Talk:Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The main discussion area for this series of articles is at: WP:APARTHEID

Please note that it was only speedy kept because an attempt was made to centralise discussion on the related group of articles. Thus this speedy retention does not imply overwhelming support for the existence of such articles. Casperonline 21:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Allegations of apartheid

Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sad attempt at bypassing AFD

Victor Falk, you didn't even create a section on the discussion page before trying to merge this. Shame on ya.--Urthogie 16:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry if I have misunderstood and there is some kind of freeze on editing until the central discussion has been resolved. My excuses. I just thought there was nothing here (apart from the picture) not covered in Human rights in Saudi Arabia#"Apartheid" (which furthermore gives a context for the allegations), except for an overredundancy of quotes and their sources, and that it would be better to expand that short section before having an article.--Victor falk 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no freeze on editing, but it is basic wikietiquette not to go on a rampage trying to eliminate articles after they have survived AFDs. You are trying to remove a template from all of the allegations pages that just survived AFD, and the ones you know cant get deleted you are trying to merge or redirect, often without even asking anyone's opinion. Please be civil.--Urthogie 19:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the merger discussion here

Thank you--Victor falk 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merger considering much of the article is quotes.Bless sins 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This article is unfit to appear in an encyclopedia

The bias is in the title. The title puts one side in a debate on the real topic (the amount and nature of racism in the country in question) on the back foot before the first word of text, and the neutrality of the article cannot be recovered after that catastrophic start. This article sets out to group together a group of slurs under the pretence that together they make an encyclopedic topic. This is no more the case than for "Allegations that French people smell". Or imagine other series of article built around usage of slurs in the media: Allegations that Tony Blair is a liar, Allegations that Angela Merkel is a liar, Allegations that Bill Clinton is a liar, or Allegations that Paris Hilton is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that Lindsay Lohan is a talentless bimbo, Allegations that .... is a talentless bimbo. All of those could be sourced, and the fact that something is sourced does not necessarily make it neutral or a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia. The quoting of sources on any article does not confirm that it complies with Wikipedia:Neutrality to the slightest degree; any biased essay can be fully sourced. No rephrasing or sourcing can make this article anything more than a politically motivated attack page. Wikipedia is not a place for debate or for arguing the toss. The presence of these articles disgraces Wikipedia. Dominictimms 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Dworkin

The Andrea Dworkin source is dated to 1978, when Saudi society was still arguably primitve. However, Saudi Arabia has changed dramatically since. Thus, I don't think it is fair or even relevent to quote Saudi practices 30 years ago to their practices today.Bless sins 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Israel article includes Gaza allegations, and no one has ever successfully challenged that.--Urthogie 15:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a flawed argument, even if it weren't factually unsound. PalestineRemembered 09:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a link dies

