Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid

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. This debate has raised some very interesting points, all of which are valid. Essentially, it comes down to whether or not this article constitutes original research and a particular point of view, both of which are policies which we hold in the highest regard, and that we always fall back to, when dealing with articles that may or may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Reading this discussion has lead me to believe consensus agrees that the article in and of itself is not neutral and thus should be removed from Wikipedia. However, there has been mention that this article contains valuable information that could be used elsewhere (primarily, Hukou). Thus, I am closing this debate as delete, but I will restore to user space on request, so relevant information can be merged if need be. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. I realize that this is one of those AfDs that will undoubtedly be sent to DRV within the hour, no matter which way it is closed. Furthermore, despite the incivil tone by both sides throughout this discussion, there have been a number of good points brought up by the two sides.

I would like to address comments related to specific editors first. The accusation has been brought forth by multiple editors of a POV on behalf of contributors from WikiProject Israel, stating that their creation of this article is an WP:POINT disruption. This is not relevant. This is a debate about the article, not the editors. Furthermore, as Jayjg has stated, WP:POINT is not a basis for deletion, as it relates to user behavior. As such, if you wish to take action against said editors, an RfC is a more appropriate outlet, since AfD can't block, reprimand or ban.

Now, the actual article. It is true, as many editors have pointed out, that it is well-sourced and well-written. However, this does not automatically excuse an article; WP:SYNTH's existence logically infers that even the best of articles can advance a viewpoint. The NPOV/POV of this article is what is at the heart of the matter, but even so, few arguments have been made that can effectively dispute the synthesis. This leads me to the technical aspects. Sure, as I've said, it's well-sourced and well-written, but this article is not well planned. There is little to no cohesion between the subjects discussed in the article. There is no flow between the sections. In other words, there's a lack of the big picture. As such, the concerns about WP:SYNTH are vaild.

But is this even the best way to present this information? With the synthesis established, it would make more sense to merge the information to the relevant articles. Lothair of the Hill People's assessment of where to merge the material is accurate; the main article for hukou is a far better place for that heading's information. The other appropriate information should be merged to Human rights in China, Allegations of apartheid and Tibet Autonomous Region.

Therefore, Merge and delete. (Note: ^demon beat me in an edit conflict, hence my endorsement) Hemlock Martinis 19:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Chinese apartheid

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This issue has been brought before ArbCom. --Ideogram 04:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like the arbcom request will be rejected, however, please see:

Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid for a discussion on how to deal with this and other similar articles. <<-armon->> 01:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read this and this you will see that we already know how to deal with this and similar articles, but Israel-focused editors refuse to accept it because it would result in the Israeli article being kept and the rest deleted. Ask them point-blank if they are willing to accept such a result. --Ideogram 01:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify Armon's suggestion above, the "centralized discussion" provides a bartering forum wherein the creators and defenders of this article as an example of "Wikipedia's best work" offer to delete it and four other bargaining chips they've created in exchange for the deep-sixing of an article they'd tried and failed to delete through ordinary means.--G-Dett 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Allegations of Chinese apartheid 1.1 Allegations of Chinese apartheid 1.1.1 Arbitrary break 1 1.1.2 Arbitrary break 2 1.1.3 Arbitrary break 2 and One Half 1.1.4 Arbitrary break 3

[edit] Allegations of Chinese apartheid

Allegations of Chinese apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Perhaps the worst of a now-infamous and metastasizing series of original-research WP:POINT essays. It slaloms around clumsily between five unrelated issues – migrant workers, the Tibetan occupation, African and Taiwanese populations within China, religious minorities within China, and civil liberties more generally among the Chinese. Why this particular grab-bag of disparate topics? Because, using the latest in data-mining technology, a Wikipedian discovered that a certain class of verbal act – an “allegation of apartheid,” if you will, meaning a sentence with the word “apartheid” in it – could be find in one, two, sometimes three (and in one case six!) primary-source documents within each of the five topics above. There are no secondary sources at all; no one discussing these primary-source “allegations”; no sources even calling them “allegations,” in fact, since this particular species of verbal act was discovered, described, and classified by Wikipedians; no sources linking these diverse topics in this or any other way. Different writers writing about different things, with no thought to one another or to the hobby-horses of future Wikipedians, used the word “apartheid”; that is all.

Remember the old Far Side cartoon [“What We Say to Dogs”/”What They Hear”]? That's what we're dealing with. “What Various Sources Say about Various Unrelated Issues in China”/”What Users X and Y Hear.”

blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah...

Each block quote houses one iteration of the word “apartheid.” The blah-blah-blah portions between the block quotes consist of pure original research:

1. "According to Anita Chan and Robert A. Senser, writing in Foreign Affairs, 'China's apartheid-like household registration system, introduced in the 1950s, still divides the population into two distinct groups, urban and rural'."
   The Foreign Affairs article in fact never mentions apartheid.
2. "The analogies to South African apartheid go even further."
   Wikipedian's thesis.
3. "A report by the Heritage Foundation discussed some of the reasons for the use of this term."
   No it doesn't. It just mentions some depressing facts about the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and later on uses the word apartheid.
4. "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."
   Tutu told his host, the Dali Lama, that he and his people were on "the winning side."
5. "These tensions have spilled over into the tourist industry."
   Wikipedian's thesis.

The article ends on a wonderfully ludicrous note. We are told that our own Jimbo Wales "compared China's restrictions on internet usage and free speech to South African apartheid." But here we are offered no block quote to go with our blah-blah, nor even given the rhetorical details of the comparison. Why? Because the AP reporter we've relied on for this gem didn't find it notable enough to report. So in the absence of our master's voice saying "apartheid, apartheid," we console ourselves with what appears to be his driver's-licence photo.

Delete this dreck.

