple sources and it is notable. The nomination fails to prove why this article should be deleted. And per User:Sefringle. Watchdogb 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep as per Watchdogb Harlowraman 06:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- The nomination clearly proves that the "multiple sources" are irrelevant. Sourcing is not about listing as many random external links as possible. Rama 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The important points are not all in the nomination, but have to do with whether this is the proper name for the article. Considering most of these sources use the word only in passing in their discussion of broader issues that are neutrally covered in other articles (chiefly Social situation in the French suburbs), WP:NPOV#POV_forks seems to directly apply ("The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.") Mackan79 14:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- comment Who says there are random external links ? I am sorry but I do know the difference between source and EL. Thanks. Proper name for the article does not permit a AFD. It's better off at RFM. Watchdogb 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do say that the external links are random. They just happen to be random documents gathered over the Internet containing the lemma "apartheid". This behaviour is worthy of a very small Perl script. Rama 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Example: we don't yet have Allegations of Swiss apartheid ? No problem, search "apartheid in Switzerland" and you'll come up with something. Like, for instance, ""Denunciations coming from South Africa directly led to the aliens’ police acting against people criticising apartheid in Switzerland," Hug said." [29]. The so-called "references" of Allegations of French apartheid are of the same nature (and probably the result of the same procedure). Rama 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the right name, that's not correct when the neutral article on the subject already exists. Jay has basically admitted that the Social situation in the French suburbs is the subject;[30] he simply wants to keep this particular name. Unless there is some new subject here, then deletion is the appropriate remedy. Mackan79 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Um, no I haven't. Please don't put words in my mouth again, especially when they misrepresent my views. Jayjg (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jay, you described the topic of this article, and in describing it, you described the situation in the French suburbs by name.[31] You also still have not explained why this material couldn't fit into that article, other than to beg the question by saying that this article is about the allegation. I don't care to spar with you; if you want to clarify why these sources require a new article specifically on this one allegation, then please do. Mackan79 17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- As above, your argument is equally applicable to all the "Allegations of apartheid..." articles. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that doesn't clarify the issue. For one thing, you may have noticed that the Israel article has many times more and much more detailed sources than this one, which would generally be an important factor in whether an independent article is necessary. You may also have noticed that Social situation in the Israeli suburbs isn't an article, nor Social unrest in Israel in 2005. So should they be? This seems to be the crux of your argument. Mackan79 22:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- It really does clarify the issue. The fact that there are more sources for the Israel article is, as explained above, a reflection of the currently fashionable demonization of Israel, based partly on ignorance, partly on geo-politics, partly on good marketing efforts by Palestinians, and partly on much darker forces. In any event, the "delete" arguments here boil down to two: 1) I'm outraged you would accuse France of this, and 2) France doesn't really practice apartheid, it's only an metaphor/analogy/meme. I'm ignoring, of course, the plentiful ad hominem statements from the usual suspects, speculating about motivations, trying to divide editors into 2 classes, etc., as they are irrelevant to AfDs (and, frankly, to Wikipedia). Of the actual arguments, the first is merely an emotional reaction, and the second applies to all these articles, including the Israel one, regardless of whether there are 16 sources or 160.
- Ideally Wikipedia articles should be about encyclopedic concepts expressed in neutral ways. When it comes to articles on politics or history, a good yardstick is "would Britannica have an article on this topic"? Of course Britannica would never have an article on "Allegations of Israeli apartheid"; anyone proposing such a non-scholarly, obviously politicized POV-pushing notion would, at best, be dismissed with a sneer, regardless of the political beliefs of the editors. Frankly, it's a greater embarrassment to Wikipedia than 5,000 crufty articles on Pokemon. Yet, the usual POV-pushers insist on its existence, using the usual spurious arguments which, in reality, fool no-one, not even themselves. That article is, in fact, by far the worst of the "Allegations of apartheid" series, far worse than this one, because it takes 10,000 poorly-written words to say what could be said more clearly in two or three paragraphs, and because its silly POV-pushing agenda is so nakedly transparent. In, for example, the Cuban apartheid article, the people who invented the term "tourist apartheid" were Cubans themselves, and they're the ones who use it, so discussing the topic is not an "anti-Cuban" ploy. Oh, and in case you were wondering, Britannica actually does mention "tourist apartheid" in its Cuba article.
