Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 21

< August 20	August 22 >

August 21 edit

Template:HurricaneWarning edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The discussion below is almost exclusively about whether WP:NDT should apply or not in this case. It isn't at all clear whether or not the linked project page applies in this case; the definitions on the linked page do not unambiguously define the template as a disclaimer template, and not all the reasoning given on the project page itself is relevant in this case (although it can and has been argued that enough is relevant that the project page should apply); there seems to be no consensus whether that project page applies or not. More importantly, different users contributing to this TfD have been operating under different assumptions; during the course of the TfD, the tag at the top of WP:NDT was changed from {{policy}} to {{subcat guideline}} (and has stayed with a guideline category since then), which may have affected the opinions of some users or the outcome, even if there had been consensus about whether the project page was applicable in this case or not. WP:NDT is currently semiprotected due to an edit war (part of which focuses on this template), so given that relevant conditions around this TfD have been changing throughout its course, it would be quite hard to get an applicable outcome from the TfD anyway. This is probably not the best way to discuss this template; I suggest that Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles is possibly the best place to discuss the future of the template, and that another TfD may be appropriate to get a clearer outcome once the edit warring on the project page has died down and it's clear whether that page is a policy or guideline, in addition to the wording of the page. I suggest people look carefully at the reasons behind the page, and discuss those in relation to this template; that should give a better idea of whether this template should be an exception to the project page (for instance, if consensus is reached that the reasons behind the project page don't apply in this case, or if consensus is reached that there are extenuating circumstances that override the reasons given there), or whether it should be deleted for the reasons in the project page (for instance, if consensus is reached that in this case, those reasons apply even to this template). --ais523 18:03, 30 August 2007 (U T C)