When a link dies, it doesn't mean that it never existed in the first place. That's the reason for proper references. Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg can you give the link to "Religious Apartheid in Saudi Arabia, Freedom House website. Retrieved July 11, 2006". You should have no problem since it was on the "website".Bless sins 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer there, but that's irrelevant, as it once was. That's the whole reason for the "Retrieved July 11, 2006" part of the reference. See previous comment. Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have used the Wayback machine of the Internet Archive to browse the site as it stood on July 11 2006[1] and on July 16 2006[2], and extensively looked at it. There is indeed documents critical of Saudi Arabia and its policies towards other religions, in particular in the sub-pages for the "Center for Religious Freedom". It appears there is no article titled "Religious Apartheid in Saudi Arabia" during these dates that fit the "retrieved" date. There is indeed plenty of content to be found on the Saudi mistreatment and education on non-Wahabi religions (including other Muslims), etc. A search of the current website yields nothing [3]
My above search indicates that the retrieved date is most probably wrong, and hence calls into question the accuracy of the source.
However, I also found that the "Center for Religious Freedom" was moved to the Hudson Institute's, and a search there gives this: Religious Apartheid in Saudi Arabia with no actual content. As you know, you cannot simply cite a title, but must also cite the contents of the source.
I think I am pointing in a helpful direction as to how to gain this content, but unfortunately there is reason to believe this is not a good, reliable source. As such I think we have to remove it. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person who cited it in the first place, because I found the information on the site, so I know it was there. That's about all that needs to be said on that topic. Jayjg (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and regarding your "extensive look" at the site, perhaps you missed this. Jayjg (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for that - maybe we can keep "Verifiability" as a core principle of the encyclopaedia, and avoid the introduction of puzzling new policies such as this. PalestineRemembered 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, which is why I choose to post the methodology. I didn't know it was you who put the source there, perhaps next time mention it first ;). Thanks!--Cerejota 10:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg if you can't provide a link, a URL address, an author, a title, then frankly I don't think the article/source ever existed. It maybe that the article was removed after it was judged inappropriate content by Freedom house.Bless sins 20:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link you providedmissed this ] doesn't really say anything. It doesn't even have a caption. It doesn't even say if the aparthied is against women or non-Muslims or Muslim minorities etc. There is no justification provided, no arguments made, no dates given (the image of the road sign could be 40 years old).Bless sins 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man, are you blind? It clearly says "Religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia" and presents a photograph. The photo clearly shows that the roadway is marked as one for muslims the other for non-muslims. As they say, an image is worth a thousand words. The source is a rather tenous one with some notability issues, and specially reliability issues (ie partisan NGO), but it is verified by other sources as being true and serves only to provide additional illustration. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man, apparently you don't know what you are talking about.That sign only prohibtis entry into the Mecca and Medina (where Islam's holiest shrine is). Other than that non-Muslim can go anywhere. Why can't non-Muslim go in Mecca? Because it is a Muslim shrine.Bless sins 06:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've lost the plot a bit - a white person could declare "his" white toilet bowl a shrine and stop black people using it. But that would be plain racism, the same as exists everywhere. Saudi may (probably does?) practise apartheid, but that road-sign only proves racism against many/most foreign visitors. Apartheid has a specific meaning - it's the government issuing different IDs to people in order to enforce "separate development". I don't think that road-sign applies to any native Saudis - making it racist but not intentionally oppressive. The picture does not prove apartheid, or even suggest it. PalestineRemembered 09:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a longstanding issue in my interactions with Bless sins; you now are starting to get a taste of the kind of thing I put up with on a daily basis. Jayjg (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I understand, and always had, which is why I have a thicker skin with you than with most... Bless sins: I suggest you re-read what who wrote, as I am pretty sure you didn't want to admit there was apartheid in Mecca. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you people are making a huge deal out of Mecca. Why would a non-Muslim even want to go to Mecca? For him/her it is just another building with no religious significance. I mean in Western countries men and women have seperate washrooms. But that's not apartheid. But if whites and blacks had separate washrooms - that'd be apartheid. You see apartheid applies differently in different situations.Bless sins 06:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make why people want to go? Tourists like to visit religious shrines, that's what tourists do. Anyway, what do your arguments have to do with the article content? Jayjg (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the water is being muddied here. Keeping non-believers out of your holy places is racist, but is not apartheid. Apartheid is not the same as racism (there's even a well known but discredited argument that "separate but equal" is not racist/oppressive). Apartheid has a specific meaning - and I only know of one nation on earth it's practiced. I'm not partisan, and I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong on that last part. Indeed, I've just voted to keep Allegations of Chinese apartheid, because they operate a similar oppressive (though non-racist?) pass-law system. PalestineRemembered 09:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the difference in Jayjg (talk · contribs)'s actions on dead links in this edit: Revision as of 01:39, 5 July 2007 Jayjg (→External links - removing dead links, non Hasbara links). In that edit, the following links were removed:

--John Nagle 05:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, those were external links, not links used for referenced material. Now, please stop stalking and trolling, there's a good fellow. Jayjg (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg please be polite.Bless sins 06:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was very polite, I said please and everything. Jayjg (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John: please read the title of this page. It is not Hasbara. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender apartheid material should be merged into Sex Segregation

Here is the material related to gender apartheid in the article. Editors are encouraged to merge this information into the Sex segregation article.