- In any event, Wikipedia has to decide on its standards for articles; by the current standards, the French apartheid article is perfectly encyclopedic and complies with all policies. If Wikipedia decides to become less political, and set a higher standard, then all the articles would have to go. I guess we'll have to wait and see which way this plays out; but an option that is not on the table is the double-standard currently espoused by those enamored of the Israeli apartheid article. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jay, you've misrepresented the "delete" position so willfully, so radically, and so stubbornly that it is difficult to know how to proceed. "1) I'm outraged you would accuse France of this." What outrage has been expressed here is largely a response to an attempt to hijack one part of Wikipedia in order to make a point about another. Your cracks about "la belle France" and the sensitivities of "French editors" are wholly inappropriate. France-focused editors have in the course of this discussion suggested topics like "French racism" and "Segregation in France," topics neither you nor any of the zealots you march in editorial lockstep with would ever let pass in an Israel-related article. They do not need a lecture from you about impartiality, or on how to keep their nationalist passions distinct from questions of editorial policy. "2) France doesn't really practice apartheid, it's only an metaphor/analogy/meme." This is a strawman. What has actually been pointed out, repeatedly, is that the sources you've provided do not give evidence of a prominent debate/discussion/meme/whatever about French "apartheid." Your sources are simply primary sources that use the word "apartheid," usually once only and in passing, for an astonishing variety of subjects: Algeria, immigrant self-segregation, discrimination, head-scarf controversies, gender relations. You've simply woven these together into a narrative of your own devising, about a pattern you've detected; it's pure original research. This is a policy objection, which you're trying now to misrepresent as an ideological one about what France is or isn't guilty of. Knock it off. Your hoax has been exposed; don't make it worse with further deceptions. As for "double standards": you have voted five times to delete "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," even as you actively support, promote, and defend these other "apartheid" articles with every tactic at your disposal, including "keep" votes in deletion debates.--G-Dett 03:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- G-Dett, I don't suppose there's any point in asking you to focus on articles rather than other editors? I know I've made this same request of you about 100 times before and it's never made a bit of difference, but I always remain hopeful. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- And how, pray tell, does one address serial WP:POINT-violations, systematic creation of bogus articles for leveraging purposes, and chronic disruption of talk-page discussion (including radical misrepresentation of opponents' positions) without focusing on the editor(s) involved?--G-Dett 12:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please review begging the question. Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I reviewed it here.--G-Dett 03:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please review begging the question. Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- And how, pray tell, does one address serial WP:POINT-violations, systematic creation of bogus articles for leveraging purposes, and chronic disruption of talk-page discussion (including radical misrepresentation of opponents' positions) without focusing on the editor(s) involved?--G-Dett 12:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- G-Dett, I don't suppose there's any point in asking you to focus on articles rather than other editors? I know I've made this same request of you about 100 times before and it's never made a bit of difference, but I always remain hopeful. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jay, you've misrepresented the "delete" position so willfully, so radically, and so stubbornly that it is difficult to know how to proceed. "1) I'm outraged you would accuse France of this." What outrage has been expressed here is largely a response to an attempt to hijack one part of Wikipedia in order to make a point about another. Your cracks about "la belle France" and the sensitivities of "French editors" are wholly inappropriate. France-focused editors have in the course of this discussion suggested topics like "French racism" and "Segregation in France," topics neither you nor any of the zealots you march in editorial lockstep with would ever let pass in an Israel-related article. They do not need a lecture from you about impartiality, or on how to keep their nationalist passions distinct from questions of editorial policy. "2) France doesn't really practice apartheid, it's only an metaphor/analogy/meme." This is a strawman. What has actually been pointed out, repeatedly, is that the sources you've provided do not give evidence of a prominent debate/discussion/meme/whatever about French "apartheid." Your sources are simply primary sources that use the word "apartheid," usually once only and in passing, for an astonishing variety of subjects: Algeria, immigrant self-segregation, discrimination, head-scarf controversies, gender relations. You've simply woven these together into a narrative of your own devising, about a pattern you've detected; it's pure original research. This is a policy objection, which you're trying now to misrepresent as an ideological one about what France is or isn't guilty of. Knock it off. Your hoax has been exposed; don't make it worse with further deceptions. As for "double standards": you have voted five times to delete "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," even as you actively support, promote, and defend these other "apartheid" articles with every tactic at your disposal, including "keep" votes in deletion debates.--G-Dett 03:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that doesn't clarify the issue. For one thing, you may have noticed that the Israel article has many times more and much more detailed sources than this one, which would generally be an important factor in whether an independent article is necessary. You may also have noticed that Social situation in the Israeli suburbs isn't an article, nor Social unrest in Israel in 2005. So should they be? This seems to be the crux of your argument. Mackan79 22:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- As above, your argument is equally applicable to all the "Allegations of apartheid..." articles. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jay, you described the topic of this article, and in describing it, you described the situation in the French suburbs by name.