Sockpuppets. Closing administrator: please note that the contributions from 75.*, 76.*, and Mineo3 were sockpuppets of a blocked editor. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_SallyForth123 for details. Sancho 14:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This disclaimer template is in violation of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The result of a previous discussion on May 10, 2006, was keep, but this was prior to the establishment of WP:NDT as policy. Sancho 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and close as per WP:NDT. Sole purpose is to be a disclaimer, and policy clearly states When spotted, text is usually removed and templates tend to be speedily deleted because they are blatant misrepresentations of established policy. There really shouldn't be an AfD on this template: if we remove text in violation we are left with an empty template. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete would be inappropriate. This template predates NDT and a prior TfD gained a keep consensus. Therefore a full discussion should be held.--Nilf anion (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I support deletion, but I do think a full discussion is warranted due to the fairly new policy status of WP:NDT and the previous deletion discussion for this template. Sancho 01:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the emphasis is on the short-term drama and authority issues which are things that Wikipedia should avoid because they tend to lead to conflicts and be disruptive. What we are supposed to be doing is building an encyclopedia that calmly and without passion or expressed concern for the victims describe what happened and other facts that we know to have been true in the past. Instead, these editors take the attitude that they are emergency personnel here to save the victims and are ever-ready to blow away any fellow editor who interferes with their life-saving heroism. It's ludicrous and further damages the reputation oft the project and the community.--75.36.172.192 00:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked for edit-warring and block evasion. – Chacor 02:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NDT's status has been reverted to a style guideline. Sancho 01:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, like it or not, there ARE people who use Wikipedia as their primary source of information, and Wikipedia isn't always up-to-date. This was basically the argument in the previous TFD, and it hasn't changed. – Chacor 02:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Your reasoning is a straw man. We do not bother to censor ourselves. WP:NOT is a long list of things we do not do. There may be some people who take Wikipedia too seriously as an information source, but we do not exist to save such people from themselves. We are here to build an encyclopedia.--Mineo3 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - What does censorship have to do with it? This template does not pertain to censorship in any way. Plasticup ^T/C 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Censorship and this kind of thing are similar: they are authoritarian actions by some editors directed at other editors. It is not what collaboration is about. It gives these power-obsessed editors an excuse to impose their wills moment-to-moment onto other editors with no long-term benefit to the long-term encyclopedia. It is merely hubris and drama and it ruins the community. Our policies and style of collaboration are supposed to be able to look beyond the 24 hours or one-week timeframe. We just want to state the facts, but instead, this kind of drama means 90% of our effort goes into power struggles. Ultimately, it has to do with the long-term view and the maturity of the editors. The psychology is very simple: some editors demand to get their way immediately because this is an emergency and they are only forcing themselves upon you for your own good. It's really just a power play by some of those in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones who imagine that their involvement makes them the new National Weather Service and the new National Guard. Look at the high correlation between those in the cyclones project and those saying we should keep this template. You have Nilfanion, Chacor, Coredesat, Jason Rees, E. Brown (who appears as §HurricaneERIC) and Plasticup all networking and struggling to retain their perceived power-base rather than building the encyclopedia more broadly. Its condescending clique-crap like this that degrades the overall project.--76.221.186.28 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you are inferring all of that from one template. It sounds as though you are confusing this TfD with some of your other problems with WPTC. Plasticup ^T/C 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of drama-based template results in swift, non-negotiated destructive intervention by those editors if they succeed in creating a siege mentality. This template is bad for the project because the emphasis is on the next 24 hours rather than on the long-term.--76.221.186.28 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Certainly we don't exist to save people from themselves. No one's claiming that. Gracenotes^T § 06:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If people does use Wikipedia as their primary source of information, then they should already know that information is not always up-to-date. Also, the {{Ongoing weather}}, which is present with every transclution of {{HurricaneWarning}}, already notifies readers that the information may not be current. So, exactly what encyclopedic purpose does this template really serve? --Farix (Talk) 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chacor. Also, WP:NDT was reverted to a style guideline because there was no discussion prior to it being upgraded to a policy. --Core desat 02:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is a disclaimer template. --Farix (Talk) 11:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a news service or emergency warning system, and we don't want to be either. Also, of course, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Update:I fully endorse the proposal by jdorje way down below to modify {{Ongoing weather}} in place of the template under discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Chacor Jason Rees 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not that Wikipedia is censoring itself; it is that there is an emergency ongoing and this is pointing to the fact that Wikipedia is not a source for emergency information. It is a temporary banner until the emergency is over. It is a disclaimer, but a very responsible one. Now, I will modify it; as written is not that adequate. Enrique Vargas 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is my opinion that sometimes disclaimers may be of importance because there is information in the page that must intrinsically be there, because of the nature of the topic. This is not the case though. I would like to take my opinion further here by saying that hurricane pages should not be updated with sections like "Current storm information" because if the whole point of this disclaimer is to say "Hey, don't trust anything written in that section" then why should we have both the section and the disclaimer? Plus, we're not a news agency, so it is pointless to have information that rapidly changes up on the page in the first place. So it is my opinion that this template is not needed because the information in the pages has no reason to be there in the first place under a section titled "Current storm information" or similar. Jared (t) 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument is separate and this is not the right place to discuss it. Bring it up at the respective article or project talk pages, please. – Chacor 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While it may not be entirely the same argument, they are two very closely linked issues, and thus my opinion on one has caused me to feel the way I do on the other. Jared (t) 21:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does not violate any of these: Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles#Why_they_should_not_be_used. It does not encourage censorship of the article. Plasticup ^T/C 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it not redundant with the disclaimer link at the end of every page? Sancho 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll bet that 99.9% of wikipedians have never read the disclaimers, and new visitors may not know that articles are not updated regularly. It brings pertinent information to the fore. Some of the Pacific Typhoons can be 24 hours out of date - would you prefer not to acknowledge that? Plasticup ^T/C 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I would prefer not to acknowledge that. This is an encyclopedia. I don't understand why hurricane articles deserve an exception where all medical articles, for example, do not. Sancho 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - See rebuttal below. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as users above --83.131.192.197 15:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IP's second-ever edit. – Chacor 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NDT is not "policy", and is clearly aimed as an extension of WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors". Circeus 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NDT is not simply an extension of "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors". In the section What are disclaimers, the guideline says this applies to any template attempting to duplicate any of the general disclaimer, the use wikipedia at your own risk disclaimer, etc... Even though WP:NDT is not policy, it is a guideline. Guidelines can have exceptions, but need to argue why hurricane articles deserve exceptions. Sancho 17:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see any firm reasoning why it should go.Ravenmasterq 17:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Chacor. This is one of the most commonly-used websites on the Internet, and many people who are new here every day and don't really know this site all that well are still using it for information. It provides a critical message for the Wikipedia-illiterate. CrazyC83 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia doesn't meet with any merit here. Hurricanes are inherently major events that will warrant at minimum an entry in the article for that season. We also have a number of editors devoted to covering tropical storms who regularly update articles as the storms progress, which saves them the effort of going back after the storm to collect the info later. However, they cannot nor should not be expected to always have everything in sync with the latest advisories, plus there will often be local coverage that will be also be more timely or in depth than the generalized sources used by them, and which even if consulted would be beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. Given the potential life-threatening results, it makes sense to reinforce the usual disclaimers in such a case. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By "this is an encyclopedia", I didn't mean that "we're up to date, we don't need to worry about being inaccurate", I meant, that since we're an encyclopedia and not a something that warns people of our own inaccuracy in any article in which the inaccuracy or out-of-date-ness could cause harm to a person. If this was the case, we would have many more disclaimer template messages in medical, legal, religious and nutritional articles, for example. Why is the case of an active hurricane so much more warranting of a disclaimer message than these other categories, I don't know. Sancho 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, are all the "keep" commenters suggesting that Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is wrong in principle? Because that very same arguments can be used to justify every other use of disclaimers in articles. --Farix (Talk) 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say the template shall be used only during emergencies and shall be removed immediately after the main event finishes, and it should be reworded with something simpler and succinct, maybe: "For emergency information contact the respective authorities in your area.". Enrique Vargas 18:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles#Why_they_should_not_be_used. This warning does not violate any of those points. Furthermore, even if it did, WP:NDT is not policy. Plasticup ^T/C 19:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a means for looking for help with escaping hurricanes. If we allow this, then why don't we allow a huge "Wikipedia's medical info may not be reliable" disclaimer? We have the Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer for that. Wikipedia includes information, and that's just what it does. It does not take into account how people use the information. This isn't any different from other disclaimers. Melsaran (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The "medical disclaimer" and the other templates in its category do not go into mainspace articles, they go into links at the bottom of this and every page. (See the word "disclaimers" at the bottom of this page? They were intended to be part of a nice general statement stemming from Wikipedia:Copyrights, but instead, editors are using them on each other as a convenient bullhorn. That whole collection was created by User:Alex756. Go look at his userpage and tell me that this is what the project's everyday collaboration should all be about. We have more-than-adequate disclaimers at the bottom of the page. We do nto need them intruding anywhere else.