Saudi Arabia's practices with respect to women have been referred to as "gender apartheid". [1] According to Rita Henley Jensen" while Saudi Arabian women "have the right to own property, transact business, go to school and be supported by their husbands, while maintaining their separate bank accounts", "Women on Saudi soil must have a husband or male relative as an escort. We are not allowed to drive. When sight-seeing we must wear a full-length black gown known as an abaya. During Saudi Arabia's first elections, held the week before my arrival, women were not permitted to vote or run for office." She states that hotels have no female employees, and that segregated eating areas in hotels and beaches for women have poorer facilities. She also criticizes Saudi law for setting female inheritance at half of what men inherit (see Female inheritance in Islam).[2]

Andrea Dworkin refers to these practices simply as "apartheid":

Seductive mirages of progress notwithstanding, nowhere in the world is apartheid practiced with more cruelty and finality than in Saudi Arabia. Of course, it is women who are locked in and kept out, exiled to invisibility and abject powerlessness within their own country. It is women who are degraded systematically from birth to early death, utterly and totally and without exception deprived of freedom. It is women who are sold into marriage or concubinage, often before puberty; killed if their hymens are not intact on the wedding night; kept confined, ignorant, pregnant, poor, without choice or recourse. It is women who are raped and beaten with full sanction of the law. It is women who cannot own property or work for a living or determine in any way the circumstances of their own lives. It is women who are subject to a despotism that knows no restraint. Women locked out and locked in.[3]

Colbert I. King quotes an American official who accuses Western companies of complicity in Saudi Arabia's sexual apartheid:

One of the (still) untold stories, however, is the cooperation of U.S. and other Western companies in enforcing sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia. McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other U.S. firms, for instance, maintain strictly segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The men's sections are typically lavish, comfortable and up to Western standards, whereas the women's or families' sections are often run-down, neglected and, in the case of Starbucks, have no seats. Worse, these firms will bar entrance to Western women who show up without their husbands. My wife and other [U.S. government affiliated] women were regularly forbidden entrance to the local McDonald's unless there was a man with them." [4]

Azar Majedi, of the Centre for Women and Socialism, attributes sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia to political Islam:

Women are the first victims of political Islam and Islamic terrorist gangs. Sexual apartheid, stoning, compulsory Islamic veil and covering and stripping women of all rights are the fruits of this reactionary and fascistic movement.[5]

According to The Guardian, "[i]n the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, sexual apartheid rules", and this sexual apartheid is enforced by mutawa, religious police, though not as strongly in some areas:

The kingdom's sexual apartheid is enforced, in a crude fashion, by the religious police, the mutawa. Thuggish, bigoted and with little real training in Islamic law, they are much feared in some areas but also increasingly ridiculed. In Jeddah - a more laid-back city than Riyadh - they are rarely seen nowadays.[6]

Tiamat 11:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all specifically about allegations of apartheid in Saudi Arabia. Please stop deleting relevant and properly sourced material, regardless of your POV on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut -> You're quite right. Segregation by gender may be oppressive, but it is not and never could be apartheid. People using the word in this way are dangerously muddling the meaning of a word that has legal meaning (see crime of apartheid). The encyclopaedia does us all a disfavour by having this kind of sloppiness in articles. PalestineRemembered 11:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take up your complaints with Andrea Dworkin, Colbert I. King and The Guardian. Perhaps you could write them letters explaining their "sloppiness" and asking them to retract their words. Though it's probably too late in Dworkin's case. Jayjg (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that Israel is increasingly practising the same thing[6] - should I edit this into the relevant article? Opponents of the separation buses face an uphill struggle. ... "They've already cancelled higher education in the ultra-orthodox world for women. They have packed the religious courts with ultra-orthodox judges. In some places there are separate sides of the street women have to walk on." (PS - I'm not serious, I do my best not to attack people's religion and religious practise - and accusations of "sexual apartheid" are ridiculous. But I'd be interested to know if you think Israel can/should be accused of it). PalestineRemembered 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

A newly created article related to this one, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a pool on when we reach 100 Allegations of x country apartheid articles! El_C 02:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to myself: the irony (?) is that we can have an allegations of apartheid applied to many other tens of countries, especially ones with some sort of fairly recent public-private dichotomy and other forms of stratification. El_C 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict on AfD page, page closed short by someone for no apparent reason in the middle of the discussion, continue discussion here