[31] You also still have not explained why this material couldn't fit into that article, other than to beg the question by saying that this article is about the allegation. I don't care to spar with you; if you want to clarify why these sources require a new article specifically on this one allegation, then please do. Mackan79 17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Um, no I haven't. Please don't put words in my mouth again, especially when they misrepresent my views. Jayjg (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- comment Who says there are random external links ? I am sorry but I do know the difference between source and EL. Thanks. Proper name for the article does not permit a AFD. It's better off at RFM. Watchdogb 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Apartheid, per definition, is an official government policy, legally classifying people by race in order to segregate (not some debatable and potential side effects of non racial, non ethnic, policies, neither urbanism/ economics measures relegating poor people in urbans suburbs). This article doesn't talk (and hasn't any source to talk about) "Allegations of French apartheid", but metaphorically, or "quasi-apartheid" (sic), or "a sort of apartheid" (sic), or "partial similarities, in some aspects, to apartheid", "urban apartheid" (sic), or "informal apartheid system" etc. (as per article's sources). That's why, per NPOV, it'd better be renamed under an accurate title (say, "similarities with apartheid consequences in French contemporary society", or "social exclusion in France"). But what's remains questionable in this rename case is either Wikipedia should stay neutral and factual (ie. facts are not metaphors) or accepts sensationalists, strongly opinionated and inaccurate terms used as implicit comparisons (not to say POV) as main articles topics (rather than presented in the body of an accurate article, to properly balance it), just because some journalist somewhere made an approximative and shocking comparison -a known stylistic effect- to make her point. As Targeman showed, we could also write articles like "allegations of USA [metaphorical] fascism" with proper sources (and the same goes with any politician with international stature, eg. "Allegations of Tony Blair being the poodle of Bush", "Olmert's Qana's genocid", and so on, it's endless). How could non neutrals and inaccurate titles result in well balanced articles ? Let's not open such a Pandora's box. I ask for deletion (and content to go on 2005 civil unrest in France and other relevant articles). Same, if proposed for AfD, for all other "allegation of apartheid in xx", or article whose titles contains words like "genocide", "dictatorship", "nazi", "pogrom", "stalinism",... used as metaphors. Sadly this page wasn't purposed at discussing the whole lot, but please, let's avoid WP:ALLORNOTHING. Benjamin.pineau 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- weak Keep There are enough reliable sources of notable people, organizations and countries accusing France of apartheid, but some sections deviate from the title and subject of the article (particularly under the 'Islamism' section), if it is about apartheid it shouldn't talk about 'self imposed segregation' I think that is not a very good comparison to the South African apartheid. However the article is still mostly good and encyclopedic. Bleh999 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Per your previous comment, you may not know that the entire list of these articles except one was recently created and remains under rather heated debate, while at least one of them has been deleted.[32] This is what has led to much of the debate here. Mackan79 18:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you are posting a link to a different article, it has little relevance to this article, even if they share the 'allegations of apartheid' title, we should judge each individually on their own merits. Bleh999 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, I was only responding to your comment that deleting this one would create a glaring omission, which I took to be in reference to the set of articles. I may have misread you; if so, never mind. My general concern is that the material here would be better treated under a different name. Mackan79 19:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Bleh999, there are not "enough reliable sources of notable people, organizations and countries accusing France of apartheid", and the proof of that is the "reference" section of the article: although its author is commited to demonstrate that such claims exist, he has failed to provide sources which back his point. His so-called "sources" merely happen to use the word "apartheid", but in no case are these articles claiming that such a thing exists in France, they merely mention the term as to make a provocative comparison. Just like people have compared New Orleans to Atlantis, and it would be ridiculous to say that some people claim that New Orleans is Atlantis. Rama 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I hate to repeat myself, but your argument is equally applicable to all the articles in the "Allegations of apartheid..." article. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Bleh999, there are not "enough reliable sources of notable people, organizations and countries accusing France of apartheid", and the proof of that is the "reference" section of the article: although its author is commited to demonstrate that such claims exist, he has failed to provide sources which back his point. His so-called "sources" merely happen to use the word "apartheid", but in no case are these articles claiming that such a thing exists in France, they merely mention the term as to make a provocative comparison. Just like people have compared New Orleans to Atlantis, and it would be ridiculous to say that some people claim that New Orleans is Atlantis. Rama 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, I was only responding to your comment that deleting this one would create a glaring omission, which I took to be in reference to the set of articles. I may have misread you; if so, never mind. My general concern is that the material here would be better treated under a different name. Mackan79 19:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you are posting a link to a different article, it has little relevance to this article, even if they share the 'allegations of apartheid' title, we should judge each individually on their own merits. Bleh999 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable, referenced and neutral. Lotlil 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I tried to give some information about the subject of the article itself (allegation of French apartheid) but it seems that the only thing which is interesting people here is allegation of Israel apartheid or the ways some people try to get this article deleted by publishing notes built on the same frame. I really think that we should avoid to enter in their game and focus on "allegation of French apartheid". My opinion is that the article should be either deleted or renamed. Jeemde 09:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- This user has no contributions outside of this AFD. Their comment should be treated like it was written by an IP address and ignored..--Urthogie 11:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- You speak about me? It is true that I have no contribution in other AFD. I discovered the way I could participate to Wikipedia only one day ago; before I was only using Wikipedia a source of information - and I thought it was a quite reliable one... because mistakes were corrected when they were detected.