WP:N and WP:NOR require secondary sources for a reason – to prevent hobby-horse essay-articles about issues not recognized as issues anywhere in the actual world. G-Dett 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Two more objections - the article doesn't address whether China is/could be guilty of the crime of apartheid. (If we're going to use legal or semi-legal terms, lets be precise, keep our eye on the ball). And badly referenced, the first link goes to The Economist, no mention of apartheid or even of China! PalestineRemembered 07:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense. The first link references an article from The Economist, which does indeed compare the Chinese hukou system to apartheid. These kinds of fact-free claims are rather depressing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, point-pushing original research surrounding a forced neologism. --Eyrian 01:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. This is trying to solve an editing dispute by AfD. Article has quality issues, but it is well sourced and notable (I mean, it quotes Jimbo Wales, fer god's sake...). Quality issues should be resolved by other means, not AfDs. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Cerejota. Please note that IDONTLIKEIT isn't the objection; violation of WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT, and total lack of secondary sources establishing the topic qua topic, is the objection. And no, it doesn't quote Jimbo Wales, fer G-d's sake. Because there is no Wales quote on record, because the AP reporter didn't report it, because he didn't find it notable, because this is not a topic.--G-Dett 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It quotes Jimbo Wales.--Urthogie 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not on the topic of the article.--G-Dett 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he says apartheid in reference to China if you read the article.--Urthogie 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Urthogie, he says something the reporter never bothered to transcribe, but summarized as a comparison to apartheid. You added the unrelated quote about how China has "damaged the brand image of 'Don't be evil,'" for filler.--G-Dett 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Cerejota. G-Dett's valid complaints can be addressed by editing the article, something G-Dett has refused to do.--Urthogie 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As clarified below, improving the article doesn't work when the concept is flawed at its most basic level. This article is either 1.) an entirely original synthesis discussion of "allegations" that no other reliable secondary source has discussed as such, or 2.) a POV fork of substantive issues in China, which curtails any neutral or encyclopedic discussion by limiting it solely to those who use the word "apartheid" (while simultaneously combining several issues that no reliable sources has combined). If the article is about something else, this hasn't been explained, which is what makes it unclear how the article can be brought in compliance with these policies. Mackan79 13:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Allegations of [controversial entity] [universally abhorred phenomenon] tend to be a random collection of quotes from political activists, and this is no exception. In the unlikely event that someone does serious academic work comparing the two systems, we could possibly write a decent article, but until then this article can be nothing other than utter crap. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. These WP:POINT violations getting sillier with each day. (Incidentally, would anyone care to place bets now on the number of participants to this discussion with a background in Chinese issues, in relation to the number with a background in Middle East issues?) CJCurrie 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ReplyI am saddened by your narrow and incurious demeanor, and hope this is just a quick jab in the heat of debate... Knowledge should look outward, not inward. I have said it before this is why I defend the Allegations of apartheid articles: I have learned a lot more than if we focused on the middle-east alone. And I am a wikipedia because I want to learn.Thanks!--Cerejota 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not about suppression of information, it's about editors forcing the facts to comply with a term they've largely synthesized in order to balance a perceived injustice. What have you learned that couldn't be found in discrimination in China or racism in China? --Eyrian 02:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Red links weaken your argument.--Urthogie 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They indicate directions that this material could move if it wasn't being shoehorned into the apartheid label to fit the designs of tendentious editors. --Eyrian 02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Predictable reply. This page exists to discuss rhetoric, not actual segregation.--Urthogie 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary condescension. How many people need to scream it to create Allegations of alien influence in the UN? --Eyrian 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the centralized discussion, where the point has been raised that allegations articles should maybe not exist. Singling out China's article for deletion is not in following with NPOV. Comprehensive solution is needed.--Urthogie 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not happening. I've watched it from afar, and I know a train wreck when I see it. As in the real world, this conflict is bitterly divided, ruled by emotion, and will ultimately go nowhere. I believe that articles need to stand on their own. That is enough. --Eyrian 02:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This, like the others, is an OR essay with no encyclopedic value, created in obvious response to the Israeli apartheid article, by the same group of editors who created all the others. This needs to stop.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • CommentCare to show me exactly what are unsourced (thus OR?). Please back up your claims with proper facts. Please also feel free to show me how there can be over 20 reference and 25 notes with every claim backed with a citation be called OR ? I find it hard to understand this concept. Thanks Watchdogb 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I admit that I'm tired of articles that are entitled "Allegations of ______ese apartheid", but if they're sourced, then they should stay. The idea that this is "dreck" to be deleted is an extreme solution. If it's dreck, then edit it, dispute it in the discussion, etc. Apartheid is a dumb title to use because (a) it's as unique to South Africa, as "Jim Crow" is to the USA; (b) apartheid and Jim Crow referred to laws on the books directing segregation, not policies that had that effect; and, last and least, (c) hard to spell, hard to pronounce, and as loaded a term as can be. Mandsford 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I completely agree with your views, without reservations. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Hi Mandsford, the point is it's not sourced to any secondary sources, as required by WP:N and WP:NOR to establish notability. The article is "about rhetoric," as Urthogie says above, but not one source here discusses rhetoric. That is Urthogie's thesis, which he advances through a constellation of primary sources. Hope this clarifies.--G-Dett 02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Properly sourced, notable, and entirely consistent with the other articles in the "series". I agree with Mandsford, however WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion, and this nom itself appears to be the violation of WP:POINT. <<-armon->> 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Correction Not IDONTLIKEIT, as you must have noticed, but WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT, per above.--G-Dett 02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • True, but has it does easily meet WP:N and it's clearly not OR, they were obviously just a pretext for IDONTLIKEIT. That's how it looks anyway. <<-armon->> 02:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, of course. Well sourced, well written, relevant information, presented in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. The practices of both China's hukou system and that of China in Tibet have well-documented parallels with the situation in apartheid South Africa, and I'm surprised that User:G-Dett dismisses the Dalai Lama's and Desmond Tutu's views on this so cavalierly, considering how strongly she has supported Desmond Tutu's similar statements on other very similar articles. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deleting an article, nor are various nonsensical claims about "primary" and "secondary" sources: Of course primary and secondary sources do exist, and are different, but the argument used regarding them in these articles is spurious. These constant AfDs are quite disruptive; what percentage of other Wikipedia articles do people imagine have even 10 sources, much less 37 citations sourced to 25 different sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • Jay manufactures baloney faster than any mere mortal can eat or otherwise dispose of it, but here goes. This article has no sources, as in zero sources, discussing its topic, "allegations of Chinese apartheid." "Well-documented parallels" are a red herring; what we need, in an article on allegations of Chinese apartheid, is well-documented allegations of Chinese apartheid. Again, zilch, zero, nada. I haven't dismissed and wouldn't dismiss Tutu's views; I dismiss Jay's willful and repeated manipulation and distortion of same. No IDONTLIKEIT arguments have been introduced, only notability and original-research problems and WP:POINT-violations Jay is unable to address and so hopes to distract editors from. The distinction between primary sources and secondary ones is central to both WP:N and WP:NOR, and was well understood by Jay himself as recently as May 1; that he affects now not to understand it is as predictable as it is trivial. AfD's aren't disruptive; the ceaseless production of hoax-articles like this one, for the purposes of leveraging deletion of an article one doesn't like, is disruptive.--G-Dett 04:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • G-Dett, I know I ask you this at least three times a day, but here goes another fruitless try; could you please comment solely on article content and policy, rather than lacing your remarks with multiple derogatory personal attacks? It really detracts from the discussion when you do this. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, and not that it matters, but I'm a she, as Jay knows as well as everything else he misrepresented in that last post.--G-Dett 04:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I've modified my comment to refer to you as a "she". Now, could you possibly stop making uncivil attacks on other editors in almost every single comment you make? I think it would really help the tenor of this discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The hukou system does use a pass system, but that's the only real parallel. Chinese actions in Tibet are deplorable, but are being carried out in a completely different manner than oppression and control of nonwhites in apartheid-era South Africa. The term apartheid as used in this context is simply a term of opprobrium, not a serious comparison. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  It goes much farther than just the pass system, as the article brings out. The exploitation of cheap labor, forced to live in dormitories in places where they are not allowed to be real "residents", the raids and expulsions, etc. are all strikingly similar to the South African situation. As for Tibet, there's a good quote in the article outlining all sorts of parallels. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Those are all extremely shallow or apply to many exploitative systems other than apartheid: the American treatment of the native population, the Normans in 11th and 12th Century England, the Japanese in Korea, the English in Scotland, the English in Ireland, the English in India, ... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Apartheid was a specific legal and political structure. Its overuse to make facile analogies clouds its meaning. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Well, you might not agree that the analogy is a good one, but that's not particularly relevant in the context of this AfD. The fact is that multiple reliable sources have explicitly made these allegations/analogies, comparing Chinese practices directly to those of Apartheid South Africa. By the way, there's a more detailed article about this here, making very specific comparisons (and also stating where they break down). I'll have to incorporate it into the article as well, as there's lots of good stuff there, but haven't had the time yet. In any event, if you are making the larger point that "apartheid" outside South Africa is really just an epithet, and shouldn't be used as a topic/title for encyclopedic articles, then I hear you, but then you're going to have to look at a systemic solution, not just this article in isolation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The author of the paper you link to makes clear that he does not equate the two systems (I doubt any serious scholar would), but is using a comparison as a device to explain the Chinese system to his readers. Thus, saying that the paper is advancing an allegation of apartheid in China does not seem accurate. I'm opposed to most "Allegations/Criticism of" articles as irredeemable POV problems and would be receptive to a systemic solution that would discourage them. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think I agree with you; in my view, the author sees similarities and differences between the two systems, but insists the similarities are quite real. Regarding systemic solutions, here's a page built for discussing exactly that: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. However, it's only fair to warn you that the rhetoric often gets quite personal, and some editors are mightily resisting any sort of systemic solutions or compromises. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Right, but the article isn't Similarities and differences between the apartheid and hukou, it's Allegations of Chinese apartheid and the author never alleges that China practices apartheid and says that he's comparing the two (quoting from memory) "not because the analogy is perfect but because it is revealing." You could compare any two legal and political systems and find similarities and differences. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  Just to translate for those who might be getting lost in this discussion of "systemic solutions" and "centralized discussions." Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which superficially resembles this and the other "allegations of apartheid" articles, has survived six AfD's. The reason is simple: the article has 115+ sources, and most of them are secondary sources discussing the allegations themselves and hence establishing that topic's notability. This article and its sister articles (all written by opponents of the Israel article), by contrast, have zero secondary sources and provide no evidence of notability. At any rate, editors who oppose the Israel article on ideological or nationalist grounds have despaired of trying to have it deleted in the proper fashion, and came up with the brainstorm of creating seven or eight very badly sourced articles built around data-mining (of which the China article is a good example), and making them superficially resemble the Israel article so that they could be presented as a "family" of articles, the fate of which they could then insist be decided together. The idea was that while it's difficult to sink a sturdily built ship (the Israel article), if you chain it to a chunk of worthless concrete eight times its size it will sink. This article is part of that chunk of concrete. This is what the editor above means by the euphemism "systemic solution"; he means chaining the fate of a well-sourced article to that of unsourced or poorly sourced and eminently sink-worthy articles engineered to superficially resemble it. Those who think the articles should be evaluated for their compliance with Wikipedia policy on a case by case basis he says are "resisting any sort of systemic solutions or compromises." Hope this helps.--G-Dett 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Please don't "translate" for me, especially when your "translations" have little to do with my comments, but instead are just another re-iteration of POV and inaccurate arguments you've made many times before. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  Believe me, I'm well aware of the history here. Overall, I agree with the point that Jayjg is making: the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article is horrible. Its only distinction from the other articles is that it also quotes people who have either repeated or disagreed with the term. No serious scholar has alleged the two systems are the same and if you're apprised of the basic facts any equation of the two breaks down pretty fast. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Chinese regime has been brutal,Tibetians,Chinese with different political views in particular pro democracy students etc have been targeted there has been specific targeting of certain sections of the society based on there views. 193.61.107.151 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mandsford. The article is an eye-opener and certainly not "dreck." If it has shortcomings, edit it. If apartheid doesn't fit China, than it does not fit any other non-South African article.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  then it does not fit any other non-South African article. Bingo. The existence of one ridiculous article does not mean that numerous other silly articles need to be created. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Nothing silly about this article. It is well-researched and quite an asset to the project. It seems to be opposed for reasons unrelated to its merits.--Mantanmoreland 13:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The only sense in which the article is "well-researched" is that the authors have managed to find some quotes making analogies between various Chinese practices and apartheid. You could write a similar article called Allegations that George W. Bush is a Nazi. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, how many times do we have to go over this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, It seems to be sourced an does not seem to have the problems suggested by the nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayig's comments above. I found this article realy interesting. The nomination to delete seems like it may be politically motivated. Bigglove 03:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If it's a loaded name, and each of the sections are talking about different phenomena discussed in other articles, and no sources tie these things together, I don't understand why this article exists or how it should be improved. Per WP:NPOV#POV_forks, "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." Is there an argument for why these issues should all be discussed in this article under the name "Allegations of Chinese Apartheid"? Is this the best way to cover these issues in an encyclopedic way? The answer to each seems quite clearly "no." It is in fact entirely original synthesis, tied together under a title that stunts any discussion of the entirely distinct issues discussed in the article, which would be excluded since 99.9% of commentators are not going to discuss these issues in terms of apartheid. That is not improvable, which is why the article should be deleted. Mackan79 04:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you're making these claims; the topic of the article is allegations of apartheid in China, and this article discusses exactly that, and allows for all views on the subject. True, there are other good sources that could be incorporated into the article to round it out; I have two in particular that are thoughtful and extensive, and others exist. However, that kind of work takes a great deal of time. I do plan to get to it, though, and deleting an article because it's not yet complete does not make sense to me. Regarding "the best way to cover these issues in an encyclopedic way", it seems that this argument would apply to all of the "Allegations of apartheid" articles - and indeed, many have said just that. However, others have insisted that this does not apply to one specific article in the series, using various arguments I personally find quite dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There are related problems. 1.) If this article is merely about the "allegations" of apartheid -- that is, about the allegations and their significance as such -- then the topic is clearly not notable, as nobody has discussed these allegations. These are entirely primary sources, meaning editors have data mined the internet for a phrase, and then synthesized an article about its use. This is, per the nom, original research until you find somebody who actually discusses the allegation as such. 2.) There is however some confusion, as some people seem to think the article is valid as a discussion of the underlying issues themselves. That is, not as a topic discussing the significance of the allegations, but as an article on apartheid conditions in China. In this sense, the problem is not notability, since the sources do discuss these conditions in China as secondary sources, specifically by referring to the conditions as "apartheid." It is thus the problem with this notion that I also want to point out, which is not notability but that it violates WP:NPOV#POV_forks in limiting a substantive discussion solely to "allegations of apartheid." In terms of other articles, I wish this did not keep being raised, but I think you know that the analysis is different. In some countries, the allegations are indeed highly notable as such, and discussed extensively by secondary sources who talk about the allegations, which means the topic passes under point one. I didn't choose this, but it is the reality of the situation that we have. In no country is "Allegations of Apartheid" a neutral discussion of the underlying issues, as all have agreed for some time. Mackan79 04:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Human Rights in China. "Chinese apartheid" is an obscure term. There are only around 200 hits on google proper and one hit on google scholar. The second reference is on the hukou system and it says it's been called "Chinese apartheid" or a "Chinese caste system" so there's no reason to think "Chinese apartheid" is a definitive term. Merge the information on houku to hukou with links from Allegations of apartheid and caste. As for the material on Tibet, 1) Desmond Tutu does NOT compare the situation of Tibetans under Chinese rules to the apartheid system in South Africa. What he does is compare the struggle to overthrow the apartheid dictatorship with the struggle to free Tibet from China - two very different ideas. He could just as well have been talking about any struggle against a dictatorship - it certainly doesn't mean he was comparing social, political or legal systems. The other references to Tibet are fleeting and not very deep. I can find no books or scholarly articles that make a detailed comparison between Tibet and Apartheid South Africa. Move the quotations to Tibet Autonomous Region and/or Allegations of apartheid. Move the other references as well since they also are rather fleeting. Until and unless there is some more serious scholarship on "Chinese apartheid" this article does not belong here. Lothar of the Hill People 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per what I said a few minutes ago on the AfD about Saudi Arabia, and per the comments here by Mantanmoreland, Urthogie and Jayjg. 6SJ7 05:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment On the last DRV (U.S. apartheid, I think) I noted that the word apartheid itself is POV and divisive and these articles, which discuss allegations from reliable sources, often fail to have sources which actually use the word "apartheid". (If they did they would be much shorter.) I do not believe that this word is helping the case of any of htese articles to appear as anything but attack pages. The first page to come up with a viable alternative gets a cookie. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there are serious problems with this article, as tabulated by G-Dett (I've added two more to that list above). There are no proper "allegations" as such, but if Jimbo had made them (except he didn't) it would be notable. However, I found the subject "valuable", the article readable and the topic acceptably encyclopaedic. PalestineRemembered 07:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - despite my enjoyment of this particular article, I've discovered that all of the "Allegations of apartheid" articles (other than those for Israel and perhaps Cuba) were apparently created very recently in a collaborative effort to do? what? be attack articles? I don't think these are allegations atall, except as neologisms on these very pages. PalestineRemembered 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per above. PalestineRemembered 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The content of the article is sourced, but the fact that those sources are slapped together to try to create this article is definitely WP:Original research and a violation of WP:Point. The simple litmus test here is that while the sources talks about discrimination and uses the word "apartheid" to individually and seperately describe the situations of the Tibetans, rural workers, etc, they do not collectively refer to all these groups that the article mentions. The fact that the article tries to link these together is what makes it WP:Original research and a violation of WP:Point. The content of this article should be on articles like Human rights in the People's Republic of China and Tibet instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is sourced ad nauseam and there is no reason to delete it unless it's some policy issue to remove all allegations of apartheid articles. If it's not, there really should be an article of allegations of apartheid for every country and this will probably top the list. Amoruso 08:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a laundry list based on a keyword search. While the quotes individually are kind of interesting, lumping them together doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not Google. --Ideogram 08:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Let me expand. Articles like this can be written by a robot that searches Google for a keyword and simply lists all the quotes found. There is no secondary source writing about "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" as a unifying concept. There is no thought involved in cobbling together a list of quotes. The same process could be used to create a series of articles "Allegations of Chinese/French/American thoughtlessness" or any other pejorative term, as can be evidenced by the fact we are facing a group of people creating a whole genre of articles on "Allegations of Apartheid". --Ideogram 08:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was well known that consistency with other articles is not a valid justification for keeping an article. This is obviously a POINTy argument aimed at attacking the Israeli article. In any case, that is up to the closing admin to decide. --Ideogram 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, the American article got deleted, and the French article got kept. There is no such thing as consistency on Wikipedia. --Ideogram 10:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete:The article shows the whole problem of all the political allegation articles.
  They show two levels. Level one is the alleged fact and level two is the allegation itself. Each of these levels should be treated different.
  If the facts are notable, there should be an article about these facts themselves. In this case, there should be an article about apartheid in China, which will not happen, because there is no apartheid in China (Don´t misunderstand me, China is a repressive system, constantly violating human rights, but not every repressing political system is apartheid, a special system of racial separation. For excample the case of Tibet is no case of apartheid, because there the chinese do not try to separate the Chinese and Tibetians, far from it they try to absorb the Tibetians)
  The human right violations in China should be discribed in neutral articles of their own or added to the existing articles about human right violations. This article deals with the allegation itself. These can only reach notability, if they are more than the usual political blabla, because they cause special interrest independent of the content of the allegtion (level one). The claims of the dalai lama about apartheid in Tibet is one of many similar statements, showin no new facts and causing no reaction in addition to the other millions of statements of the dalay lama about the situation in Tibet.It´s the same about the other statements, discribed in the article. Someone made a statement and the only result was an article at wikipedia. We have an unimportant allegation about a not existing correlation. No reason to keep.--Thw1309 08:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - some of these "Allegations of Apartheid" articles are worthless, particularily the one on France. The one on Saudi is decidedly poor, proving only racism (against foreigners) and a divided society, not apartheid. However, I found this article on China interesting and significant. China may does not operate classic "racist" apartheid, but the pass-laws (according to what I've learnt here) get perilously close. PalestineRemembered 10:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You want to read about pass-laws, it belongs in Hukou. There is a bunch of other unrelated stuff in this article. --Ideogram 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Most of the repressive systems use the same methods (because they work so well) but this is not the central meaning of apartheid. Apartheid is a racist system of separtation, the result of a special historical situation and a special racist concept. The chinese system is not better but it is something else. That´s not the point. This article is not about apartheid in China. It´s about allegations of apartheid in China. --Thw1309 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about allegations of apartheid. It's a list of allegations of apartheid. It doesn't say anything sourced about the allegations. --Ideogram 11:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The same pro/con arguments should be applied across all "Allegations of apartheid" series. Consistency please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Absolutely right, but this can not mean that,because one bad article was not proposed for deletion the others should not be deleted too. Delete them all!--Thw1309 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I support your sentiment but unfortunately this is a wrong place to deal with the series. I invite you to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment On the other hand, it's also frustrating when editors continually point out differences between the various articles only for these differences to be ignored for purely WP:ALLORNOTHING arguments. Mackan79 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wrong, this is not "purely WP:ALLORNOTHING". The article Allegations of Jordanian apartheid was among those that did not hold water and was deleted. WP has a problem when certain unscrupulous editors and admins pick and choose a target to attack according to their POV. All I am asking is consistency. If an argument works in one case, it should works in others as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Humus, several articles have been deleted, but a number of editors have continued to argue that if "allegations" articles can exist, then they should all exist. See IronDuke, Jossi, Shrike and others. As far as consistency, if you think there is a difference between the Jordanian article and this, can I ask what it is? This article combines four issues that no reliable source has discussed together, and lacks any secondary sources discussing the allegations themselves. I do not see how that holds water. Mackan79 19:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The article Allegations of Jordanian apartheid was much weaker. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Note for closing admin: Please note that Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is behavioral guideline and is not a valid reason for deletion. Please see the talk page. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The title is inherently POV. There is no need to cover the underlying issues in this way, and it is invalid to do so. No article should begin with the word "Allegations" unless it is the title of a published work. Casperonline 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 1