--76.221.186.28 18:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Other reply The distinction between this and the medical disclaimer example is that the information relevant to medical articles is not likely to change over the course of a few hours. While you might not like the fact that Wikipedia is being used to track such info on a somewhat timely basis, it is. I could see coming up with a tropical storm specific variant of {{Ongoing weather}} that would include a friendly reminder that information may not be current or specific to local areas, to present the desired reminder to readers and editors in a less dramatic fashion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another reply. Yes, the template Template:Current is exactly all that is needed in this case. Sancho 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another The intention of the template, as it says in Wikipedia:Current and future event templates is to "to warn the editor or reader about the great flux of edits and the fast-changing state of the article, due to the fact that current events tend to get the most attention from editors." I am dubious that this is such a valuable service to the reader, but I just ignore such templates during the event and remove them as soon as the even is "over".--76.221.186.28 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the general disclaimers cover everything. Yes, in most cases, we should not include disclaimers in articles. Yes, if someone got bad information from an article and was harmed in doing so, we probably would be okay from a legal standpoint. However, including this warning is just a good thing to do. More harm could be done by not having this template than by having it. --- RockMFR 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply By you logic, having disclaimers for all other natural disasters would do more good than harm and therefor "should be done". And then we can re-disclaim at the of every appropriate page what we already disclaim at the bottom. We can all share in the wonderful User:Alex756 experience.--76.221.186.28 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Most natural disasters don't give you up to a week warning either. ---CWY2190^T^C 19:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply It just so happens that hurricanes last for week, which is a very satisfying amount to time of have an unfair level of control of an article. That does not mean that we are here to provide hurricane warnings to anyone nor should we concern ourselves with those who think we do. This invites power plays by some editors, such as those in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones to grab control of articles as a fake safety issue. They seem to equate crisis with opportunity. The standard disclaimers are protected, but it is just too bad that a small number of editors choose to toss them at each other in their struggles for control. That cannot be helped but this template can be deleted if we only recognize how poisonous it is.--75.37.15.138 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Another What? Power plays? Struggles for control? Oh yeah, WPTC editors just want to seize control of Wikipedia so they can take over the world, that's exactly what they want. They want to make readers their slaves and manipulate their minds for their evil wares. Do you relize how ridiculous that sounds? The safety issue is not fake, it is very real and how are the editors getting more powerful by having these disclaimers? I actually wasn't sure you were serious there for a second. Power struggles? You've got to be kidding me. -- §Hurricane E RICarchive 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chacor. The average reader doesn't always understand that information can be inaccurate or just plain wrong, and the disclaimer is not particularly easy to find if you're a new visitor. T Rex | talk 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The primiary focus of Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It is not a service to warn if your place of residence is under threat of a hurricane. There are plenty of other ways of knowing if your area is under threat, so this template is not worth using at all. Looneyman 21:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is a real possibility that at least a few people will rely on Wikipedia for news about a hurricane. It is a matter of public safety that this warning be available. After the storm passes, it can be removed. As far as suggested protocol advising against disclaimers, this template is different as it deals with life and death. Also note that search engines list WP high when looking up Hurricane Dean and might be clicked on before/instead of reading more authoritative sources.Archtrain 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Chacor. Come on, your average internet browser is not going to go hunting for the 'disclaimer pages'. Get real. When you type in 'Hurricane Dean' in Google, the Wikipedia article is the second entry. People are bound to use this as an official information source whether they should or not. People don't always use their heads. The majority of people looking for info on a storm don't have a clue about Wikipedia's rules and don't really care. They are looking for information they can use to plan and we need to let them know that Wikipedia is not the best place to find that information. This template is not supposed to warn people that a hurricane is coming, it's supposed to tell them Wikipedia's not the place to get current info about it. We are trying to keep people from getting hurt. That seems more important than keeping Wikipedia looking sexy. -- §Hurricane E RICarchive 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yet another member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones that imagines or pretends to imagine that he is here to save the victims. That is the wrong reason to be involved with the project. We are supposed to be here for just the NPOV facts, which the vast maority of us can probably come to an agreement on without this fake sense of emergency.--Mineo3 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not a fake sense of emergency like "Oh God! We've got to have it! People are going to die!" It's just to tell people that this is not an accurate, up-to-the-minute information source and should not use it to important decisions like evacuating or not evacuating. In America, you don't have to go when there's a mandatory evacuation, contrary to the term. People use this information. Since when was urging caution a bad idea? I don't see what the big stink is. -- §Hurricane E RICarchive 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt is truly disturbing that so many here are taking an Wiki-elitist position on this template. Those arguing in favor of deletion are essentially saying to the uninitiated of Wikipedia that Wikipedia will not even make an attempt to accommodate them. This template does not in any way denounce or denigrate the information presented in the article, nor does it suggest that the viewer should refrain from reading the article. In no way does it act as disclaimer; if it were, it would contain text along the lines of "Wikipedia, it contributors, and its parent organization, Wikimedia are not responsible..." —Verrai 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not about talk pages, projects, wikilove or even the community. It is about what the status of mainspace articles should be. Should they be ready-to-go onto a CD-ROM or should they be "something else" that changes moment-to-moment. Its s slippery slope: first its hurricane victims, then other natural disasters, then terminally ill children, all other vulnerable people such as the mentally and physically handicapped, then charismatic endangered species and all kinds of other symbols that Internet scams are chosen to get you to react NOW. We have to restrain ourselves. Feel free to write about such stuff on Wikinews, but leave the encyclopedia be. See, Dean already has four articles in Wikinews and they probably don't have these ridiculous rights over here because they know what they are about.--75.37.12.173 23:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with comment: To my mind, this template really serves two purposes. The first is as a disclaimer, simply saying that information here may not be up to date - as a disclaimer I agree it is "wrong" in this instance for some of the reasons given here (though there are no censorship issues here). However it also serves to refer readers to the proper source, which is their local weather authorities, and this use IS justified, sort of like a prominent top-of-the-page external link. My opinion therefore is that the template should be deleted and this referal should be added to {{Ongoing_weather}}: "Information may undergo major changes as events occur. Refer to your local weather authorities for the most up-to-date news pertinent to your area." — jdorje (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do like that idea.... Jared (t) 23:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I too like that idea. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 23:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but it fails to actually point the reader to any actual authoritative sources of information. It just sits there and pontificates. If people want to make a serious effort to tell the reader where on the web they can such authoritative information, then it might be justified because then it would be performing a real service.--75.37.12.173 23:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and retask the other template per jdorje. --Golbez 23:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jdorje - use the ongoing weather template. Iorek85 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has already been removed from Hurricane Dean (2007) which has beeen wisely renamed from just "Hurricane Dean" because "storm is not cat 1 and very much inland, not cat 5". Is that what we want? This template-crap decisions being made based on some hour-to-hour changes in someone else's status about this thing? That is not at all encyclopedic. We should strive to restrain ourselves from tracking anything so closely. The template is currently not being referenced in any mainspace article. Good. Editors can throw it at each other in their struggles for control all they for all I care.--76.204.178.173 01:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change: Add the appropriate "local authorities", and perhaps links to them (I assume, external links). Right now, it really just repeats what {{Ongoing weather}} implies. (However, I don't agree with the supposed no-disclaimers policy, as I think that the general disclaimers express "you might encounter XYZ", while any in-article disclaimers say "there is an instance of XYZ below".) —AySz88\^-^ 01:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think that {{Ongoing weather}} might be a bit too broad to build templatized links into - it'd be easier to create more-specific templates built for links for the topic (tornado outbreak, noreaster, flooding, etc.). —AySz88 \^-^ 02:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't think this would be a violation of the no-disclaimer policy with a slight rewording, it is redundant to {{Ongoing weather}}. - Koweja 11:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chacor and especially RockMFR - also it doesn't need to point to authoritative sources of information, it merely says that it itself is not one. Orderinchaos 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the previous TFD, and WP:NFD is just simply a guideline. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to Ongoing weather. Ongoing weather informs the reader that the event is current, surely this is sufficient. Dave101→talk 10:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happier if someone nominated for deletion that template instead. It is redundant to {{current}}, and doesn't go as far as {{HurricaneWarning}}. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NDA is a guideline and also WP:IAR. This helps improve wikipedia IMO. ---CWY2190^T^C 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all disclaimer templates per WP:NDT; unencyclopedic and redundant with the official disclaimers. Prolog 11:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Timeline of environmental history of New Zealand edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete - author request. Mike Peel 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created it initially but have now replaced it with a nicer wiki markup version in the page. It is now redundant. — -- Alan Liefting talk 22:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Koweja 11:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Junior series driver edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 03:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in use and will not be used in future. Not necessary to keep or redirect. Has been supplanted by {{Infobox racing driver}}. . Adrian M. H. 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PD-recycling edit