- Now I will be much more weary about the content of Wikipedia pages since some people seems to use the encyclopedia to settle political struggles.
- Your reaction to my contribution is really pitiful. Because I never participated before to any fruitless controversy I should not have the right to speak...
- I was only giving my perception of the questions raised in your article since I am in a good position to watch the actual situation in France (I live there). You could make acceptable objections, saying for example that my objectivity is not guaranteed, but your reaction is only demonstrating your closed mindedness.
- If you want to discuss only with the same 10 guys who are haunting the AFD since enough time to get your approval, I will leave you there. But let me tell you that this attitude is VERY DETRIMENTAL to Wikipedia's credibility. Jeemde 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: The proposal here was moved to talk, for greater readability. Thanks, Mackan79 16:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I only hope that I don't belong to the same 10 guys who are haunting the AFD and to your the only thing which is interesting people here is allegation of Israel apartheid stereotype. I gave my reasons for weakkeeping this article based on British common law - the precedence - (end of the first section) - and these don't fit into your allegations. This is the English language Wikipedia, not some outfit for the Haaretz forum participants from Tel Aviv or for the Sorbonne islamism lovers from Paris to express their political views or ideas. In a matter of fact that VERY DETRIMENTAL Wikipedia of yours is trying hard to stick to the facts, and in this case to document the common opinion/s of others if they're notable, without giving any opinion itself. greg park avenue 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I fear this discussion has gotten diverted by a red herring. It is NOT about whether the apartheid analogy is just, or valid, or plausible, or whatever. I've posted what I hope is a helpful statement on the issue here, on the "centralized discussion" page.--G-Dett 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. Sr13 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Chickenhawk (sexuality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article doesnt really have sources, and doesnt seem like it could get bigger than it is now, doesnt seem like a real subject for wikipedia. Bubulina8888 06:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak
deleteKeep (see "Reason for changed vote" below for reasons) show me sources that give substantial treatment (as per WP:N)to the subject(s) of the article and I'll change my vote. I'd heard the term before and thought I'd find something online, but I don't see anything but a couple of definitions, so now I doubt the term or subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps it's better treated as part of another article. Noroton 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Reason for changed vote There seems to be substantial treatment of the topic in at least one book and one academic article (Reeling in the Years: Gay Men's Perspectives on Age and Ageism by Tim Bergling, and Adam, Barry D. "Age Preferences among Gay and Bisexual Men" GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, now in the article's footnotes. It now seems reasonable to assume that Wikipedia-acceptable sources are available. If the article actually had the sources in it, and if they provided substantial information, that would be better and I wouldn't call my vote "weak." Wikipedia policy talks about "verifiable" not "verified". Noroton 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep this (slightly obsolete) aspect of gay culture. Scores of Google Books results (using chickenhawk+gay, other terms may garner further sources). Google Scholar has dozens more. This has been widely studied and written about, but the newer political term (as well as decreasing usage) makes it harder to find the sources. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Editors may wish to note the WP:POINT-y Bubulina8888 (talk · contribs) contribution history. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I started looking at those results at Google Scholar and Google Books and found maybe one book on older gay men that on its face would likely give substantial treatment of the subject (Reeling in the Years: Gay Men's Perspectives on Age and Ageism by Tim Bergling). I haven't seen evidence that there's more out there, and there needs to be. Noroton 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, so you're saying there's one major primary source in addition to all the supporting sources. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I said "maybe" and invited further efforts that could change my mind. You bring up a point I mentioned in a deletion discussion about a school in a case where there was an online source anybody could read to see that the subject was covered in depth, along with many minor sources that I thought added up to notability. We don't have that here. We don't even know if the minor sources just use the term. I welcome good-faith efforts to reach a consensus here. Noroton 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, so you're saying there's one major primary source in addition to all the supporting sources. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I see no strong reason to delete it. If it's unsourced, it needs sources, if it doesn't seem it can get bigger -- that could very well be because you aren't interested in the topic. Furthermore, I also noticed that you previously tried to delete Gay_(disambiguation) and Lesbian_(disambiguation), leading me to wonder if the reason you didn't cite a policy reason for deletion is because the real reason of this nomination is to raise a soapbox issue. Spazure 08:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've no views on this one, but as Dhartung says, Bubulina has been told off about this trying to delete gay stuff before.Merkinsmum 10:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a dictionary definition as it stands. While I find the nominator's actions regarding gay-related articles questionable, even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn and in this instance the article as it stands is not Wikipedia material. If it's substantially improved before the close of the AFD with sourcing and context then I can be persuaded to change my opinion. Otto4711 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There is a link to imdb. I put it there. Tony 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Tony