• Strong delete It cannot be denied that the article has plenty of references (the quality of referencing is another issue altogether), but many users appear to ignore the fact that we cannot simplistically clump a whole lot of references together and conjour a wikipedia article with a thesis based on the collective information drawn from those references. This is clearly a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and is outright original research.--Huaiwei 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I beg to differ. Previously I'd thought there'd only ever been two apartheid nations (ie government issued IDs dividing people into "communities" within a single non-occupied nation). These series of articles have nuanced my understanding a great deal. And this article on China is second only to the article on Israel in providing "good" information. PalestineRemembered 10:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia Malaysia requires citizens to indicate their religion on their id cards, and a woman recently was not allowed to change her id card even though she had converted to another religion. Apartheid, like genocide, is far more common than most people realize. In fact, maybe these people would be better occupied describing all the genocides in world history, since Hitler tends to get all the credit. Oh, BEANS. And Godwin's Law. --Ideogram 10:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The ID incident is in Malaysia actually, which incidently also routinely classifies its population by race. Heck, so does Singapore, which insists that all children are to study their respective mother tongue, and public housing flats are allocated by race. God, its Apartheid in my own backyard too, so anyone keen to write Allegations of Singaporean apartheid next?--Huaiwei 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the ID issue in Malaysia is more about religion than race. Check out Status of religious freedom in Malaysia for further details. Now read that along with Ketuanan Melayu on the constitutionalised affirmative action practised in that country for decades now. The Chinese allegations would probably pale in comparison, so Allegations of Malaysian apartheid too?--Huaiwei 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If you need to know something, you should look at Wikiedia. There is an article History of South Africa in the apartheid era which says: "Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans, cognate to English apart and -hood) was a system of ethnic separation in South Africa from 1948, and was dismantled in a series of negotiations from 1990 to 1993, culminating in democratic elections in 1994.The rules of Apartheid meant that people were legally classified into a racial group — the main ones being Black, White, Coloured and Indian — and were separated from each other on the basis of the legal classification." This is apardheit and nothing else. Because this is globally detested, every political idiot claims the system, he fights, to be apartheid.--Thw1309 11:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I am fully aware that there are "sources ad nauseum" but the only purpose of the sources is to support the author's POV, which is basically WP:OR. And as Ideogram said, although both sides seem to be addressed, this is a simple compilation of quotes that makes the article seem valid. Pandacomics 11:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - ObiterDicta took the words out of my mouth. Will ^(talk) 11:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per what has been said above. The author uses selective quotes and deliberate mis-interpretation of sources to support an essentially WP:OR argument. PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Another google search for "apartheid + [country of your choice]" that seeks to create a thoroughly artificial and unencyclopedic equivalence between things as different as the hukou system, race in Brazil, sex segregation in Saudi Arabia, and the social situation in the French suburbs, in order to have bargaining chips to secure the deletion of another article--Victor falk 12:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Keep but cleanupCholga^talK! 12:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete the same ol' garbage from the same ol' article author who is engaging in frequent point-making with this synthesized original research. Tarc 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "no sources even calling them 'allegations'". Well, if that's the case, then the article should be Chinese apartheid. We're bending over backwards towards NPOV to call it Allegations of Chinese apartheid. Gzuckier 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Ironies rich and meaty. Yes, no sources calling them "allegations," no sources discussing them as allegations, no sources discussing these utterances period. Kinda what I was getting at when I said the article was unsourced and should be deleted. Now yes, if you changed the subject to Chinese apartheid, you'd take care of the serious notability and original-research violations, as well as solve the fatal sourcing issues in one fell swoop. Trouble is, that fell swoop would take you out of the furnace and into the fire, as the article would by definition become a massive, five-pronged, red-hot and radioactive POV-fork. At any rate, in their use of the word "allegations" the authors of this article are not bending over backwards to make this article comply with NPOV; they're bending over backwards to make the article (and its bastard brother articles) superficially resemble the Israel one (with parallel structure, stock phrases, etc.) so that the collective deadweight of the former may help to sink the latter. It's deletion by other means, as anyone who's read their euphemistic ultimatums and endless strawman arguments about "consistency" can see. The question for Wikipedians in general is whether we want to keep bending over frontwards in submission to these serial WP:POINT-violations, or are ready to confront the aggressive disruption and put an end to it.--G-Dett 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

“Bending over frontwards?” My my. Anyway, I agree that there are problems with the allegations of apartheid articles—all of them. Any arguments about OR, POV, and notability can oh-so-easily be applied to the Israel article (and have been, many times). I liken this to the one time I ill-advisedly hit the random article button and came across some utterly non-notable middle school, or similar. I put it up for AfD, and was sternly informed that basically all schools everywhere are notable, so I should really pipe down. And… I piped down. Now, I could go back and start putting out AfD’s for all articles on middle and grammar schools that aren’t in some obvious way notable (which is virtually all of them) but what would be the point? I might win some, I might lose some, but the solution is really to take them all out at once, or leave them all in. No point in keeping Marquette Catholic School but deleting Hanshew Middle School, or viceversa. IronDuke 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, no one has ever argued that the Israel article lacks secondary sources and hence runs afoul of WP:N and WP:NOR. There is prominent, widespread discussion of and controversy about allegations of Israeli apartheid, that is, the allegations themselves. There is apparently no discussion or controversy whatsoever about allegations of Chinese apartheid. Going by the evidence of the article on the topic, the only source that's ever discussed allegations of Chinese apartheid is Wikipedia. That's a fundamental difference you can't get around through obfuscation and verbal shell-games. Incidentally, it's not particularly surprising that allegations of Chinese apartheid have never been noticed or discussed before. China is not exactly synonymous with human rights. In terms of public image, China and China's apologists have bigger things to worry about than comparisons with South Africa. It's a fundamentally different equation with a country like Israel, which is one of the reasons the comparison has become a subject unto itself in the Israeli case, but not the Chinese case.--G-Dett 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  People have said time and again that IA runs afoul of NOR (and again, in the last complete AfD, a majority of folks wanted it gone). A secondary source noting that some people have made an analogy does not make that analogy worth an encyclopedia article. Oh, if you have a sec, can you point me to what you believe are the secondary sources which discuss the controversy? I would aprpeciate it. IronDuke 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ian Buruma, "Do not treat Israel like apartheid South Africa", The Guardian, July 23, 2002; "Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week," Jerusalem Post by Jonny Paul; Heribert Adam, Kogila Moodley, Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians; Alex Safian, "Guardian Defames Israel with False Apartheid Charges," Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, February 20, 2006; Joel Pollack, "The trouble with the apartheid analogy," Business Day, 2 March 2007; "Israel Is Not An Apartheid State," Jewish Virtual Library; Benjamin Pogrund, "Apartheid? Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote"; "Carter explains 'apartheid' reference in letter to U.S. Jews," International Herald Tribune; "Archbishop Tutu, please be fair," Jerusalem Post Dec. 5, 2006; Norman Finkelstein, "The Ludicrous Attacks on Jimmy Carter's Book," CounterPunch December 28, 2006; Gerald M. Steinberg, "Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause," Jerusalem Post, August 24, 2004...How many is that and how many do you need? How about we make a deal, Ironduke. If I can produce twenty-five (25) more secondary sources on the Israel-South Africa comparison – that is, 25 more sources that discuss the allegation itself, as a notable subject – will you concede the point that this article and the Israel article are categorically different in their sourcing? That one has a rich vein of secondary sources, while the other has none, and that the difference has fundamental implications for notability? And will you then stop pegging the legitimacy of this article to the legitimacy of the Israel one? You can still vote keep on this, but you'd have to evaluate it on its own merits. Deal?--G-Dett 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• G-Dett, while I admire your intelligence and tenacity on this issue, that you have cobbled together secondary sources that address the allegations (and mostly seem to refute them, aside from fringe-y, non-legit sources like Counterpunch) does not win me to your side. I believe all the articles are equally dumb. That one smear (Israel= apartheid state) is somewhat more widespread than other, nascent smears does not lead me to believe it should be an encyclopedia article; indeed, as has been pointed out before, no reputable encyclopedia would ever consider a piece of excrement like the AoIa article. Not for five seconds. If we are to have a class of idiotic articles, let them live or die as a class. The only thing worse than having them is to choose, piecemeal, which ones are somehow “true”, which seems to be what a lot of contributors to the page want. IronDuke 02:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) We have already provided a systematic solution to the question you raise. That is that there is a difference between sources making an allegation and sources discussing an allegation. The sources G-Dett gave discuss the allegations. The sources in all the other articles in the series make the allegations. You refuse to accept this systematic solution because it results in the Israeli article being kept and the rest deleted. In fact you will not accept any solution that has this result; you will say or do or think anything you can to avoid that result. --Ideogram 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, the majority of the sources in the AoIa article simply make allegations, in a delightful quote farm hodge-podge. Some of them “discuss” the allegations in passing, mostly to say that they’re bullshit, it seems. Perhaps we could retitle the article, “Bullshit allegations of Israeli apartheid.” At any rate, I am unimpressed by the distinction without a difference proffered by those who are desperate to demonize Israel. We could eliminate some of the objections, I’m assuming, be dropping they word “Allegations” from the Chinese Apartheid article, since no one seems to refute the idea that the Chinese practice this (which was the reason that IA became AoIA).

Your gloss on my motivations is, by the way, impressive. You appear to know me very well. I do admit I have pushed my point of view through abusing other editors with foul-mouthed tirades on this issue [1], and I do apol- oh wait, I’m thinking of someone else! ;) IronDuke 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The sheer volume of your attempted distraction is impressive. The fact remains that there is an obvious distinction between sources making allegations of apartheid and sources discussing allegations of apartheid. You have my full support for removing any sources from the Israeli article that simply make allegations of apartheid, but as G-Dett proved, there are a large number of sources discussing allegations of Israeli apartheid left. If you have any sources discussing allegations of Chinese apartheid, speak up now. --Ideogram 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PS if you are going to criticize another editor for being "foul-mouthed" perhaps you should not use the word "bullshit". --Ideogram 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no. My use of the word “bullshit” had nothing whatever to do with any editor, and even had it, it would have fallen far short of your “Shut the f*** up” comment to another editor. I do not know why you would want to belabor this point; it certainly cannot help you.