Keep per Humus, nice picture. Arrow740 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Humus entirely missed the point here. Where in this nice picture stands that some Muslim woman/man is prohibited from using this road if she/he was of diffrent race or ethnic origin or color or nationality, as permitted by the Saudi laws? Because that is what we call apartheid. Just give me one shred of evidence that it happened at least once. I bet you'll never find it; your Humus only made fool from himself and from you too. greg park avenue 02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC) greg park avenue 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you missed it, that someone be me, the administrator who closed the AfD. El_C 03:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is conventional to continue those discussions cut short by a closure in that AfD's respective talk page. For future reference. El_C 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you forgot to remove that AfD template from the main page. This way everybody gets confused. Next time, try to do better job, or don't rush with those speedy closings, if you don't mind a little advise. greg park avenue 03:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no trace of that AfD on this discussion page, so how can I find this AfD's respective talk page you suggested for future reference? greg park avenue 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It gets removed automatically, by a bot. The discussion page is here. Closing xfDs, speedily and otherwise, is at my administrative discretion, which you may contest at deletion review, but not this way. El_C 03:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for your inconvinience, El C, but I'm using Netscape, so when there is an edit conflict I just come back after a while and try again. It always worked, but not this time. Shalom greg park avenue 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, it wasn't a problem. בברכה, El_C 04:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Alleging that there is an apartheid in Saudi Arabia regarding women, is the same as alleging that Saudi women are of diffrent race or of inferior ethnicity. Because that is what the term "apartheid" stands for in any encyclopedia. Such allegations, no matter how good sourced, are just insult and humiliating, and shouldn't be introduced into Wikipedia. Don't delete, merge this part into something else or find better title of this article. greg park avenue 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct about the sexual segregation. Sadly, it seems that stupid commentators have wilfully muddied the water about a word which has a specific meaning (including in law).
However, you may still be muddling apartheid with racism. The latter is very common (could even be universal). But apartheid (as in "seperate development" enforced by compulsory membership of an ethnic or religious group) is most unusual, and may be unique to to just one nation since the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa. I'm not convinced it exists in any of these other cases being offered (though China and Saudi may be exceptions). PalestineRemembered 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see connection to any religious group in the "apartheid" definition. Why not change the article title to Segregation in Saudi Arabia omitting the word allegation? It's an official government's policy and they wouldn't mind I guess. greg park avenue 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keeping this was misleading