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

The result of the debate was no objections = merge. >Radiant< 08:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact point of this template isn't exactly obvious, it appears to be just a copy and paste of a paragraph from recycling symbol, with no particular relevance to any image, with the possible exception of the symbol itself, which is both in Unicode and displayed as a PD-user SVG. The other images which call it are also SVGs, but more importantly give absolutely no source for their origins. That said, anything which could call this template could as easily call {{PD-ineligible}}.— 68.39.174.238 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Peel 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:UKcandidates edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 02:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template made in good faith, but is redundant as all content is on same article (List of The Apprentice candidates (UK)), and the main Apprentice template already links to this. — Seaserpent⁸⁵ _Talk 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NazismIsntCool/sig edit

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete. IronGargoyle 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature template of a blocked user, hasn't edited in over a year. Should never have been in template space. — T Rex | talk 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. This definitely violates the signature policy, and in any case it's not going to be used in the future. The old signatures need to be kept in place, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as a violation of WP:SIG. --Farix (Talk) 11:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as in the wrong space, no longer used, etc. - Koweja 11:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:History POV edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 01:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Unclear what "historical neutrality" means. Documentation doesn't explain where this should be used instead of {{POV}}. Delete both template and Category:NPOV disputes about history (the categorization seems clearer about purpose than the text). — PrimeHunter 14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cleanup tags need to be clear about what needs cleanup. This one isn't. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear instructions as to when this tag should be used instead of {{POV}}. No clear definition of "historical neutrality" and how it differs from "general neutrality". --Farix (Talk) 11:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Theses tags have no clear meaning and are not really usefull... Alithien 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the main POV tag is fine. Talk pages should be used for addressing the actual issue, not tags. - Koweja 11:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Allegations of apartheid edit