As to this difference that people seem to want to insist on, between primary and secondary sources, it is largely factitious. The majority of the AoIa article is/has been primary sources. If you want to remove all these, I shall applaud you from the sidelines (it has been tried before and reverted by those who believe the allegations are true). IronDuke 03:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again you use many words but say very little. Nowhere did I use the terms primary and secondary sources; the distinction between sources making allegations of apartheid and those discussing allegations of apartheid is quite clear without resorting to jargon. Also, you seem to be operating under the illusion that I actually want to help you clean up Allegations of Israeli apartheid. In fact we are here to discuss the Chinese article, and, since you cannot produce a source discussing allegations of Chinese apartheid, everything you say is irrelevant. --Ideogram 04:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I desire no “help” with AoIA other than to make it disappear. If you wished to improve it by removing that which you were fully supportive of removing, you should again feel free to do so. I never suggested that it be done—that was your idea alone, though I see you backpedal rather quickly when put to the test—not that I can blame you there.

As for “primary” versus “secondary” contra “making” versus “discussing,” well, that appears to me to be a recapitulation of the initial distinction without a difference. The simple question is this: do we want articles in which some ethnic/national/religious group is slagged off by some other group (however meticulously sourced) or do we not want such articles? I say we do not want them. Perhaps we could the new policy WP:BLPs (Biography of Living Peoples). IronDuke 04:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) This is not the place to make new policy. You cannot produce a source discussing allegations of Chinese apartheid, so you cannot answer my objection. Everything else you say is irrelevant. --Ideogram 04:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. an argument built upon the sensational is one designed to appeal to emotion; it undermines real issues. Real issues are significant enough to present in a straight forward manner as stated above; call it racism. We do not need to manipulate readers to have a visceral reaction to a country or people. To me this title is POV; and these article with "Allegations" need to be deleted or the titles changed; they are too easily used to use primary sources to develop one's soapbox du jour. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As I have !voted before, keep all or delete all articles on this subject. This article has plenty of sources and, per Gzuckier, we could meet some objections by renaming it to Chinese Apartheid. IronDuke 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Let me get this straight. If we delete this article because it has no secondary sources and hence a) cannot offer objective evidence of its subject's notability, and b) must rely on its own original synthesis of primary-source material in order to thread together a narrative, then we must also delete another article that has copious secondary sources and hence neither of these policy/guideline problems? On the grounds that both articles have the word "apartheid" in their titles? This is sophistry, Ironduke.--G-Dett 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The vast majority of the IA article is a quote farm hodge-podge. I see few secondary sources, and am not impressed enough by the few that there are to say that it makes a good WP article. As you’ll recall, in discussion on another page, I pointed out to you the many secondary sources that could be had discussing “Israeli as Nazi.” You did not respond to this, and I’m going to assume it was because of the nature of my sharp—even eviscerating—logic. “Sophistry?” Socratic, I say! IronDuke 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  The lack of response is more likely to do with the fallaciousness of your argument, really. The Israeli apartheid article has reliable and verifiable sources to support the noteworthiness of the apartheid allegations. For Chinese apartheid, the article creator and the usual gang have cherry-picked a few phrases here and there, tossed them in the pot, and called it a day. Soapboxery at its finest. Tarc 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Tarc thanks for your comment, though you did not address my point at all. If you’d like to, I’d be happy to respond. IronDuke 02:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't respond because I didn't think your list of secondary sources establishing the notability of "Israelis as Nazis" for a Wikipedia article merited a response. Your secondary sources consisted of: a link to an op-ed in The Iranian (an online newsletter); a link to an unlabeled pdf photocopy of an alphabetical index to an unspecified book (if I were to guess, by Alan Dershowitz); a link to an article on "New Trends and Old Hatreds," accompanied by your bizarre advice that I "look for the Google blurb"; and an article about new antisemitism in England. I concluded that Socrates was fumbling around with Google to no meaningful effect, and I let it go. If you really require a response, I'll say this: your experiment proved how essential the secondary-source/notability requirement is. Editors exasperated with these "allegations" articles often rightly ask, what next? Allegations that George Bush is an idiot? Allegations that Paris Hilton is a ho-bag? Requiring secondary sources that comment on and establish the notability of an allegation is what prevents such nonsense. If you play the game the authors of this article play, where any collection of primary-source utterances can become the subject of a "sourced" article, then anything – including the Paris Hilton article and the Israelis-as-Nazis article – becomes permissible. What was salvageable from the sorry clutch of links you sent me would go very nicely into New antisemitism and Zionism and racism allegations; those are notable topics.--G-Dett 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, G-Dett, first off I have to say your line about Socrates fumbling with Google made it my turn to laugh out loud. There’s plenty more, though, as I'm sure you know, eg, [2] or [3]. More could be gotten if I but had more time. The (antisemitic) comparison to Nazi Germany is often made, and refuted often in secondary sources (just like IA). If my life depended on it, and it weren’t to a violation of WP:POINT and several other policies, I could make a rather nifty article out of it. (If I did, and sent it to you secretly, would you promise to drop your support for AoIA?) But I think you know all this. For you, I’m guessing, that Israel practices apartheid is close enough to the truth that you think it merits an article. Respectfully, I disagree on both counts. IronDuke 02:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, now it's my turn to laugh out loud at your latest sophis– just kidding, Ironduke. I'll make this last blast less hot and halitotic than usual (don't think I'm going soft). The legitimacy of a Wikipedia article about a concept hinges on the prominence and notability of the concept, not on its proximity to truth – in my eyes or anyone else's. Jewish lobby, Zionism is racism, Pallywood, and New antisemitism are to my mind all pretty bankrupt ideas (each in its different way), but they're all notable and I'm glad there are articles on each of them. I do not think Allegations that Israelis are Nazis is notable; I do not think there's a foundation of serious reliable-source material on the idea qua idea. If you can convince me otherwise, which on the basis of the "secondary sources" you've sent me I think is highly unlikely, then no that wouldn't mean changing my mind about AoIA; it would mean changing my mind about the Israelis-as-Nazis article. See? A WP article about an idea is not an endorsement of that idea. "Allegations of apartheid" articles should not be treated as badges of dishonor that smug Wikipedians serve like subpoenas to countries based on their human-rights transgressions. This attitude, which appears to be prevalent among the creators of these articles, is absurd. This is insiderish logic, Wikipedia-as-a-battleground logic. We should be thinking of readers. The many-faceted controversy over persistent Israel-South Africa comparisons (it isn't just a guilty/not guilty debate, you know) is something many people will have heard about and will want to know more about. "Tourist apartheid" in Cuba is a little less ubiquitous a controversy; nevertheless, it is a phrase used by many Cubans and familiar to many outsiders who travel there, so there's an article in that (though the "allegations of" format for it is idiotic, merely reflecting the article's origins in WP:POINT-making). "Allegations of Chinese apartheid," by contrast, is not a topic. It isn't a controversy, it isn't a concept, it isn't anything. It began its life as a phrase in a searchbar, and instantly blossomed into a bloated quote farm; but along the way it was never once a stable, recognized subject of discussion for reliable sources in the real world. Jay and Urthogie, not any real-world reliable source, discovered, classified, and named this thing, "allegations of Chinese apartheid," and put it into a taxonomy of their own devising. No reader will ever come to this article except by way of a legitimate article on some other topic to do with apartheid. Whereas an ordinary person will have seen a news segment about the controversy created by Carter's book, or by a speech given by Desmond Tutu at a Sabeel event, or he will have attended a university debate about the legitimacy of the "Israeli apartheid" comparison, and will then want to look up the issue on Wikipedia; no person ever will finish China's Workers Under Assault: The Exploitation of Labor in a Globalizing Economy, put it down and say, "Gosh, I couldn't help but notice that Ms. Chan used the word 'apartheid' once on page nine; there's nothing else in the book about it, and nothing in the index, but I wonder if other people have ever used this word about hokou – or indeed anything else in China." To say that "allegations of Chinese apartheid" is an invented topic is not an attempt to defend China's deplorable human-rights record. It's an attempt to defend Wikipedia from those who would turn it into a farce.--G-Dett 16:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with your assessment, G-Dett. I did substantial research in the last couple of days and found that there is a vigorous debate out there (albeit less known that other similar ones) about the subject. The article in its current state is not more of a quote farm than other articles on the same "series". Dismissing the content as a "farce", only because it is less known, is illogical and against system-wide NPOV. Having said that, I continue to argue that all these articles need to be merged into other related articles to avoid the de facto forfeit of NPOV carried by their title. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "system-wide NPOV," and invoking it to vote "keep" on an article that by your own admission involves a "de facto forfeit of NPOV" is a textbook violation of WP:POINT. I am as little impressed with the "substantial research" you've done in the last two days as I am with your ability to distinguish primary sources from secondary ones, or actual sourced topics from the clustering illusions that inevitably result from data-mining. That you've stuffed in now a third separate reference to the single brief passage on p.9 of Anita Chan's book suggests to me that you're padding this article in an attempt to trick editors passing through it on their way to "vote" here; I would be willing to attribute this to mere incompetence if it weren't for the grotesque "Further Reading" decoy ducks you've lined up in a row, which consist of books you haven't read or consulted, some of which talk about China, some of which talk about apartheid, and none of which talk about both.--G-Dett 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a perfect example of the depths to which this pro-Israeli clique will sink to get their way. We have explained to you in simple language, multiple times, what the systemic solution is and you have made no reply. You yourself admit the sources G-Dett found above all argued against the allegation, yet here you are trying to insinuate that G-Dett believes Israel practices apartheid. --Ideogram 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as per lack of any ANALOGY to South African style apartheid, which was based on race and ethnicity segregation ONLY. I cite The World Book Encyclopedia (1974): "Apartheid not only segregates whites and nonwhites, but it also has led to efforts to segregate South Africa's nonwhite groups from one another. For example, certain residential areas are reserved for persons of a particular racial group.". China is one nation, one race, only two languages Mandarin and Cantonese, which differ slightly, so the allegations of apartheid are just silly and invalid. These could apply only to the Kashmir region but the word "Kashmir" doesn't show up even once in this article. For French "allegations" article I voted "weak keep", because those allegations were valid, it concerned race segregation, not rural/urban segregation allegations. Also, there is another reason for speedy deletion. As per the same World Book, apartheid means the government's policy. As far as I know, China's government as bad as it is, has never installed this policy; they even claim Taiwan as "us". greg park avenue 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Greg, are you sure you've read the article? Most of the sources make very explicit analogies and comparisons to South African apartheid, and list government policies enforcing the conditions described. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure he's read it. Despite some misguided facts (i.e. "only two languages"), he's spot on in saying that China, if anything, is pro-assimilation, as in they'd much rather have people be absorbed into their culture, and in the case of the ROC, be absorbed within political boundaries as well. Pandacomics 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course, I read it, and I think it's an insult to Wikipedia too, to have here such a piece a garbage on display for so long. The official GOVERNTMENT'S POLICY (and this is a keyword to the term apartheid) strictly enforced in China is: THERE ARE NOT TWO CHINAS! (which is exactly the opposite to apartheid meaning), and everybody knows that. Once a US president did that mistake reffering to Taiwan calling it just like that and must apologize later for insult, however it was not meant to. I don't think you have to apologize for your mistake, because you're not a politician, only a wikipedian, but better get this piece a bullshit out of here ASAP, if only for sake of Jimbo's reputation. I think he's not Billy Gates who keeps money in the crates. And don't sell me that bullshit of yours that all articles including the term "allegations of apartheid" should be deleted as well (your comment below). Each country is different. Britannica would never used it, but they have also the print version. Just imagine Wikipedia in print. You would need a tractor trailer to make delivery from Wal-Mart to your house, but some wikipedians often use this as an argument for deletion of all "allegations" series. Just smile. greg park avenue 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, The article has considered all Wikipedia policies and stays on topic. --82.81.224.249 17:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to anon You'd better sign in if this is to be counted.--G-Dett 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep an entry that deals specifically with the "apartheid analogy". Whatever problems editors say exists with the titling is the same one that exists throughout the "series" and should be dealt with comprehensively, and not piecemeal. Tewfik^Talk 19:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Well sourced extremely informative and necessary article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this article. While not perfect, it seems to be fairly well-sourced and appears to be mostly neutral. However, I have some concerns over the name, and wonder whether there may be a little too much focus on the word 'apartheid' rather than the underlying concept. I can't help but wonder whether the article might be improved, and perhaps some concerns might be partially resolved, if a move is considered at a later date. Jakew 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment You hit it spot on... there are people here who are trying to make a point with use of the word, the underlying concept is not all that relevant AFAICT. The use of the word apartheid is conveniently borrowed because there is nothing else conceptually close to it in China, by definition. All but one or two of the source articles (at least for the hukou section) uses "apartheid" in single quotes, or "apartheid-like". Ohconfucius 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 2