- IMDB is not a reliable source. Otto4711 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Who says so? That's ridiculous. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples says so, in regards to much of the material posted to IMDB. Much of its content is user-submitted and its editorial oversight is not strong. Regardless, since this is an article about the term and not the film I'm at a loss as to how IMDB is supposed to serve as a source for the article. Otto4711 15:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please at least read what you are pointing me toward and telling me to read. It says: "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. One exception being that film credits on IMDb, which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable." My emphasis added. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, I did read it, even the big boldy-type letters. I stand by my paraphrase of it. And it still is not a reasonable source, reliable or otherwise, for this article. Yes, the movie exists. The article isn't about the movie. Otto4711 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge contents appropriately Taprobanus 14:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Merge to what? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep its a stub. We let stubs grow. SchmuckyTheCat
Delete The page doesn't seem appropriate to an encyclopedia even if expanded. If someone wants to know a definition of a slang term they can buy a slang dictionary. NobutoraTakeda 16:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [49]- Keep. "Chickenhawk" is very old (Victorian at least - it's used frequently in the Victorian novel/book My Secret Life) slang, but I'm concerned that this AfD is being brought as some kind of WP:POINT, one way or the other. --Charlene 16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This is about as far from being a neologism as you can get, and is a properly sourced article with much room for encyclopedic expansion. Old and strongly entrenched sexual terminology isn't a "real subject for Wikipedia"? Sounds like either I don't like it or "it's foreign to me". VanTucky (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the term was as important as you make it out to be, then it would be listed on another page which deals with the topic it is slang for and wouldn't need its own page. NobutoraTakeda 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- First off, it's an article, not a "page". Second, your argument makes no sense. It would not have it's own article if it was a notable term? Generally something is considered more notable and worthy of encyclopedic treatment when it has a separate article from its parent topic. In this case, neither homosexuality nor pedophilia are appropriate merge options, as the the term is very expansive and can mean a variety of individuals and behaviors. I have to say that many of those in favor of deletion seem to be completely ignorant of the term's notability and frequency of usage in the gay community. Just because a term isn't frequently used in your culture, doesn't mean it's an obscure slang term. VanTucky (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, my argument makes no sense? You just said that its notable because it has an article. I don't see any real proof that the term is legitimate or used by any real source of information. If it can't fit into another page then it should just be outright deleted. NobutoraTakeda 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say having an article makes it notable. I said that your idea that it should "be listed on another page which deals with the topic it is slang for and wouldn't need its own page" is wrong. It's notable because of the citations to independent sources. VanTucky (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Chicken hawk is slang. If it cannot be mentioned on the pages dealing with what it is slang for, then it deserves no mention at all. NobutoraTakeda 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say having an article makes it notable. I said that your idea that it should "be listed on another page which deals with the topic it is slang for and wouldn't need its own page" is wrong. It's notable because of the citations to independent sources. VanTucky (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, my argument makes no sense? You just said that its notable because it has an article. I don't see any real proof that the term is legitimate or used by any real source of information. If it can't fit into another page then it should just be outright deleted. NobutoraTakeda 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- First off, it's an article, not a "page". Second, your argument makes no sense. It would not have it's own article if it was a notable term? Generally something is considered more notable and worthy of encyclopedic treatment when it has a separate article from its parent topic. In this case, neither homosexuality nor pedophilia are appropriate merge options, as the the term is very expansive and can mean a variety of individuals and behaviors. I have to say that many of those in favor of deletion seem to be completely ignorant of the term's notability and frequency of usage in the gay community. Just because a term isn't frequently used in your culture, doesn't mean it's an obscure slang term. VanTucky (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the term was as important as you make it out to be, then it would be listed on another page which deals with the topic it is slang for and wouldn't need its own page. NobutoraTakeda 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's an interesting opinion, but do you have a policy or guideline that says this? --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Its common sense and it deals with notability. A slang word is inherently only notable as the word it is slang for, unless its a racial slur or equally notable words. Chickenhawk does not fit said definition. NobutoraTakeda 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's an interesting opinion, but do you have a policy or guideline that says this? --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO - "a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". The mentions in the 2 articles are trivial and I'm removing the urbandictionary.com citation. Corpx 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)- Delete as a dictionary definition. Belongs in Wiktionary. Edison 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as nontrivial sexual terminology. Article cites sources. Chubbles 22:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I added one academic paper referring to it, and an academic discussion. DGG (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I searched the academic discussion and found nothing in it but a sentence or two that simply defined "chicken" and "chicken hawk" in this context. The academic article (behind a subscription wall) looks promising. Thanks for the tiny step forward. You changed my vote to "weak keep". Noroton 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Chubbles. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep to see where this article heads. It's only a stub and I have no objections to its current form. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep and expand. This is a bad faith nomination. If it doesn't expand to a good article in a proper amount of time, we should renominate it. CaveatLectorTalk 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this is slang for an area of gay sexuality that is socially uncomfortable for people to talk about within gay culture which is also stigmatized let alone researched. Most of the gay slang articles are routinely vandalized and I see this as either an extension of homophobia by trying to defeat this culture from being represented on WP or the lack of empathy for gay culture or both. Benjiboi 05:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thats a lovely bit of OR that you just produced. Any verifiable information to back up your claims? NobutoraTakeda 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware I would need to back up my vote with references. Can we agree that sex in general is a subject that is considered somewhat taboo and gay sex is probably more so and that intergenerational gay sex just a bit more taboo than both? Benjiboi 07:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep – It's a stub which looks just fine to me, other than the end seeming a bit defensive. When it's currently being considered for AfD, however, I would be too were I the article's authors. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —— Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems to pass our sourcing policies, it is an encyclopedic subject, and stubbiness is not a ground for deletion. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. In its current for the article seems well-sourced, and the term itself is well-known and notable (much more so than a lot of others I've seen). TAnthony 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Well sourced, well-known, worthy of encyclopedic coverage, etc. Burntsauce 17:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Hmm...interesting. I've never seen an article about a high school that doesn't exist yet. Sr13 03:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Janet Reno High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The school doesn't yet exist (WP:CRYSTAL) and no claim for notability is made (WP:NOTE). --Cerejota 01:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This article has no reason for existance. It is only notable to people in N. Miami.SpecialAgentUncleTito 01:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per CRYSTAL policy. It's hard enough to sell notability of schools that exist... Shalom Hello 01:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, perhaps the fact it will be located on a former superfund site is notable. Pats Sox Princess 02:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteThis subject appears non-notable. --Stormbay 02:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Why didn't the nominator notify the article's creator on that editor's talk page that there's an AfD? It's a basic, decent, civil thing to do. Noroton 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:AFD, "How to list articles for deletion" section: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Noroton 03:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- As your quoted text indicates, the nominator has not violated any requirements, and your being upset is not germane to this discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- How would Dhartung know I was upset? And if Dhartung's concern is comments being germane, that editor's comments would have gone on my talk page. Noroton 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Antwort I appreciate your comment Dhartung. Noroton, please assume good faith this was not intentionally done. I am doing it now.--Cerejota 03:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cerejota, it wasn't your good faith I was questioning, certainly not as WP:AGF defines it. Thank you for notifying the editor. Noroton 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then why you called me indecent and uncivil?--Cerejota 07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't. Although I'm trying to look at my comments from your point of view and I can see why you might think that. I don't think you're indecent or uncivil, and your promptly notifying the creator of the article was proof of that. I'm sorry my comments came out so harshly.Noroton 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then why you called me indecent and uncivil?--Cerejota 07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cerejota, it wasn't your good faith I was questioning, certainly not as WP:AGF defines it. Thank you for notifying the editor. Noroton 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- As your quoted text indicates, the nominator has not violated any requirements, and your being upset is not germane to this discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep I created the article after I saw that there was an article for North Miami Senior High School and other schools in the district, Janet Reno High School is part of the same school district, so it seemed like it was a reasonable addition to Wikipedia. Also notable that it is being built on a superfund site that has not yet been cleaned. While I also don't want to see wikipedia filled with useless trivia, I think any public school history/info is well suited to this centralized user-driven encyclopedia, it is the kind of subject that will over time may have a lot of contributions from people with interesting knowledge and interest in their schools. --RandomStuff 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep(see "Changed Vote" below) per WP:CRYSTAL: event is "notable and almost certain to take place" since building the schools was a goal of the municipal government and approval has been given by the city council, the mayor, the school district and the federal EPA says the land is OK for use. "Oct. 1--City approves new schools plan / After arguments that threatened to derail the plan, the North Miami City Council unanimously approved last week to trade city land for new schools. [...] All the schools will be built by the county school board. Previously, the plan was for developers of Biscayne Landing to build the high schools under city supervision, then turn them over to the school board. The new North Miami Senior High School would have 3,660 students, while the smaller Janet Reno High School would have 1,560." [[55]