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

The result of the debate was delete per strength of NPOV arguments. This was a tough call. I seriously considered a rename, but Template:Segregation by type can duplicate the (limited) navigational function of this template in a less intrusive way at the bottom of the article (side navboxes can define an article in a way that footer navboxes cannot). Navigation seems like a red herring, because the relatedness of the linked articles seems dubious at best. I note that many of the links in this template have apartheid in their title, but link (or redirect) to articles that do not have apartheid in their titles. After reviewing the in-progress arbcom case and past deletion discussions for this template, this suggests to me that the template (as it stands) is indeed the gutted remnants of a POV link-farm. Because templates are present in multiple articles, editors must be even more vigilant of NPOV policy violations in the template namespace. This template has at least an undercurrent of POV purpose, and there are other templates available that duplicate and improve upon the navigational purpose without a possible POV bias (navigational usefulness being a weak counterargument to policy anyway). the NPOV policy concerns and arguments are simply too strong to keep the template as no consensus. I see little hope of this template being revised to a useful, responsible, NPOV and non-redundant alternative for Template:Segregation by type. So, it should be deleted. IronGargoyle 04:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The various country articles listed don't directly refer to allegations of apartheid except for Israel and possibly Brazil. The template has recently been recast as "Alternate uses of the term Apartheid", but this is vague, doesn't match the title of the template, and the added links would be better in Template:Apartheid. —Ashley Y 04:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title of this navigation template can be changed to something more suitable, such as "Apartheid-like practices", "Apartheid controversies", or the like. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template exists because at one point users created a number of "allegations of apartheid" articles. These were found to have major problems, and most have been either deleted, merged, renamed, etc. The template is now useless except to give the appearance that these articles are somehow linked to each other, when this isn't the case. We could change the name so that it lists "apartheid-like practices", but I fail to see how that could be useful.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is a good faith editing dispute, trying to resolve it by deletion is pretty much not a Good Idea(tm).--Cerejota 12:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, Cerejota, but this isn't about the dispute, it's about getting rid of a useless and redundant template.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cuchullain. >Radiant< 07:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 4 good reasons among others : Allegations of apartheid is PoVed because it only reflects one side's mind. Gathering all allegations of apartheid articles is personnal research, no scholar never studied this globally (such as it is done for topics such as eg genocide, human rights). This templace is used to transform wikipedia as a battlefield (see current ArbCom case currently debated on the topic). Keeping this could be used to legitimate a template or a category such as Template:Terrorist organisation. Alithien 10:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Allegations of apartheid does not in fact have a NPOV tag.

2. As this points to uses of the word, and Merriam-Wester does accept this as a word,[1] an appeal to WP:OR isn't clear.

3. This template has been rewritten in light of that ArbCom

4. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't good reasoning -- 67.98.206.2 20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have corrected this and added the flag. These articles are heavily disputed because their title and therefore their content lacks neutrality.

2. You don't answer. I just say no secondary source studied the subjet of the "allegations of apartheid" all together and in fact, even for 1 given country. They are many people who use that word but nobody studied the matter. This is also why the article cannot be neutral and respect NPoV. On the contrary for exemple of the matter of genocide which has been studied as a whole concept.

3. There is nothing there talking about that template. Please, we are not here just for "having right" ! This issue is difficult. There are good arguments pro and contra. It would be more constructive to synthesize the different pov instead of answering point by point but not properly. (see some goods one in some keep comments.)

4. This indeed the less strong argument. (#4). Alithien 11:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Because the main article of a template has a neutrality problem isn't a reason to delete the template.

2. If I didn't answer, it's because I'm dumbfounded by the sweeping assertion. Google books shows thousands of books about apartheid in South Africa alone, dozens about apartheid in the U.S. and Israel, chapters in hundreds of Intro to International Law textbooks, and entire books on Global apartheid, Social aparthied, and Religious apartheid. I suppose no one super-scholar has come forth to write a single book on every type of apartheid in every possible aspect in the history of every country in the world, but I think such a demand takes WP:SYNTH too far. There's no position being advanced that isn't advanced by any number of legal scholars, historians, and social scientists, just not in every realm of scholarship at once. Allegations of apartheid has already survived several AFDs based on such an argument. -- 67.98.206.2 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take note of your comments. Thank you for them. Alithien 06:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tracks the promiscuous use of the "apartheid" trope across multiple articles, which is useful. Contra Ashley, nothing here is relevant to Template:Apartheid, which is solely about South Africa. Andyvphil 11:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no more "Allegations of XXX" articles in the series besides Allegations of Israeli apartheid and the main article Allegations of apartheid. Per Cuchullain, the template is now useless except as a forum in which to link articles that are only very remotely related, mostly in the minds of the creators and supporters of these articles in their original incarnations. It is WP:OR for us to make these links and without these links, the template is useless since it will only list two articles. Delete, delete, delete. Tiamat 11:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems that this was once the glue that tried to tie the disparate "allegations of..." POV forks together, but now that the wheels have pretty much fallen off that wagon, keeping the signpost around doesn't do much good. Tarc 13:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note TFD1, TFD2, and TFD3. GRBerry 15:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't concern the template but the article. And 2 first times it lead to no censensus and last time to speedy closed, preventing the debate... Following your own point of view, we are discussing arguments. What are yours ? Alithien 15:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that it is inappropriate to nominate a page for deletion multiple times without linking the prior deletion discussions, as that can violate Wikipedia:Consensus#"Asking the other parent", and the proper remedy is to link those discussions as soon as possible. GRBerry 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't that rule. Indeed, that was needed. Thank you ! Alithien 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Delete or Rename All or almost all of the country articles listed are already in Template:Types_of_segregation- I don't think it's necessary to list the same articles in a different template just because someone once used the word "apartheid" to describe segregation there. The "type of apartheid" section which I added yesterday in an attempt to make the template somewhat useful might merit a template of its own but that can easily be done without keeping this one and, in any case, I don't think "global apartheid" can really be described as an "allegation". Lothar of the Hill People 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding to my earlier comments that I think a lot of the objections to the template are based on its name, particularly the phrase "allegations of". Most of the keep votes don't show any support for the inclusion of the word "allegations" and actually suggest that now that the template has been rewritten and retitled it can be kept. I think the consensus solution, therefore, would be to rename the template so that it reflects its contents as well as its current title so how about changing it from "Template:Allegations of apartheid" to "Template:Uses_of_the_term_apartheid" (to match its onscreen title) or something similar?Lothar of the Hill People 19:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hotlinked this to check; there's actually no such template. If you mean Template:Segregation by type, an editor there is already insisting there's no "segregation" in Israel. So not everyone sees these two terms as synonymous. -- 67.98.206.2 19:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he means Template:Segregation by type. Excellent point on the definitions, by the way, "segregation" is not synonymous with "apartheid". But "apartheid" does not actually apply most of what's on this template, while "segregation" can.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is the forth nomination of the template, and it has finally been improved to something good. If you have specific content issues, discuss them, don't nominate a functioning template for deletion.--Sefringle^Talk 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That it "functions" is not a reason to keep such a confusing and redundant template. The bottom line is, this template can't be fixed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the topic is notable, the template has been greatly improved, and the nominator's argument unconvincing (besides not really being arguments for deletion - this template is not orphaned, for example): we can change the title via editing, and the issues of what countries to include or not include are also resolvable by editing. This is trying to solve an editing dispute by deletion, not a good idea. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is orphaned, actually, except for one dissenting editor who keeps putting it back in: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] —Ashley Y 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss in Allegations of apartheid why it should be removed from the articles in question. A disagreement on editing is not a reson for deletion. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template has not been "improved", it's just been changed. It still has major and unfixable problems, namely that the articles are not actually sufficiently related (at least not enough to warrant a template). Again, segregation is a notable issue, and as Lothar points out, is covered with the template Template:Segregation by type.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation has a much broader meaning than apartheid, so broad that the Template:Segregation by type isn't even on the Segregation article, which is simply a disambiguation page. -- 67.98.206.2 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but you have to admit that "crime of apartheid" does not apply to any of the articles on the "allegations" template besides South Africa, while segregation can. And we do not typically put non-disambiguation templates on disambig pages, Segregation by type appears on racial segregation and religious segregation, etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, though the "crime of" article provides a good standing, if somewhat dated and bureaucratic, definition, while allegations of apartheid provides a more nebulous overview of the expanded meaning of the term. The articles are interrelated. My main issue is that people who "segregate" may so willingly, while "apartheid" is specific to the governmental will of one group oppressing another, often including elements such as collective punishment which I don't normally associate with segregation. -- 67.98.206.2 21:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And not really true: Brazil is a signatory of the Rome Statute, and hence charges could in theory be brought on crime of apartheid. --Cerejota 06:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor offshoot of a much larger dispute, and unnecessary one way or the other. I've changed my mind. Keep, but rename this article to "Uses of the term apartheid". The template isn't so bad in its current form, though "Allegations" needs to be removed from its title. CJCurrie 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC) updated 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , delete, this is more a misleading template than anything else, eg. in: "Uses in reference to countries" all links (except Israel´s case) refer to articles that does not have "apartheid" in its name. Regards, Huldra 12:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they use the term inside of the articles: removal of the word apartheid from the title is irrelevant to contents. That Israel's article is the only one that focuses on this topic is an unrelated matter. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a false statement. South Africa and Brazil both have apartheid in their titles as well. You believe the other links are more tangental? So, Fix it. -- 67.98.206.2 16:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are of course correct when it comes to South Africa; that was so obvious that it actually escaped me! That they use the term inside of the articles: so what? Shall we inside Template:Jerusalem have links to all articles which use the term Jerusalem? I hope not ;-) Regards, Huldra 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few incorrect links on a template isn't a valid reason to delete it. -- 67.98.206.2 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without those, all that would be left would be Israel and perhaps Brazil. Why do we need a template for that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be left with everything in Category:Apartheid. The template could be said to be redundant to that as a navigational aid, but it seems useful for navigating the subpages of Allegations of apartheid, regardless. -- 67.98.206.2 21:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles that deal in allegation belong on a politics website not in an encyclopedia. Anything that encourages them should be removed. Dominictimms 14:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template might have served a purpose when the articles in question were actually about "allegations of apartheid", but it's redundant now. It serves merely to link a series of otherwise unrelated articles. -- ChrisO 14:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Navigational aid for browsing the sub-pages of the allegations of apartheid article; supplements Category:Apartheid. -- 67.98.206.2 16:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what respect are Social situation in the French suburbs, Racial segregation in the United States and Human rights in Saudi Arabia "sub-pages of the Allegations of apartheid article"? -- ChrisO 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, fix it. I know there is an edit war over those three links, but deleting the entire template isn't the solution. -- 67.98.206.2 19:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix what? Those pages are correctly named. As ChrisO asks, in what sense are they sub-pages? —Ashley Y 05:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. -- 67.98.206.2 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is it a navigational aid for? —Ashley Y 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting repetitious. If you don't like those three links, delete them. -- 67.98.206.2 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its becoming tiring to watch the attempts of users on one side or another of this edit war to selectively delete things. While I think the whole series should be deleted, if there are going to be a dozen articles on "allegations of X apartheid" then obviously the template is useful. If all the country articles got deleted, obviously this template would no longer be useful. So this nomination is, I believe, the cart before the horse. Savidan 08:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that only one link is of the form "allegations of X apartheid". All the other country articles have been moved. —Ashley Y 18:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template advances a highly contentious and unsourced POV-argument, and does so on the cute but transparent pretext of enhancing "navigability." No reliable source in the real world has ever considered "allegations of apartheid" as constituting a subject unto itself, and no one has ever studied such allegations comparatively.--G-Dett 16:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few moments with google books shows this last part to be a stretch at best. For example, Davis, Uri (1997). Citizenship and the State: A Comparative Study of Citizenship Legislation in Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. Garnet & Ithaca Press. p. 7. ISBN 0863722180. Specifically compares the two-tier citizenship systems in Jordan and Israel in the context of the crime of apartheid. I still find the argument that there's no perfect canonical source that rings every bell and blows every whistle to be far beyond the requirements of WP:SYNTH. -- 67.98.206.2 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, a rather different set of countries than the grab-bag of accusations represented by the current template. —Ashley Y 18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfD/Allegations of Jordanian apartheid was probably correct as the article was poorly sourced, though in light the the ArbCom you almost have to wonder if this was intentional, so I'm surprised it was salted. Why do we need a scholar to tell us these uses of the term are indeed uses of the term? -- 67.98.206.2 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the AfD was filed when the article was all of two days old, which could explain a lot. I don't see many sources beyond Professor Davis, though he is the expert on apartheid in the Middle East. It is a sad state of affairs that with so many university departments of French, Brazilian, and Israeli studies (or as we used to say: Frazaeli-ed) that the dissertation you are demanding has yet to be written. -- 67.98.206.2 19:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No dissertation is needed – who reads dissertations? What's needed is some indication that this sprawling multi-article wiki-mess of quotations with the word "apartheid" in them – which to my eyes is sheer motley, a heterogeneous bolus of fragments of rhetoric, passing metaphors, and sustained comparisons, some invoking "apartheid" as a generic term, some intending it with historical specificity – constitutes, in the eyes of some real-world reliable source (not Jayjg, not Urthogie, not Cerejota) a single class of closely related statements. I don't think it does, and I object to a template that makes such a tendentious claim, under the cute cover of helping readers "navigate."--G-Dett 03:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you asked for a source, I provided a source. Sorry if that failed to change your pre-conceived notion here, but there seems to be a lot of that in this TfD. -- 67.98.206.2 09:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I asked for a source (or better, sources) treating the subject of this template – a class of statement we're calling "allegations of apartheid" – as a subject unto itself, and/or studying such allegations comparatively. What you've provided is a source that says both Jordan and Israel practice apartheid. Davis does not appear to be interested in "allegations," which is the subject here. As I said, I want some indication that what appears to me to be a great motley of sentences with the word "apartheid" in them – gathered together and arranged by Wikipedians with a point to make – constitutes in the eyes of reliable sources a single class of closely related statements. Otherwise we have an intrusive POV-argument – Hey reader, yeah you've heard all the controversy about "Israeli apartheid" – but we betcha didn't know how promiscuously the word is used. Take a look – just about everybody 's been accused of "apartheid" at some time or another– masquerading as a "navigational" aid.

On another note, please don't accuse me of "preconceived notions." After the fifth or sixth AfD on Allegations of Israeli apartheid failed, and the would-be deleters switched strategies and began manufacturing other "allegations of apartheid" articles assembly-line style, I let the various articles and templates be for several months. Even though their creation was an obvious WP:POINT-violation, I waited to see if they might evolve into quality articles with notable subjects. Only when it became clear that they were to be nothing other than quote farms housing disparate data-mined primary-source sentences with the word "apartheid" in them, arranged by country, and only when my own research led me to the conclusion that this was all these articles ever could be, given the total lack of secondary sources attesting to the notability of the allegations qua allegations, did I begin blowing on the whole silly house of cards.--G-Dett 13:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template barely even uses the word "allegations" beyond linking to the title of its main article, however Davis could certainly be said to be making an informal allegation when he states his belief that Israeli and Jordanian citizenship laws violate the U.N.'s convention which created the crime of apartheid.

How about this? Abrams, Jason S. (2001). Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law: Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy. Oxford University Press. pp. 122–123. ISBN 0198298714. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Discusses whether, with the fall of the Apartheid regime in South Africa, the crime of apartheid could be invoked by victims of other regimes: "the Kurds, the Tamils, the South Sudanese, Japanese of Korean descent, or various indigineous peoples...." It does call such application doubtful, but of course this source predates the new Rome Statute.

BTW, portraying yourself as a paragon of patience is revisionist history. You yourself were the nominator for the AfD of Allegations of Jordanian apartheid after it had existed for all of two days. -- 67.98.206.2 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, anon, stop doubling your bet and then changing the game. I have never and would never portray myself as a paragon of patience, or even patient at all when it comes to charlatanry of the kind involved in the "allegations of apartheid" hoax. What I said was that my notions were not "preconceived," but rather formed over the course of weeks and months, in response to the evolution of a dismal series of articles written without any secondary sources, and stitching their primary sources together in the most laughable and sophomorically tendentious way. The Jordan article appeared at the end of this period, and as Tarc indicates below, was sui generis among the assembly-line productions. Whereas the other hoax articles consisted of data-mined primary-source sentences with the word "apartheid" in them clumsily stitched together into deceptive narratives, the Jordan article merely compiled some information on human-rights issues in Jordan which reminded the article's creator of apartheid. It was a spectacularly silly article, and the two days I let it be showed great forbearance on my part, not that I hold that to be my long suit.--G-Dett 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all these POV fork bargaining chips that were created in the Israeli article's wake, the Jordanian "apartheid" one was the most glaringly, appallingly obvious mess of synthesized OR. 2 days was 2 too long. Tarc 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at Jordan (disambiguation) and Jordan (name) suggests why this would be an electronic research nightmare. Still, salting was a bit much. -- 67.98.206.2 18:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source. Morton, Jeffrey S. (2000). The International Law Commission of the United Nations. University of South Carolina Press. p. 27. ISBN 1570031703. "In addition to economic, social, and political sanctions against South Africa for its apartheid system, the General Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. As such, apartheid was declared to be a crime against humanity, with a scope that went far beyond South Africa. While the crime of apartheid is most often associated with the racist policies of South Africa after 1947, the term more generally refers to racially based policies in any state." -- 67.98.206.2 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your citations are improving, anon, and they might justify a paragraph in the article on Apartheid, describing the term's more general application. What they obviously do not justify is an obtrusive template "contextualizing" the "Israeli apartheid" analogy in terms of the term's use elsewhere. The voluminous sources on the "Israeli apartheid" analogy are very clear about its contexts: the occupation; human rights in the occupied territories; rhetoric, spin, and propaganda in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the demographics of the I-P conflict; international diplomacy and the Israel-South Africa alliance in the 70s and 80s; comparative peacemaking; and so on. A helpful navigational template to the contexts according to reliable sources could certainly be provided; instead, we have this tendentious bit of original research, revamped so that it can still include links to articles which were moved because their "allegations of apartheid" format was shown to be spurious.--G-Dett 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a whole article "describing the term's more general application": allegations of apartheid. You seem more upset about that article, which is well sourced, than its template, which for some reason becomes "original research." You are now the third editor to show up here to complain about those three moved links without lifting a finger to remove them. Manus manum lavat, I suppose: one hand is too busy washing the other. -- 67.98.206.2 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have Template:Apartheid. This one, though recently reworked to make it look like it serves a broader purpose than before, serves no valid purpose. MartinDK 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That template is about South African apatheid. -- 67.98.206.2 14:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, some brave soul actually removed the three links so many of the deletionists have harped on about, and for nearly ~~twelve~~ 10 hours ~~now~~, the edit ~~had~~ had not been reverted. Would have done it myself but with the tone here, I didn't want to get into an edit war and have people exclaim that not even those who voted keep can agree on what should be in the template. In any case, as this seems to be what much of the argument boiled down to for several editors who commented here, I would hope the change counts in the template's favor. -- 67.98.206.2 06:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the content issue of your comment. Except you are insulting toward people who voted for the deletion of this template. This AfD is in trouble only because you decided to comment and overcomment others minds. It was easy to give your arguments once.

Please, do not answer. I think the guy who will close this AfD has everything he needs. Alithien 09:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, I just wanted to fix my comment in light of the slow-motion revert war over the three links resuming, and sooner than I had expected (UTC conversion in my head isn't a strong point). -- 67.98.206.2 04:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the title may change - it is invisible to a reader anyway. We have templates systematizing articles all over WP. I don't see what's so different about this one, other than some users' POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is part of the "Allegations of apartheid" WP:POINT effort currently in arbitration. --John Nagle 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's certainly true. One set of editors votes to keep Allegations of Israeli apartheid over and over, while voting to delete other articles in the series and the template, while a second group votes just the opposite. So while the second group has been driven into hiding by the Arbcom, this 4th TfD for this template comes along with only the first group left. Well, it didn't just "come along", the nominator presented evidence at the ArbCom. -- 67.98.206.2 07:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they've been "driven into hiding" - I notice that Humus sapiens is up to his usual games with this edit and untruthful edit summary. -- ChrisO 08:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete as simply too POV - but probably only after we renominate this article for deletion 10 more times in the next 7 months. The Evil Spartan 06:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PresidentROCTaiwan edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Reasons to delete not addressed by the sole no-comment keep "voter". >Radiant< 07:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supplanted by Template:Presidents of the Republic of China. — Biruitorul 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dahn 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. David McNamara 13:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rationale for that? The template, for one, is used nowhere: where would you like to use it? Biruitorul 22:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.