• Merge and redirect to Human rights in China. It's an unecessary content fork; the relevant material, including allegations of apartheid, could and should be incorporated into the human rights article. AfD's are not about "systemic solutions"; they're about individual articles. At this point, it's a reasonable interpretation to say that both the editors who keep creating these content forks, and those who use the AfD's to accuse them of a broad range of malfeasance, are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The amount of potentially constructive energy being wasted on this issue is disheartening. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A reasonably well-written, NPOV, and referenced article. Beit Or 19:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article inherits notability etc. from the parent, Allegations of apartheid, article, for which it serves as a convenient repository of content. Of course China does not practice apartheid. Neither does France, Cuba, etc. Or Israel. Only ZA practiced apartheid. The decision has been made, repeatedly and ad nauseum, that Wikipedia can have an article on the epithet. The fact that that article has grown into a whole family of "articles" and that Wikipedia doesn't have a good mechanism for recognizing or presenting multi-"article" articles doesn't justify the kind of guerrilla warfare this AfD represents. The encyclopedia will not be improved by merging this content into Allegations of apartheid, and the time spent on doing so (and on this discussion) is simply a waste. Andyvphil 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability is not inherited. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow your own cite: "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes, however - this does not imply "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation..." I would argue that accepting a sub-article for "ease of formatting and navigation" is "inherited notability", but the point is that this "article" is an article fragment, and it makes no sense to use the AfD process to force a formatting change. Andyvphil 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Every major authoritative dictionary of the English language from the OED to M-W to Webster's New International defines "apartheid" both as the proper name for South Africa's former system and as a generic political term for systemic segregation. The articles in this pseudo-series are merely gathering instances of the regular use of a word and building narratives to thread the instances together. Wikipedians never decided – not repeatedly, not ad nauseum, not even once – that "Wikipedia can have an article on the epithet." What was decided, rather, was that if use of the word or concept (or "epithet" if you will) provoked enough discussion, commentary, controversy, scholarship, and international debate, then that debate could be considered encyclopedic. A very different thing. Creating a series of unsourced hoax articles in order to leverage deletion of an article that's survived six AfDs is "guerrilla warfare"; addressing the disruption head-on and through the usual channels is not.--G-Dett 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, dictionaries are a very poor source for semantics, and the vogue for descriptive rather than prescriptive definitions can get them in trouble. As it does with "apartheid" which, in the real world, is not merely "a generic political term for systemic segregation", but is almost invariably used to summon the emotional weight of the campaign against Apartheid ZA. Inasmuch as the epithet is, notably, debated, there is no meaningful distinction between an article on the epithet and an article on the debate over the epithet. And the material in this sub-article is relevant to the subject of the parent article, which has survived multiple AfDs. I see no prospect of it failing to survive the next AfD merely becaus it has been formatted as multiple "articles", so nominating the sub-articles for deletion is a pointless waste of time. Andyvphil 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil, whatever fault one may find with the descriptivist tilt of the Oxford English Dictionary, it's hardly to be corrected in that regard by Wikipedia (!). Wikipedia is the ultimate descriptivist (as opposed to prescriptivist) reference resource, as established both by its tradition and its core policy of WP:NPOV. Also, the following doesn't make sense: Inasmuch as the epithet is, notably, debated, there is no meaningful distinction between an article on the epithet and an article on the debate over the epithet. Because the epithet isn't notably debated in this case. In fact it appears not to have been "noted" at all, and is hence by definition not notable for our purposes. Since you bring it up, the same goes for Allegations of apartheid. Notwithstanding the misrepresentation of sources in that article, there are none that even recognize or discuss this class of utterance, "allegations of apartheid," and none that describe it generally as an epithet. Jay has found four sources in which "Israeli apartheid" is dismissed as an epithet, and for the purposes of that article he's misrepresented them as offering a general critique on the use of the term "apartheid" outside of South Africa, and then edit-warred the article to a standstill to keep the misrepresentation in place.--G-Dett 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Kurykh didn't find the "generic" definition in the OED, though he does report it in American-Heritage, etc. Was your initial statement in error? .... But that observation is merely interesting. If the "generic" definition is not in the OED I would think it ought to be in the OED since there are so many instances of people using it as if it were "generic" generally, but often unadmittedly, for the reason I've supplied. The English (non-prescriptive) dictionary form is unsuited to point out intentional tendentious useage of this type. On the other hand, intentional tendentious use is indeed a cited allegation in Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The existance of a notable allegation of promiscuous use (see later comment) justifies a NPOV mustering the evidence found in Allegations of apartheid and its sub-articles. You are of course right that the sources of this sub-article are primary instances of the allegation, but this (sub-)article does not require separate secondary sources to justify it. (Comment: I am not sure there are notable allegations of promiscuous use, though there ought to be, but then you should be arguing to delete Allegations of apartheid and its sub articles, not just this sub-article, and that cause has been lost several times already.) Andyvphil 10:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the OED: Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European (Coloured or mixed, Bantu, Indian, etc.); applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib. Notice the three levels of figuration within the "generic" part of the definition. If dictionaries are "unsuited to point out intentional tendentious useage of this type," then Wikipedia is, let's say, super-unsuited to point it out...unless of course reliable sources have pointed it out. Jay has worked hard to misrepresent the sources in Allegations of apartheid so that they appear to be arguing that "apartheid" is an unacceptable epithet outside of South Africa, but all his sources actually say is that Israel isn't guilty of it. He's used a little smoke and mirrors of the most laughable sort to create the illusion that "allegations of apartheid" is a general topic, whereas in fact it's a topic of his own invention. You're right that that article should be deleted, but I believe you're wrong that notability is inherited. At any rate, the fact that Jay has constructed his hoax holistically doesn't mean it can't be dismantled piecemeal, one spurious stage prop at a time.--G-Dett 13:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Who says Israel practices apartheid? But there is well documented analogy to it made by very notable politicians (Nobel Prize winners) and artists. If you wanna keep this article just because the name of "allegations" as an epithet has been allowed into Wikipedia, then I'd rather vote for switching "allegations" to "analogy" in this series and see how many countries fit into it. Probably very few only. Definitely not China. They even don't fit into "allegations" category. Then I recommend to rename this article Epithets concerning China. Some day we may rename it even to China apartheid jokes. greg park avenue 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete first off, per WP:N, notability is not inherited. Second, this is WP:POINT synthesis original research, as none of the reliable sources provided directly or significantly address "analogies between practices of the People's Republic of China and apartheid-era South Africa." VanTucky ^(talk) 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into Human Rights in China or somesuch. Seems a clear case of synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and/or climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. T L Miles 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Mackan79, Pandacomics, Huawei, Hong Qi Gong. While I agree that the article is informative regarding the Hukou system, that material belongs there. There are no secondary sources discussing the analogy and as such the collection of the information under this title is WP:OR. Tiamat 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep nom seems like a misplaced emotional opinion, not GF for WP. --Shuki 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The opinions expressed here should converge on the proposed subject of the article in question, not on amateur speculation about mentality of its author or contestant. We don't need another Wikishrink. greg park avenue 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• At any rate, Shuki, WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT aren't emotions. Do you care to say why you think Allegations of Chinese apartheid qualifies as one of those "rare" cases under WP:NOR in which no secondary sources are needed?--G-Dett 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please avoid begging the question, it's a logical fallacy. The article contains only secondary sources; it doesn't posit that there is apartheid in China based, for example, on the hukou laws and the definition of apartheid. Rather, it cites secondary sources that make that analogy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• When the subject is "allegations of Chinese apartheid," a source that makes the allegation is a primary source. A source that discusses the allegations – that says, for example, when the allegation was first articulated, or who contests it, or what its political implications are, or if or why it's controversial – is a secondary source. Now I can see you've been working on this article trying to save it since the AfD was posted – larding it with more truffles sniffed out by your google-hounds, and removing Jimbo's driver's license photo – but where exactly are the secondary sources? I'm not eagerly rereading with each tweak, I'll confess, so maybe you can point me in the right direction; still don't see anyone talking about the allegations. One thing's certain – it's absolutely, categorically false to say that the article "contains only secondary sources."--G-Dett 23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Your bizarre claim that secondary sources all magically become primary if someone inserts the words "Allegations of" into an article title has been refuted below. I know you don't like the words "Allegations of" in the titles of these articles, but this new shell game of yours is taking things way too far; please have some respect for the integrity and meaning of words. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• At some point strawman arguments cross over into the territory of simple lies. I never spoke of secondary sources "magically" becoming anything; I said, rather, exactly what you've said and are now trying to cover up, that "whether a source is a primary source or a secondary source depends on the context in which it's used." In an article about a certain kind of political rhetoric, examples of that rhetoric are primary sources, as you know very well and are dissembling about. I am flattered and pleased that you liked my metaphor of a shell game enough to steal it and pretend it was yours; your larger and graver deceptions, however, I find unsettling.--G-Dett 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Mandsford. It's not up to us to purge WP by what some enraged Wikipedians qualify as dreck for no valid reasons, tellingly spicing up the sauce with constant personal attacks.

> [G-Dett] "Sources who make the allegation are primary sources, Jay."

Wrong: if the Economist chooses "Discrimination against rural migrants is China's apartheid" for a title, that's a secondary source saying so - quite possibly citing a primary one who said so in the first place - absolutely nothing wrong with that. Same applies with "China reviews `apartheid' for 900m peasants," as feels The Independent, and "Third World Report: 'Chinese apartheid' threatens links with Africa" by The Guardian, or "China's 'Apartheid' Taiwan Policy" by NYT. I agree with Jay: The distinction between primary and secondary sources, valid in saner circumstances, is just a spurious red herring here. The list goes on with a dozen or so [WP:RS] - obviously, rational argument is futile here. --tickle me 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tickle me, you are now officially arguing that when a newspaper or magazine runs a story, it is "citing" its own staff writer. That the guy writing the headline is a secondary source, "citing" the primary source which is the story itself. Why not make the copy editor a tertiary source? And the paperboy a quaternary source? If you're like me and have a nice little Jack Russell to bark like hell and bring the paper to your feet, he's your quinary source. "The Independent feels" – I promise you, Tickle me, I'm not enraged, I'm tickled to death by this crap; OK, I'm mildly irritated at having spit up half my martini onto the computer screen, but I'll get over that. But let's be clear here – I am not responsible for the pretzel your train of thought has buckled itself into. It is precisely in such insane circumstances – in an article about what some people say, how some people use a certain word, as noticed by some Wikipedians using search engines – that the distinction between primary and secondary sources becomes fundamental. Simply put, if the comparison you've found hasn't itself been remarked or discussed by anyone, it isn't a notable topic.--G-Dett 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

> Simply put, if the comparison you've found hasn't itself been remarked

> or discussed by anyone, it isn't a notable topic

Hard to believe you're pulling this one. If the the Economist, the Independent, the Guardian, or the NYT have articles titled like "Discrimination against rural migrants is China's apartheid," while dealing with the subject in the ensuing text, they're yet neither remarking nor discussing the topic, much less notably so, as these rags are no WP:RS? As rags in general are no WP:RS anymore, all of a sudden, lest they deal with apartheid in some tiny country we need not mention? This is sheer filibustering, hoping that opponents just leave the premises, tired eventually. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez, saying that the Economist's article makes a serious allegation of apartheid is just ludicrous misreading of the source. If a newspaper runs a story called "London Mayor is worse than Hitler, says residents", do you think it is seriously alleging that the London Mayor is a fascist dictator bent on world domination?

These aren't allegations - they are analogies - or, in many cases, hyperbole or exaggeration. This article tries to misrepresent exaggerated analogies as allegations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious; do you think your argument applies to Allegations of Brazilian apartheid as well? How about Allegations of Israeli apartheid? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

> ludicrous misreading of the source

Would you mind elaborating on that? When likening China's discriminatory attitude against its rural migrants to "apartheid" they didn't mean it, because PalaceGuard008 knows better, QED? Whose palace are you guarding?

> This article tries to misrepresent exaggerated analogies as allegations

We might want to complain with the Economist, as their article doesn't suit our expectations. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about your stupid Israeli or Brazillian "apartheid" war. Each case turns on its own facts, and these facts disclose an article which deliberately misrepresents sources through selective quotation. I've already explained what I mean by ludicrous misrepresentation: when something is "compared to" the Apartheid, that does not equal an allegation of actual apartheid. It's not hard to get.

If I say "school lunches taste like shit", I'm not making an "allegation of shit-serving at schools", am I?

The difference between analogy and allegation is quite clear. Look up a dictionary if you don't understand it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

btw, this just escaped me till right now: G-Dett feels the urge to admonish us to "[d]elete this dreck" - right per nom. I can't believe that, given that dreck is Yiddish, while Zionist (and worse) is the standard qualifier for Jay and Urthogie, the authors if the disputed article. Seems like even faint pretense isn't needed anymore. --tickle me 00:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am less tickled by this sort of smear, though. If you want to know how I feel about the word "Zionist," click here. And then drop it. For good. As in now.--G-Dett 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

> "If you want to know how I feel about the word "Zionist," click here"

Astounding: you're writing your very own persilschein? Good thinking, I'm convinced, now. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know we're not supposed to feed the likes of you, but have some chicken soup and go to bed. I never said "Zionist."--G-Dett 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Have some red herring yourself - do they make soup of bait fish?

> I never said "Zionist"

...and nobody claimed you did. Others do, and you know as much, as your contact with Jay et al is, say, intense. --tickle me 16:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-written article, well-sourced. I also like that it says "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" rather than "Chinese apartheid". I see no good reason to delete. I do see that there's some overlap between here and Human rights in China, but that article is already extremely long, and it wouldn't make sense to merge more information into it. Instead, this is a good sub-article as part of that series. --Elonka 01:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A good, well-sourced article. Frivolous AfD. Arrow740 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep. AFD seems poorly conceived. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Stupidity Anyone who links this AFD debate with the rest of the "Allegations of X Apartheid" series, especially the god-damned Israeli one, is an idiot. I spent months trying to establish a "consistent" policy on the Taiwan/Republic of China naming policy, and failed. Nobody cares about your petty war. By trying to make China a pawn in your pathetic game you have only earned yourself the enmity of a whole new group of people. --Ideogram 03:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if the title of this article was changed to "Chinese apartheid", it is clear it would have to be about a specific government system that has been called apartheid. It is only by calling it "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" that it can talk about five different government policies which have nothing in common other than having the rhetorical device "apartheid" thrown at them. The fact that people overuse the term "apartheid" is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. We don't have articles about "Allegations that X is a Nazi", because it's so fucking common. --Ideogram 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or move this to "demographic problem of China" or a page with similar title. Apartheid sounds more incendiary than anything else. This article is really biased too. I can't believe there're allegations of "apartheid against Taiwanese", no doubt referenced by single quote mined source. You want to know real apartheid? Go read how harsh we (the Taiwanese) treat mainland Chinese domestics and mail order wives here in Taiwan, what a pathetic article . Blueshirts 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Apartheid" is indeed "incendiary." The problem is, once Wikipedia is ablaze, putting out an individual flame here and there won't work. The whole fire needs to be put out. And, as a famous poet once put it, we didn't start the fire. 6SJ7 03:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See Stupidity above. You are pouring gasoline on your individual flame so that you can make a big fire to attract attention. You think it's so goddamn important you don't give a shit for our priorities, which, surprise, don't include you. You think by irritating people you will gain allies? --Ideogram 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Plus the fire shouldn't have been there in the first place. This isn't the same as sex education where it's "incendiary" but gotta be taught because it's real. "Chinese apartheid" is about as BS as they come. Merge what's salvageable to human rights in China please. Blueshirts 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This guy is part of the clique that is obsessed with the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, that is the fire he is talking about. He is trying to spread the fire to China, presumably because he thinks we will be grateful for being used. --Ideogram 04:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. the article is a heavily POV essay about observers' interpretation of what might be considered apartheid in China. I do not believe that "the subject" is notable, as it is in essence the amalgam of separate three ideas joined together by a very thin thread as if someone did a string searc on google for "apartheid" and "China". The article should be deleted outright, but it strikes me that the parts of the three constituent parts could be split back out into Hukou, Tibet, and Human rights in China. Just because the article is sourced ad nauseum doesn't mean it is not NPOV, including the title. Ohconfucius 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• What the heck is this? - I just noticed this message at the top of the article's Talk page:

This article was written under the auspices of Wikiproject Zionism, an effort sponsored by the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry to ensure a favourable portrayal of the State of Israel on Wikipedia. [4] If you would like to participate, please contact Hasbara Fellowships to receive a list of open tasks.

Since when is any concerted effort to especially give any country a "favourable portrayal" sanctioned under WP rules? I'm pretty sure this is a gross violation of the cardinal rule of neutrality on WP. Seriously, is there really any question that this article was written to be POV and written as a violation of WP:Point? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism, I am pretty sure. I've deleted it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's putting it mildly. It looks like it was deliberately designed to mislead people, and unfortunately it looks like it worked in at least one case. 6SJ7 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Typical disinformation, a tactic used first by former KGB agents to create false impression how much antisemitism exists, in case there is none, someone must invent it. It affects both sides and incites hate among radicals. greg park avenue 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

'* Delete as WP:POV. Any useful information better placed elsewhere. I'm reminded of the old political tactic Let's make the bastard deny it. (Johnson, I think). The heading is phrased to give an appearance of neutral examination of "allegations", but serves as WP:POV advocacy for themm in my humble opinion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Split and merge to Hukou and Tibet Autonomous Region Yes, it's a WP:POINT effort, but there's some salvageable content. The Hukou article could use expansion, and there's content here that would improve it. That subject deserves more development. More info on how the hukou system is holding up as China urbanizes would be valuable. The Tibet vs. China issue is a separate one. Is there an article other than Tibet Autonomous Region where that material should go? --John Nagle 05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this well-referenced article. IZAK 05:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, despite the 'stupidity' comment, i feel that a discussion to delete one in the "apartheid series" while the others stay, is unencyclopedic on it's own. as of now, i think the article is referenced well enough to be just as unencyclopedic as the others. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 2 and One Half

• Strong keep. First, let's all take a deep breath and calm down. Deep breaths. There. Doesn't that feel good? Now, first off: I understand the instinctive reaction to believe that this article must be a POV-laden hatchet job. I just have to read the words "Allegations of..." and immediately the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Whenever I see an article with a title like that, I expect to see something like "Allegations That So-and-so Has Recently Stopped Beating His Wife". However, when you actually read the article in question here, you notice a few things:
  • The article itself is, for the most part, extremely well-sourced, relying on extremely reliable, verifiable, and notable sources (The Economist, the Dalai Lama, and so on).
  • The article is part of a larger umbrella article that explores the specific phenomenon of commentators repurposing the Afrikaans word "apartheid" to other nations. In other words, the point of the article isn't "Let's all slag off the Chinese" but "Here are ways in which significant public commentators have used this term to describe certain activities."
  • The article is written with a dispassionate tone, and generally does not pass judgment on the underlying issues.

So on the whole, this seems to me to be an asset to the encyclopedia, and an article that should be kept. I have a few complaints about the tone towards the end of the article (in particular, the last few sections, including the Jimmy Wales section, start to approach "Let's start putting any time anyone has used the word apartheid here." I think it is a good idea to limit the article to, as it were, "blue chip" sources).

I am strongly opposed to articles that are simply coatracks for maligning their subject. This article does not walk, talk, or quack like a coatrack-shaped duck. Therefore, I strongly believe we should keep it. Nandesuka 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the sources are blue-chip, some not, but none of them discuss allegations of Chinese apartheid.--G-Dett 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your reasons do not address the objection that there is no discussion or analysis of the usage of the term. This article has no context, and no thesis or subject linking the parts together.

I understand that it was split off from the parent article when it reached this size. In fact the parent article itself has the same faults. There is exactly one cited paragraph discussing the phenomenon as a whole, plus a short section presenting the definition of the International Criminal Court. The rest, like this part, simply documents usage of the term. There is no common thesis discussed by these sources: the thesis is implicitly imposed by their collection in the article, which is "Gee, a lot of people use the word 'apartheid'".

Now it is clear why the parent had to become so long, forcing this child. The article wishes to present the thesis that the term 'apartheid' is overused. There is no reliable source stating this. The article sidesteps this problem by enumerating all these uses directly. It is impossible for the article to present a brief summary such as "A recent study found 94 uses of the word 'apartheid' applied to 22 countries", because there is no such study. This article is the study.

This is the definition of Original Research. --Ideogram 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep The article is well written with reliable sources.Chinese government had engaged in discrimation against Religious groups,ethnic minorties,People have been arrested for there political views. Harlowraman 19:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 3

• Keep - I have many reservations about including specific instances of political rhetoric as articles, but if the consensus is that these are notable topics, then this article should be included. --Leifern 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge and redirect to Human rights in China. this article is incredibly biased against China, presenting little or no criticism of these allegations. Delete and merge for now, until this can be made more NPOV.Bless sins 13:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In the middle age, when the pest came, there were allogations of jewish poisoning of wells. Nobody had any proof or even seen a Jew poisoning a well, but everyowne had heard someone say it. Nobody could have o proof, because, as we know now, the pest was not the result of poison but of dirt and garbidge. The allogations in these articles have the same quality. We can only be thankfull that wikipedia is to unimportant to cause the death of thousands of innocent people as these historical allogations did. --Thw1309 11:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You guys asking for consistency just don't get it. When I was struggling to establish consistent usage of "Taiwan" versus "Republic of China" in article titles, where the hell were you? Oh, I see, you want consistent treatment of "Allegations of apartheid" but when it comes to consistency elsewhere, you don't care.

Anyone with any breadth of experience on Wikipedia knows there is no consistency here. Every editor has his own idea of "the right way to do it" and fights break out when editors with different ideas try to establish their own rules as "standard". Sane people avoid these fights and let editors reach agreement on individual articles, not Wikipedia standards. It is not my problem that you can't get the Israeli article deleted, just as the Taiwan/ROC naming issue was not your problem. Your attempt to make it my problem is pissing me off. --Ideogram 11:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and AFD is not a vote. If you don't address the issues raised, don't waste your time. --Ideogram 12:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - --Tom 13:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)ps I don't believe articles about "allegations" are appropriate for this project. Leave that to the rags. --Tom 13:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I might also note that a significant proportion of the people going for keep are WikiProject Israel members, several of whom seem to think that it is actually called "WikiProject Defend Israel". I suspect that the development of the "Allegations of XXX apartheid" series is an attempt to dilute the fact that Israel is pretty much the only country regularly accused of apartheid (and indeed a case of WP:POINT, i.e. if Israel can be accused of it, so can other countries). Number 57 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(BTW I ran into a number of edit conflicts during this edit, so if I mangled something you posted, I apologize in advance. --Ideogram 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

• Strong Delete and ban users who created theses articles as WP:POINT. The whole bunch of articles created by pro-Isreal users following the creation of Allegations of Israeli apartheid is scandalous, pointless and irrelevant. They represent exactly what shouldn't be done on wikipedia. Poppypetty 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If not, delete ALL "allegations of X apartheid" articles. It's ridiculous to have some pages kept and others deleted. Keep all or delete all. The administration needs to make a ruling. John Smith's 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all "allegations of XXX apartheid" or delete them all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This meets wP:RS. Links to the economist and other reliable sources explicitly describing apartheid make this page one that belongs on wiki.Bakaman 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and delete them all. - Crockspot 18:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as these articles are very unencyclopedic, maybe the Israeli and French one also. Its bunch of unrelated references sorted together to make original research. I think it is mostly personal interpretation of the idea of apartheid, when in reality, it almost has no relation to what the word really refer to.--4.228.243.203 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Split into separate articles focusing on these disparate subjects that have nothing in common except a word used by critics. For those counting votes, lump this one in with the Deletes. Let's see, we have "Treatment of rural workers", also known as Hukou - hey, we have an article on that. That has nothing to do with "Treatment of Tibetans" - are most rural workers Tibetans? I don't know enough about China, but it doesn't seem that way from the article. "Treatment of foreigners" - surely most rural workers are not foreigners, and most foreigners in China are not rural workers or Tibetans. Then there's a Jimmy Wales quote, a blatant self reference, that should just be deleted -- our founder is a wonderful person, but not a recognized authority on China, any more than he is an expert on Microbiology or Jupiter. Keeping these bits in a single article is essentially putting together a random intersection of information. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unecessary series of articles. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's illuminating that many "allegations of apartheid" articles have been nominated for deletion recently in what appears to be a pre-meditated campaign, while the one that started it all was not. Beit Or 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You already voted. But hey, since AFD is not a vote, you may as well vote twice. --Ideogram 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Split or Merge While I agree that China has human rights problems, adding a separate article about "allegations" is likely to be original research. If it's mentioned and heard of by the majority of the people in the world, then it might be a different story. There may be sources, but is the article relevant to the history of China? The Apartheid of South Africa is certainly significant, but what about in China? In fact, it appears those topics seem to be more relevant to China's various policies (like policies towards Tibetans, internal migration policies etc.) Furthermore, clumping so many allegations in one article may be POV as well. So, I suggest splitting the contents to relevant articles, or deleting it outright.--Kylohk 00:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This article is a thesis (if not a badly written one). There are sources, yes, but they are used to argue a point instead of sourcing the contents. As you can see, the article is just a bunch of quotations - it does not reflect the real situation. Having sources also does not make it any more notable, as in WP:ITSNOTABLE. While I won't deny there are human rights problems in China, this article falls short as an original research. It being in a series also does not mean it should not be deleted. See WP:WAX. Besides, as observed earlier by other users like PalestineRemembered, most of the series are just recently created, as though to create the illusion that "allegations of apartheid" is one big notable issue, while it is actually not.Feathered serpent 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Lothar of the Hill People. Zocky | picture popups 04:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per JossiShrike 07:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no reason to keep an article created to make a point. Content should be used in more appropriate articles. Catchpole 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete More or less random collection of a few of China's many human-rights problems whose only connection is that someone, somewhere, once used a particular epithet in the context of discussing them - little more than a list of loosely associated topics. An OR synthesis from start to finish which ends on a particularly comical note with Jimbo Wales telling us that China restricts free speech just like South Africa did - in other words, an allegation of censorship, not apartheid. The fact that the authors felt the need to pad the article with this shows just how hard they had to work to put together this half-baked thesis. Still, at least after recnt edits we're spared Jimbo's passport photo. Iain99 09:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - not only is the article well-sourced and its subject notable, also some of the keep voters (notably, Jayjg) have worked hard to provide reliable sources and expand this article, as well as addressing many of the raised concerns. It is now in a decent state, and while some content is missing, it has a good NPOV and fully complies with WP:NOR. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain while I try to think through my questions, below. Answers would help, thanks. HG | Talk 16:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article is well sourced and written very well. It complies with WP:NPOV and with WP:NOR. The nominator's rationale (at least the ones that are not attacking the editors) have been taken care of. Specially the quotes and such. Also, please note that AFP, Reuters and BBC are not the only Realiable sources. There are plenty more RS that exist out there and the arguments that say that this article is not cited by RS is baseless. Note that it is not a violation of WP:NOR when an article has over 20 reference and EVERY SINGLE claim is backed by references. I honostly believe that people accusing this article of violating WP:POINT themself are breaching just that. Watchdogb 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Watchdog. No one's saying there aren't reliable sources, or that AP and Reuters and BBC are the only ones. The problem is that its topic is an invention of Wikipedians, and these reliable sources are only primary sources which the authors are drawing on in order to produce a synthesis. The article is a spectacular hoax in that it uses data-mined commonalities of phrasing among real sources to create the illusion of a topic where none exists. If you want to see just how audacious the authors have been in their misrepresentation of source material, track down the AP report that quotes Jimbo Wales, and see what it actually says. It's for good reason they failed to provide an online link.--G-Dett 15:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Testing the waters Before breaking for a day or so, I'd like to elicit WP:Policy and other objections to the following possible proposal. Assuming sources do not mention all 5 (?) subtopics as Chinese apartheid, then: Split each topic into separate articles. Then, Rename with an NPOV title. For instance, I prefer "Controversies about Hokou" as more NPOV than "Analysis of Hokou as apartheid", but maybe I'd accept the latter. Likewise, I favor "Controversial descriptions of China policy on Tibet" to "Descriptions of Chinese policy on Tibet as apartheid". Note: Analysis w/Hokou, Descriptions for Tibet. If you support some such variants, please say so! Oh, and if this is too disruptive to place here, please move this text to the end of my Comments, where my ideas emerged, below. Thanks very much! HG | Talk 00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I support splitting. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, just like Allegations of American apartheid - WP:POINT violation first off, and plenty of other policy violations as noted by the nominator and others. ugen64 15:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the inherently POV and OR use of the term "apartheid." This subject is something novel to Wikipedia, and we are simply not a forum for this. Cool Hand Luke 16:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. A Google search for "Chinese apartheid" yields 240 hits!! --CGM1980 16:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note, if you exclude hits on site:Wikipedia.org, you only find 190 hits on "Chinese apartheid." --CGM1980 16:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• But China+apartheid gets nearly 2 million hits. Using the google test in the face of numerous sources quoted in the article is clutching at straws. Isarig 16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• "China apartheid" (which also picks up "China's apartheid") gets just 62 hits. If we're going to apply the Hated Google Test then it's important to present the figures in a way that genuinely reflect the result. PalestineRemembered 17:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• the point went sailing way over your head, so I'll explain : It is incorrect and incomplete to search for the compound term "Chinese apartheid" (or it's derivatives "China Apartheid" or "China's Apartheid"), as many relevant articlestreat the issue using terms like "china rethinks its apartheid" or some similar formulation. See for example [news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4424944.stm this], which happens to be the first link to come up when googling for articles that include both China and Apartheid. Isarig 17:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your search string also returns hits like this (on the first page) this, this, this; as I understand it, any document containing the two words "China" and "Apartheid", no matter how much or what kind of text or punctuation separates them.

Google is not a substitute for thought. --Ideogram 19:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is good reason for grittng your teeth before carrying out the "Hated Google Test". But I'm grateful to Isarig for posting that link (even as I curse the fact he's not done a "Show Preview" first). The BBC article he finds supportive puts the word "apartheid" in apostrophes (ie it's a neologism contained in a primary source, not a secondary source as required by policy). Read the article in question and you'll discover it's announcing the demise of this official system (at least within 11 of 23 Chinese provinces), making the potential notability of our WP article even more marginal. I'm still technically on I started off on Isarig's "side", I read the article, found it interesting and voted "KEEP". Little did I know it was history masquerading as current affairs! I wonder if Isarig will answer the question I've put to him about primary/secondary sources? It would appear he's seen it. PalestineRemembered 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - A well-written article, sourced to numerous impeccable relaible sources which attest to its notability. If there's a WP:POINT issue here at all, it seems it has more to do with the motivations of the nominator than the motivations of the editor who created the article. Isarig 16:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• It has been suggested that the sources for this article are very largely primary sources - the kind of thing that Wikipedia policy now says we should try to avoid. Can you point us to the secondary sources that attest to the topic's notability? PalestineRemembered 17:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Compiling a list of primary sources that describe Chinese human rights abuses as apartheid and trying to tie them together as an article is WP:SYN. Per WP:V, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." When somebody can find an article or book about Allegations of Chinese apartheid, there will be justification for an article such as this. Until then, the article is nothing more than List of quotations alleging that China's policies amount to apartheid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs)

Comment, none of the sources are primary sources, on the contrary, all are secondary sources. And there are articles provided that carry the title Does China Have an Apartheid Pass System? from the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the usage of the WikiJargon "primary sources" and "secondary sources" is confusing. To me, a more natural way of thinking about it is, what is this article about? Well, the title is "Allegations of Chinese apartheid". Logically then, the subject is "allegations of Chinese apartheid", and we would expect quotations on topics such as whether these allegations are valid, comparisons between allegations, perhaps a classification system for allegations. A quick scan doesn't reveal any such quotes among your references, although I admit I did not examine them closely. Perhaps you can select some good examples for us. --Ideogram 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it's not actually confusing if you re-read WP:RS and WP:PSTS, and simply ignore the sophistry and Fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the issue. <<-armon->> 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not a good idea to force editors possibly less-experienced with Wikipedia to read and absorb subtle WikiDistinctions to understand this debate. Let's try to explain this in common-sense terms. Do you understand the difference between a source using an allegation of apartheid and a source discussing allegations of apartheid? --Ideogram 03:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the article considerably today with material from books and articles on the subject. The subject is well presented and most definitively encyclopedic. I learned a lot while researching the subject, and provided a good further reading section for these inclined in becoming more educated on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why this comment is placed here. It's as if Jossi hasn't read my comment above at all. --Ideogram 14:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you have certainly "expanded" the article; for example you've added yet another reference to the same brief passage on page 9 of Anita Chan's 249-page book, the one passage in the entire book and in her entire oeuvre in which she mentions apartheid in connection with China. (For the record, the article now references Chan's brief page 9 passage on three separate occasions in the body of the text, devotes two separate footnotes to it, plus two references in the "References" section – one of which is for a Foreign Policy article in which she never mentions apartheid. Another way of putting it: our article now devotes 277 words to the page 9 paragraph of Chan's which is 96 words long in its entirety. "Apartheid" is not even in the index of that book.) So you've stuffed in some more Chan, and you've put in a "further reading" section which includes several books on China which never mention apartheid, and one book on apartheid which never mentions China. As you "learned a lot" from reading these books, Jossi, do you mind sharing with us what you learned, and how it pertains to "allegations of Chinese apartheid"? To me, it looks like you're padding out this article's already dubious resumé with more random crap from the internet. I remain open to correction on that; but be aware that my office is located in one of the largest research libraries in the world. Every book you've put down there, and any others you might chance across while data-mining, is within thirty seconds of where I sit, and I will not hesitate to call you out on any further bullshit.--G-Dett 16:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the sentiment that while this is sourced, making a case for apartheid by using these sources is WP:OR territory. Corpx 17:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Watchdogb Taprobanus 18:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep This article is written in professional tone; it is supported by sound documentation. Dogru144 21:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Some of the sources are good; some aren't; none discuss the actual topic. The most extensively quoted source in the article by far (at two full paragraphs and 284 words), and one of only two sources that actually pursues the "apartheid" comparison as opposed to mentioning it in passing, is an unpublished six-page conference paper by someone called David Whitehouse, who is not a China specialist or a scholar of any kind, but rather a writer for the Socialist Worker; Whitehouse was planning to flesh out his short talk into a essay for the International Socialist Review, where he's an editor (which would seem to increase the chances of a successful submission), but that has yet to happen. Most of the other sources have been seriously misrepresented. We are told for example that "Anita Chan agrees with Whitehouse on this point, noting that while the hukou system shares many of the characteristics of the South African apartheid system, including its underlying economic logic, the racial element is not present." Anita Chan doesn't "agree with Whitehouse"; she never mentions him and – unless her fingers are black with the cheap ink of well-worn copies of the Socialist Worker – she's probably never even heard of him. She mentions "apartheid" once and Whitehouse never; her one passage invoking apartheid – on p.9 of her 249-page book – is quoted here in full and paraphrased twice three times (with Jossi's latest bit of bra-stuffing), in order to trick the reader into thinking it's a "thesis" of hers as opposed to an incidental comparison. The misrepresentation of the AP/Jimbo Wales material, on the other hand, is a deception of a different order...--G-Dett 22:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh! WP:SOAP. This is filling up the page with yet more sophistry on your part. Your "analysis" and speculations regarding the sources are completely irrelevant and it's notable how much they shift according to whether you happen to have an axe to grind. Until such time as you manage to take an editorially consistent position, I suggest that everyone just ignore your rhetorical somersaults. <<-armon->> 00:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lol, what's not consistent? This article gathers together its data-mined primary-source quotations and misrepresents them in order to create the mirage of a topic. The relevant violations are WP:N, WP:NOR, and of course WP:POINT. Same old same old. What's new here? My nomination didn't mention the spurious non-reliable source quoted at such great length (Whitehouse) because Jay only stuffed him in after this AfD was underway; nor was the faked scholarly dialogue – between the scholar who mentions "apartheid" once and the Socialist Worker writer who says it a dozen times in his brief unpublished speech – yet inserted. The misrepresentation of the Wales material was already there, but then I believe I mentioned that. So what's new, besides these latest examples of editorial legerdemain?--G-Dett 01:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I realize I didn't explain the distortion of Wales. Jimbo didn't allege Chinese apartheid. Jimbo criticized Chinese censorship, and then compared Google's decision to do business with China to other companies' decision to boycott South Africa during apartheid. Then he cited Google's reasoning that they were helping the Chinese, which Jimbo found "plausible." For the purposes of this article, to ponder the efficacy of boycotts based on the South African model is to "allege apartheid." When do we stop buying this snake oil?--G-Dett 01:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW Jimbo's not there anymore. <<-armon->> 01:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no primary source in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Cherry-picking quotes to prop up a framework of original research? Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 03:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete - there are no ideological or historical connections to apartheid the way Israel's policies can be linked to South Africa and Canada. Also, no similiarties in policy, i.e. identification cards, checkpoints, etc. this just seems like more pro-Tibet fuedalism and Falun-Gong crap to slander China and socialism. --Mista-X 04:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You're way off on that. You're assuming this article was written by people with some particular opinion of China, which is not the case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Reliably sourced. —Nightstallion 13:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note This article has no lead, and there is no lead that can be written for it composed of reliably sourced material. --Ideogram 17:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: You deleted the lead, despite numerous sources cited in the article. I have re-added and provided sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are fundamentally confused. Find a source for this sentence:

A number of authors have leveled allegations of Chinese apartheid drawing analogies between some practices of the People's Republic of China and apartheid-era South Africa.