- Apparently the land is owned by the city, with the developer leasing it, and building the school is a requirement the city placed on the developer. Actually, the city government has decided to take over building it, so I assume the developer is only paying for it. Even as a proposal, the thing seems to be noteworthy. Oh, and the school district is on board as well:
- "Turnkey construction by the City of North Miami of a second new 1,560-seat high school on City-owned land under a long-term lease agreement with the City with a projected opening in 2008. [...] The school will be near Biscayne Landing, a new development [...]"[56]
- Here's a caveat though: So far, only 91 units for the Biscayne Landing development have been sold. This article [57] mentions that sales may be going a bit slowly. I don't know how that affects the prospects for the school. This article indicates the city government will bend over backwards for them: [58] This one indicates the county won't: [59] Perhaps if the developer folds the money won't be there to build Janet Reno High, but I'm speculating. Prospects seem very good, but it seems to me it's a judgment call as to whether it's "almost certain". Noroton 06:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Kommentar - WP:CRYSTAL doesn't support the inclusion of this school at this stage as a separate article: it is not "notable and almost certain to take place", because not even the ground work has been laid. When and if the building starts, then we might include it if notable. WP:CRYSTAL's spirit and intention is that inaccurate content doesn't fall through the cracks, what if the school name changes? what if the location changes? what if it doesn't get built?. If there is notability around the Biscayne Landing (a focus of COI edits, which is how I go wind of this school article), then it belongs in Biscayne Landing, not on its own. WP:CRYSTAL is crystal clear.--Cerejota 06:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Construction itself isn't the standard -- "notable and almost certain to take place" is.Noroton 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Changed vote: Merge to Biscayne Landing (Delete) We don't have enough information on how this is supposed to be paid for if the sales at Biscayne Landing don't go through. Until we do, or until we have some other reason that it is "almost certain to take place" we should hold off on an article. It's possible that the high school project could snag on some planning board approval. I think there's certaily enough information the article linked to and that I linked to above to make the Biscayne Landing project notable whether it succeeds or sinks into the muck, and this would be a worthy and necessary section of it. Noroton 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Kommentar - WP:CRYSTAL doesn't support the inclusion of this school at this stage as a separate article: it is not "notable and almost certain to take place", because not even the ground work has been laid. When and if the building starts, then we might include it if notable. WP:CRYSTAL's spirit and intention is that inaccurate content doesn't fall through the cracks, what if the school name changes? what if the location changes? what if it doesn't get built?. If there is notability around the Biscayne Landing (a focus of COI edits, which is how I go wind of this school article), then it belongs in Biscayne Landing, not on its own. WP:CRYSTAL is crystal clear.--Cerejota 06:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Article is new I think it deserves more than 5 days to be expanded. Plus, for the students and teachers it is summer vacation so many of those that are most knowledgable about the subject may not be around to update it. I say give it several months, well into the fall, and then reconsider the issue. Postcard Cathy 07:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You might not realize this, because of your comment, but subject of this page doesn't even exists. In other words, we cannot wait for fall so that students provide content, because there are no students, as the school hasn't even started being built. Please consider this information, because it seems you don't have it.--Cerejota 07:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion cerejota is still the same and for the same reasons. So, it won't be students and teachers but the various school district officials. See the forest through the trees or whatever that saying is. The point was the most knowledgeable people are on vacation or probably are. Those that aren't on vacation are busy preparing for school to open. Give the people time to find the article and expand it when they can. Postcard Cathy 08:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cerejota brings up a good point about conflict of interest. If Wikipedia is used to lend credence to real estate agents trying to sell homes in Biscayne Landing, then the readers aren't helped and Wikipedia is definitely hurt. If the article is deleted or redirected to the Biscayne Landing article, it can certainly be revived later.Noroton 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion cerejota is still the same and for the same reasons. So, it won't be students and teachers but the various school district officials. See the forest through the trees or whatever that saying is. The point was the most knowledgeable people are on vacation or probably are. Those that aren't on vacation are busy preparing for school to open. Give the people time to find the article and expand it when they can. Postcard Cathy 08:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Irrelevant comment - Dude, they're building this school on a landfill site ? Janet Reno would be proud. Guroadrunner 08:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All high schools are notable. Mowsbury 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, come back if it exists. >Radiant< 14:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Löschen without prejudice. A