This now has a big bold heading saying that it was speedy kept. This could be taken to imply that there is overwhelming support for this type of article, when there is not. This action created a misleading impression. Casperonline 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not connote support or lack of support. It is just reporting the result of the AFD. I think the banner is good to have there, so people who might consider AFD in future will be able to know the result of this discussion and look back at what the substance of it was. Bigglove 02:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to clarify this; hope it addresses Casperonline's concerns. El_C 04:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you made some changes in the article, looks better now, but the "gender apartheid" and "religious apartheid" are still original research. There is no ANALOGY to South African apartheid. The only trace of apartheid in Saudi Arabia I found concerns the issue of Palestinians, who are being refused to be granted citizenship for political reasons, see Saudi Arabia. Whatever the motivation, Palestinians are the ethnic group, and it's the official government's policy, so the analogy is valid. But there is nothing about Palestinians in this article. So, if you want to keep this article legitimately in the "allegations" series (I have nothing against that), please move those both sections somwhere else, and add the Palestinian section. Then, nobody will ever touch it. Sounds like an idea, huh? greg park avenue 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what, jews are not an ethnic group???? the last time I looked jews were an ethnic group. Bigglove 19:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
where are my people? I knew you were here. long live colombia! (live off the record, shakira, rotterdam, 2003) - free translation from spanish by greg park avenue 01:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you are into believing the nasty rumor http://www.adl.org/rumors/shakira.asp
Yes, THAT ADL. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheap shot by ADL. An unsoliciting email also called spam should be ignored. Now it looks like they're inventing anti-semitism for the sole purpose that currently would be none around. But I understand, they do that for living. greg park avenue 18:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shakira is an easy prey, because of her slight soft Spanish accent. Phonetically, some people hear or want to hear something else than what she's singing in English. For example, in her song Poem To A Horse there is a part: "there is always one foot for every shoe" or something like that, while some people hear or want to hear "Jew" instead of "shoe"; it's very close in Spanish accented English, but if you listen to this song twice, you'll hear what it was supposed to mean - just shoe. There may be many phonetical confusions like this in English versions of Shakira's songs. Maybe this ridiculous and shameful allegation was invented after mishearing one of her songs? If she made such a statement about Jews they were so "eager" to deny, it would be printed all over England in any gutter magazine possible, not on some politically oriented internet site. greg park avenue 00:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was merge. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiable material from the recently deleted article Allegations of Chinese apartheid have been merged into Human rights in the People's Republic of China based on the AfD closing statement. My proposal is to find a suitable article to merge the content of this article, based on the same arguments. It could be merged into one of the articles related to social aspects in Saui Arabia. I am placing similar proposals on all other articles in the "Allegations of XXXX apartheid" series. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a all for nothing. It is the sensible, non-partisan and non-political way to do this as per the long discussions in the different AfDs and comments by ArbCom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideogram, there's no reason to put down another editor who did a first pass at something. Why not just make the other article better instead of criticizing Jossi? Bigglove 13:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi has made over a hundred edits since then including posting all these messages about his merge, which surely could have waited until the merge was complete. And if you would take the time to examine the article in question, you would see that I already have fixed the article. Thanks for making more work for me. --Ideogram 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, the material itself is very useful, --Ideogram 14:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll second Bigglove's remarks. I'm not involved in this, but in the last day or two, snide or abusive remarks made by Ideogram against Jossi have been appearing in my watchlist, and I think it's time to stop. ElinorD (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Just don't let Jossi do the merge. --Ideogram 14:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with Jossi? I supported you on China's article, remember? If you think Jossi did poor job on merging China's article contents, why haven't you done it by yourself? greg park avenue 14:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay, you made your point. We're working on it. --Ideogram 19:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The merge is not going well. Jossi is forcing us to justify every single edit to him which is an enormous bottleneck. This system will never work for all the articles in the series. --Ideogram 02:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this absolutely clear. I fixed the article with about an hour's worth of edits. Jossi came back and immediately reverted all my edits and forced me to start all over, walking him through my edits step by step. It has been over nine hours since this process began; most of my changes were accepted by Jossi, but the process is still not finished and we cannot make progress when he is not here because he reverts everything when he comes back. This is unacceptable. --Ideogram 02:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi seems to think the material from the deleted article was pretty good and so doesn't require much editing. In fact it was crap. You can see my detailed objections to him on Talk:Human rights in the People's Republic of China#Discussion. He has not yet addressed the last twelve objections, and he will not let me edit without him. --Ideogram 02:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't rewrite this article. If you want to merge some contents of this article into another one, edit the other one, or if there is no suitable for merging existing article, you can create one. Then you ask an administrator to merge it. See how Anna Halman article (which even survived recently an AfD) was merged into the School violence article. greg park avenue 16:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand what you are saying to me. --Ideogram 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It means you cannot fix this article without consulting the others. It's too hot. But you can create similar one you think is more apropriate, give it a different name, or create a section in an existing article or in several ones, and after that ask an administrator to execute the merge. Merge means, this article would be deleted, even without AfD. But your new article or the new section/s must be better than this one is, and it must satisfy all Wikipedia guidelines of course. Not an easy task. But if you're an expert on this