This statement is not drawn from any source. It is a conclusion for which the rest of the article is supporting data. --Ideogram 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A sourced set of slurs is still a set of slurs. I can't believe that so many users think sources are an adequate defence on their own, as they are no defence at all. Outside of fantastical lunatic ramblings there is no article so biased that it can't be sourced. Mowsbury 19:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and a note for the closing admin. A few days ago, I closed as a deletion the discussion for a related article, Allegations of American apartheid. The article overlapped with sections of existing articles, and the notability of the subject was questionable. The same problems affect this article. Like the American article, this article consists of a series of quotes strung together to create a theme. However, it does not cite anything to indicate that the theme itself - the subject of the article - is notable or has been the subject of significant discussion. You could just as easily retitle it List of people who have compared Chinese government policies to apartheid. It plainly fails WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. Concerning the arguments that have been made in this discussion, I would advise the closing admin to look carefully at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; many of the arguments are of the WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS variety. In closing the American article AfD, I took the decision to discount such arguments as being irrelevant side issues, and I would advise the closing admin to do the same (AfD is not a vote count; policy trumps (lack of) consensus). The closing admin may also be interested to look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30, where a substantial number of uninvolved admins endorsed the deletion and left comments of direct relevance to this discussion. -- ChrisO 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If the closing admin is going to consider ChrisO's comment, he/she should also consider the fact that at least five of those who have said "Keep" on this page also are admins. (There may be other admins on each "side", I do not know who all the admins are.) So obviously ChrisO's interpretation of the policies/guidelines at issue (and his reliance on at least one essay) is not shared by at least some of the other admins who have weighed in here. ChrisO also refers to the AfD that he closed, which he should not have closed because he is a partisan on the issue of "apartheid" articles. 6SJ7 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I have a good understanding of policy, which you would expect considering I've been an editor for four years and an admin for three. As for the AfD, I reiterate that it was endorsed by the community as (in the words of the DRV closer) "the only reasonable choice that might have been made". As I've said before, I believe there are problems with all the allegations of apartheid articles, but that will not be resolved by editors deliberately creating bad articles in order to dramatise the existence of an older article of which they disapprove. -- ChrisO 07:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Chris, you seem to be using your influence as an admin rather objectionably. Most of the AfD discssion has been policy-based; I see no reason why your interpretation of policy should carry more weight than others. --xDanielx^Talk 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It doesn't. But since I closed a previous, closely-related AfD, the closure of which was endorsed in a subsequent DRV, my experience in this matter is obviously relevant. -- ChrisO 07:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Note for the closing admin. I'm not an admin but perhaps my review of the votes would be helpful, if you don't mind. A number of voters question the Article Name (Title) on POV grounds, several concluding that the Name/Title violates WP:NPOV. So far, it appears that no Users have defended the neutrality of the wording of the Article Name. (Some mention the consistency with other Article Names, but not neutrality per se.) See the review here. Under current policy, if there is an implicit consensus that Article Name does not satisfy NPOV, is that a necessary and sufficient condition to Delete or at least Move the article? ............. If so, then this may not require a judgment call on disputed sources and WP:N. Likewise, while there may be a violation of WP:OR due to WP:SYNTH, such a judgment of article Content seems to be disputed. Thanks very much! HG | Talk 22:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not going to get involved in the name neutrality debate, but a non-neutral name is certainly not a reason for deletion. WP:DP states it clearly - "Pages with an incorrect name can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Disputes over the name are discussed on the talk page, or listed at requested moves." The argument doesn't belong in a deletion discussion. --xDanielx^Talk 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks xDanielx for the helpful clarification. Nevertheless, can't a move be part of the closure decision? For example, may a move be an "additional action" recommended by an Admin or stipulated as a condition of consensus? From WP:GD: "An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merge" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action." Your further advice would be appreciated. HG | Talk 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement, at least for the most part. You're right that discussions on moving, merging, etc. naturally find their way into AfD pages at times, and although my opinion is that it's best to focus those discussion on the article's talk page discussing them on the AfD page seems to be an accepted practice. My comment just concerned your point, "if there is an implicit consensus that Article Name does not satisfy NPOV, is that a necessary and sufficient condition to Delete or at least Move the article?" What I meant was that whether or not a consensus favors a move, the move should not affect whether the contents of the article are kept or deleted. So in effect, I think a "move" vote can be counted as a keep vote for the purpose of deciding whether an article's contents should be deleted, unless the voter states that "move" is their proposed secondary action (as in "Delete, or failing that move to X."). Essentially, I think that we should decide on whether the subject/theme/idea/insert_your_own_word_here (which is not judged only on the title, but the article as a whole) of the article merits its own article on Wikipedia, and from there we would settle any naming disputes. --xDanielx^Talk 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Truly helpful, xDanielx. Here's a revised proposal to hold in consensus (i.e., H1 of my proposalin Talk). Perhaps both Delete and Keep votes could be predicated on basically the same conditions:

• (H1.a) Delete and (i) approve as neutral the new Article Name "Controversies regarding human rights in China" [or a variant], and (ii) affirm that any content transferred from the Deleted Article to the New Article would be subject to WP:NOR (Step Two) and then WP:N and other policies (Step 3).
• (H1.b) Keep and (i) Rename to the more NPOV name "Controversies regarding human rights in China" [or a variant] , and (ii) affirm that content in the renamed Article would be subject to WP:NOR (Step Two) and then WP:N and other policies (Step 3).

Yes, it's rather awkward due to the workings of Keep & Rename and Delete->reCreate. Without agreeing to the proposal itself, does this seem procedurally correct? Suggested emendations? Thanks. PS I need to break for the night soon. HG | Talk 03:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm a bit confused by your wording. By "<Action>, conditioned on ..." do you mean "Support <action> if these conditions can be met ..."? Or "Support <action>, and also support an effort to implement these conditions ..."? Also, how would deleting work in conjuction with renaming the article? (Wouldn't there be no article left to rename?) I'm probably just misinterpreting everything you wrote... time for an early night perhaps. :) --xDanielx^Talk 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I'll revise my own text. The votes can be Keep/Delete and... , while the Admin would hopefully require conditions (i)(ii) in closing the AfD. (Is that correct?) Yes, if closure is to Delete, then the conditions cover any new Article created with the former content. Let me try "transfer" for this. Note that Keep requires a Rename (instead of Move), whereas Delete allows any user to Create an article for the content but only with the new NPOV name. Probably a minor difference, though Keep & Rename offers more control of the procedure. Is this better? Thanks. HG | Talk 04:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% clear, but I think I understand you somewhat better. If I understand correctly, both options would result in a similar article of the same name, but the "delete" option would result in a "start from scratch" approach? I would be happy with either of the two options (as I understand them), but I'm not sure if those users who voted delete would be satisfied. Perhaps it would be best to start a seperate naming debate on the questioned article's talk page, so that the naming argument can be more coherently discussed and a clearer consensus reached? In any case, your positive effort is appreciated. --xDanielx^Talk 07:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• For the alternative name, it is my sense that the specific wording of the new China-related article is not necessary for consensus-building. If enough parties can live with an approximate wording, then further naming refinements can be handled under whatever, if any, new article emerges. (Conversely, and incidentally, I do think the Article Name would have to be discussed more thoroughly for the Israel-related article.) Indeed, so far nobody has suggested to amend my proposal, but I don't object to discussing and amending the proposed new Article Name. Thanks, xDanielx. HG | Talk 12:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• For the delete voters, some already appear to support renaming (here). Others may like (based on your formulation) their vote understood as: Delete, and failing that, then (H1a) or (H1b). Further advise welcome. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Your point about page movement procedures is taken, but this is a rather unusual situation in which the article's principal contributors and defenders are only interested in this article insofar as it keeps the name it has; or at any rate, so long as it has a name exactly parallel to the Israel article, so that they'll be on a template together. The reason the article was created was so that it would have a place on the template; the reason it's been so rapidly expanded and stuffed with so many misrepresented sources in the last few days is so that it might pass the AfD, so that it might stay on the template and remain a bargaining chip for those trying to delete the Israel article. Any proposed change to the title, no matter how slight, will provoke a battle as bloody as this one; this article is not here to inform people about China.--G-Dett 01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett -- Thanks for the feedback. You seem to imply the WP:POINT is grounds for Deletion. However, I would appreciate a comment that is responsive to my Note. I suspect you don't mind me being frank with you. Specifically, do you think the Article Name is neutral? Do you think it is more neutral than the variants I or others have floated? Could you accept a Move to a more neutral name, if that seemed to be the direction of a general consensus? Thank you! HG | Talk 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I would not oppose renaming the article, as I have proposed already. The material in the article is encyclopedic and can end up in this or in a number of other related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, thanks. I'll add this comment to my review on the Talk page. Again, this does not imply that you support the proposal, it merely provides info about whether a consensus might develop regarding the Title.HG | Talk 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As an editor that has expanded the article in the last 48 hrs, I disagree with G-Dett. The subject is indeed encyclopedic and interesting, and as long as you and others continue with not assuming the good faith of fellow editors, I do not see how these compromises can be explored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, and rename to "Controversies regarding human rights in China" or something similar. Sufficiently notable subject; claims are verifiable. The allegations noted explicitly present themselves as allegations of Chinese apartheid, so the argument concerning WP:SYNTH seems rather ludicrous to me. If the parts are notable (and clearly connected in a meaningful way), then the whole is likewise notable. --xDanielx^Talk 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Apartheid is a specific system, which only existed in South Africa. Use of it in this way is perpetuating a POV-forced neologism, which is not what Wikipedia should be doing. This is not much different than Allegations that Bush is Hitler, Alleged holocausts perpetuated by the United States, or Allegations that Republicans are fascists, all of which I'm sure could be sourced, but none of which (I hope) would be allowed. It cheapens and dilutes the meaning of these concepts. - Crockspot 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Errr, hi Crockspot, do you realize you've already expressed a delete opinion/vote on this afd above? --MPerel 06:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this was another one I hadn't seen yet. - Crockspot 12:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey at least you're consistent ; ) --MPerel 15:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost everyone of people of reason says more or less the same as you. That's why I (it was originally the User:Tiamut's idea) proposed to switch "allegation" to "analogy" and then let's see what those clowns who introduced this article into Wikipedia will come up with??? greg park avenue 02:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would still support deletion. Allegation, analogy, whatever, it still cheapens and dilutes the true meaning of these terms, and analogy would seem even more original research to me than allegations. - Crockspot 12:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I voted for speedy deletion on this one, and delete all or rename to analogy before the arbitrary commision. But this one if not renamed will be kept as no consensus anyway. greg park avenue 17:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I'm personally not fond of any of the apartheid allegations articles, and yet the references particularly for this article support its existence. --MPerel 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete article based on distorted quotations. And start an WP:RfC on the despicable behaviour of the handful of people who started all the "allegation of Apartheid in Foobarland" non-sense. Rama 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, an encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< 08:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• The existance or nonexistance of an allegation is a factual issue.... --xDanielx^Talk 08:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep - per Leifern --D-Boy 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well sourced. (I don't much like the title, though.) ElinorD (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is clear WP:POINT. This whole mess is a disgrace to WP:en. Popo le Chien 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Apart from WP:POINT, this is quite obviously IMO a violation of OR.--Aldux 13:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I have never heard the term apartheid applied to any countries except South Africa and Israel. It looks like pro-Israeli propangandists are active on Wikipedia, and are trying to dilute the impact of the linking of the word apartheid to Israel with made up articles. We should not let this happen, lest Wikipedia's credibility be damaged. Speciate 18:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this right: Because you only have heard a term applied to these two countries, you can safely jump to the conclusion that "pro-Israeli propagandists" are at work? That statement alone violates at least AGF and NOR. If anything destroys Wikipedia's credibility, it's that kind of ehm, strained logic. --Leifern 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - nom seems to misunderstand the definition of original research. It's not clear to me how we (as Wikipedians) are supposed to determine that the comparisons to Apartheid in these various sources are "unrelated." Does that mean that the critics are unrelated, or that we are supposed to make a capital-f, Factual judgement that the facts of the comparisons are unrelated? Apartheid was a big thing; comparisons to it are of (at least) historiographical interest. If the sources that compare Chinese policies to apartheid are deemed to be independent, that increases rather than decreases the need for an article. Savidan 18:59, 6 August 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.