not-yet built facility could be notable if the plans and construction receive significant coverage. But the article as it stands has no reliable, independent sources verifying notability. VanTucky (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - Nothing to establish notability now Corpx 17:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Not sure it would be notable even if it were built. New England (C) (H) 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, although I have no doubt it will be nn when it actually opens its doors. Eusebeus 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Löschen--and it will be difficult for a new school to demonstrate notability, since the factors usually used are alumni and awards (athletic or academic). DGG (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it will be incredibly easy for anyone who follows the news in that area to find several newspaper articles about the official plans for the school, approval of the school by the board of education, construction of the school and opening of the school. All will be covered by independent, reliable news organizations. Noroton 05:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and footnote into Janet Reno. 70.55.88.166 04:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete self-evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs)
- Delete - schoolcruft, all of them. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete yet another entirely non-notable school. --Icarus (Hi!) 04:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to North Miami, Florida until the school actually exists. For now a redirect is sufficient. Burntsauce 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, the school doesn't even exist yet. --Android Mouse 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Sr13 03:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparent neologism. John254 02:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This article has problems both with POV and verifiability. Many people would think that this is a reference to incest. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, the one reference provided does not even put the words "family" and "porn" next to each other. --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete has POV and unrefrenced. Oysterguitarist 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do not Delete Don't delete the article! Firstly, the article actually does have references. Moreover, do to the evolutionary nature of language and the organic growth of language it is important to document so called neologisms. For example, just this year, "Crunk" was added to Webster's dictionary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amateur24 (talk • contribs).
- — Amateur24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, its not notable, and supposedly created by another non notable adult entertainment company called Naughty America. The article is kind of funny to read thru though. T Rex | talk 08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Irrelevant comment - LMAO! Guroadrunner 09:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no pictures (also there appear to be some questions about whether the term is legitimate). Cedars 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a joke, as the article admits itself - an "apocryphal expression".--Targeman 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT --Malcolmxl5 13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a neologism. VanTucky (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete neologism and unattributed. Carlosguitar 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia's policy on neologisms, and the lack of attribution. Appears to be entirely original research, so can't be accepted here. Not notable anyway. Not verifiable, and although there are ghits for it, they're not exactly reliable sources. So this article can't stay here unless it meets these three criteria, which it fails entirely, so no reason for this content to stay. --SunStar Net talk 21:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment "...and our act is called the aristocrats." 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete I am actually quite shocked that this article is being flagged for deletion. The term family porn has come to be a very well known term in the Calgary Adult Entertainment Scene, and is not Wikipedia the garden where non-mainstream ideas, unattributed cultural movements,ever changing nomenclature are cultivated and exposed. is it not where the unverifiable become verified. Let us not forget that a little known term such as "Donkey Punch" was no more or less a Neologism and Unattributed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.104.33 (talk • contribs).
- — 68.144.104.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do not Delete The article is well-written, it has references and is interesting. No doubt if there are articles on "Donkey Punch", "Facial" (sexual act) this article is just as worthy. Moreover, the article is concise and fun to read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.73.70.240 (talk • contribs).
- — 70.73.70.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do not Delete The article has ample references and opens the doors to further discussion. It is no ones place to decide whether or not any particular topic is "relevant.". Keep the article! Amateur24 11:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The author of this article seems to like the word "apocryphal" but doesn't know its meaning. I've just removed it from Donkey punch, but only because the article had survived an AfD. "Apocryphal" means "of dubious veracity; of questionable accuracy or truthfulness; of doubtful authenticity; in the nature of an urban legend" ([60]); probably not what you wanted to say! And no, Wikipedia is not meant to promote, expose, or cultivate anything (What Wikipedia is not). The sexual slang of the "Calgary Adult Entertainment Scene" does not belong here unless it becomes mainstream; and Wikipedia cannot be used as a means to help it become mainstream. --Targeman 11:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Every "Do not delete" comment has been added by the author of the article. The quantity of "Do not delete" comments does not reflect consensus. BassoProfundo 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've used the {{unsigned}} and {{spa}} tags as appropriate. Normally that's all you should need to do to flag these. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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.