subject, be bold and try it as Jimbo says. It's legal. You can even create a mirror article using the same title as the Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid/Temporary. greg park avenue 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First you tell me not to criticize Jossi's merge instead of fixing it myself. Then you tell me I cannot work on the article. My version of the article is clearly visible in the history. I'm not going to make myself suffer any more to help you. --Ideogram 20:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Ideogram, I did that for you. You can find your last version of merge proposal at the Human rights in the People's Republic of China/Temporary article. Now you can ask someone to execute this version if applicable, but it's a bit too late, because the Allegations of Chinese apartheid has already been deleted, so there won't be any discussion, and that is the sole purpose of the merge - to delete the unwanted stuff and move somewhere else what's worthy to conserve. I was sure you were talking about merge of this article - "Allegations of Saudi Arabia apartheid", not the old Chinese one everybody has already forgotten of. But you can try anyway. You can also post a link to the temporary version on the discussion page of the article in question and give your reasons for changing it. greg park avenue 22:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I am using Jossi's merge of the Chinese article as an example of how it should not be done, so it is relevant to the discussion of his proposal. I repeat: any merge of his will need to be reviewed. I have indeed listed my reasons on the talk page. I leave the rest up to all of you. --Ideogram 01:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against This is a reasonable article and should remain in the encyclopedia. It does not need to be merged into another article. We don't need censorship on Wikipedia. This article describes an actual state of affairs in an actual country. Bigglove 13:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The material is fine, but synthesizing an article based on the common use of a metaphor is less so. The issues clearly have much better context in the specific substantive articles. Mackan79 13:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per reasons I gave in the POV section above. greg park avenue 14:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The useful material here is better placed in the other articles, where it is given proper context.--Cúchullain t/c 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Apartheid should only be used in describing the old South African practice. It is just empty words in all other contexts (like when current people/countries are accused of Nazism or Stalinism). Also, the merge tags are correct. Furthermore, much of the article can be and has been summarized and placed into Human rights in Saudi Arabia. --GHcool 06:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I again see WP:ALLORNOTHING arguments, that take in to account not the actual contents of the articles, but pre-concieved notions on the use of analogy that secondary sources might or might not support. I suggest people be more careful when handling sourced material across the entire series. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALLORNOTHING is neither policy not a guideline. In cases of systemic bias, or systemic problems with a group of articles, there is nothing wrong with applying same good arguments across a group of similar articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how similar the articles are and, in particular, how similar their sources are. In the case of this series there is a wide disparity of quality and notability so it's impossible to treat all of the articles in the same way. Jossi, if your proposal to merge this article with Human rights in Saudi Arabia is sound then it is sound regardless of what happens to any other article. The proposal should, and will, rise or fall based on its own merits - not based on any broader agenda. Lothar of the Hill People 02:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about an "agenda",it is about a possible bias that compromises NPOV systemically. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is well sourced, and while it has quality issues, these need not be addressed by other means. In any case if it where to be merged, it should be merged into Allegations of apartheid. Thanks! Forgot to sign... so I sign now...--Cerejota 07:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain with questions. Would the merged content focus on the discourse using the epithet 'Saudi Arabian apartheid' or on the policy analysis of segregative features that seem similar to South African apartheid? (1) If policy analysis is the main topic, isn't the merge problematic because some of the apartheid-related subheadings (e.g., religious freedom) already exist with Human Rights as parallel subsections? Would "religious freedom" have to be moved entirely to fit under apartheid?! (2) If discourse is the topic, then isn't the use of an epithet to describe the discourse rather one-sided? WP Policy supports self-determination in identifying terms, and surely the Saudis don't identify their beliefs as 'Saudi Arabian apartheid'?! Therefore, even the merge's subheading, I would think, requires a different name (e.g., "Debate on comparisons between Saudi Arabian policies and South African apartheid"). With these questions answered, I believe that the organizational and neutrality violations can be cleaned up. Kudos to Jossi for putting this on the table. HG | Talk 03:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. This article falls somewhere between a WP:SYN problem and patent nonsense. There is no such thing as Saudi Arabian apartheid, and little support that this is even a real neologism except on Wikipedia and sporadic mentions by activists. POV neologisms are suspect to begin with, and trying to popularize this one via Wikipedia does nothing to increase the state of knowledge in the world. The subject is utterly non-notable. There is some good material here worthy of including in Wikipedia, but it has no business as a separate article to elucidate the concept of "apartheid." Merge as appropriate into the parent article, place any other good content wherever it may fit, and delete. Wikidemo 06:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFD vs. Merge?

I'm confused about the point of procedure here. Shouldn't there have been another formal AFD rather than an informal poll and merge? Bigglove 02:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. AFD is when deletion of the content is proposed, a merge is not a deletion, just a relocation of content, which remains subject to normal editorial process. GRBerry 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Handrahan, L.M. Gender Apartheid and Cultural Absolution: Saudi Arabia and the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Internet, Human Rights Tribune, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2001.
  2. ^ Jensen, Rita Henley. Taking the Gender Apartheid Tour in Saudi Arabia, Women's eNews, 03/07/2005.
  3. ^ Dworkin, Andrea. A Feminist Looks at Saudi Arabia, 1978. In "Letters from a War Zone: Writings 1976-1989", Lawrence Hill Books, Reprint edition (May 28, 1993). ISBN 1-55652-185-5
  4. ^ King, Colbert I. Saudi Arabia's Apartheid, The Washington Post, December 22, 2001.
  5. ^ Majedi, Azar. Sexual Apartheid is a Product of Political Islam, Medusa - the Journal of the Centre for Women and Socialism.
  6. ^ Whitaker, Brian. Veil power, "Special Report: Saudi Arabia", The Guardian, February 21, 2006.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid"