Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:02, 27 June 2006

This page functions as a central discussion place to resolve this longstanding issue. Concrete workshopping at this page, discussion at the talk.

Proposal by User:KimvdLinde

My rough indication, with approximate proportions (rough estimates)

• Apartheid: Central entrance page, contains following sections:
  • Definition of the term by law (20%)
  • Origin/history of the term (50%)
  • Derived usage in other contexts (30%)
    • Various countries
    • Other usages

• History of South Africa in the apartheid era: Proper article and name for the past tense situation, and warrants own article because of the scope and importance. No change.
• Crime of apartheid. Good page. No change.

Maybe supplemented with:

• Israeli apartheid: If and only if the amount of relevant information is sufficient to warrant a split of from the main article. Short article.

• Section on Apartheid Wall can remain where it is.
• All remaining articles with apartheid in the header get deleted and the usefull information added to the aboe articles.

Based on this posting-- Kim van der Linde 15:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per vote below on Jayjg's proposal. An article on "Apartheid" should be about South Africa because that is where it was a government policy. I also oppose any proposal that even leaves open the possibility of "Israeli apartheid", under whatever name, remaining an independent article. (Forgot to sign 6SJ7 12:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

• Oppose An article on "Apartheid" should be about South Africa. "Israeli apartheid" is something that does not exist. Zeq 12:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by User:Nagle

• Resolve the Israeli apartheid -> "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" renaming issue first. Use whatever Misplaced Pages dispute resolution processes are necessary to get a decision on this that will stick. After that, regard that issue as closed.

• Hold off on all other related renaming/moving/refactoring until that issue is decisively resolved.

• Then reevaluate whether any of the other related articles should be changed.

Once that first key decision is resolved, the rest will fall into place, and we can move forward from there. --John Nagle 02:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Support I think it is clear that they are only allegations since there has been no decisive fact finding by any authorative body. --Ben Houston 02:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment The proposal and poll on Israeli apartheid -> "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" renaming has now been listed as a formal Misplaced Pages:Requested moves action item, with the poll at Misplaced Pages talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Israeli apartheid" article to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". This starts the Misplaced Pages 5-day voting period for a proposed move that has been contested. --John Nagle 03:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The name of the "Israeli apartheid" article is just a temporary issue, while its separate existence is being determined. 6SJ7 12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, this whole thing is about the Israeli apartheid article, the other articles are mostly part of that fight. We should sort out not only the name, but also the content of that article. Then and only then can we decide how the others can interact with that (central) article. --Coroebus 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by Jayjg

• Apartheid material from History of South Africa in the apartheid era placed in Apartheid article.
• Summary of Crime of Apartheid placed in Apartheid article, with link back to main article.
• Israeli Apartheid, Gender apartheid, Sexual apartheid, Global apartheid, Apartheid (disambiguation) merged to Apartheid outside of South Africa, and article renamed to Allegations of apartheid
• Summary of Allegations of apartheid placed in Apartheid article, with link back to the main article. Jayjg 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1)Aside from sharing the term "apartheid" do Israeli Apartheid, Gender apartheid, Sexual apartheid, Global apartheid have enough in common to justify being in the same article? Wouldn't this be a grab-bag article?

2) As a number of countries listed under Apartheid outside of South Africa are accused of gender apartheid, doesn't it make more sense to merge those sections of the former article into the latter?

3) Do you envision the entire Israeli apartheid article being put into Allegations of apartheid outside of South Africa or do you expect it to be shortened?

4) Doesn't the title Allegations of apartheid outside of South Africa assume that South Africa is immune from gender apartheid, sexual apartheid and global apartheid as the title explictly excludes that contry?Homey 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1) The commonality is obvious; the use of the term "apartheid" to designate some alleged discrimination by one group against another.

2) The countries often have multiple accusations of "apartheid" made against them; as a simple example, Saudi Arabia has been accused of gender, sexual, and religious apartheid. Also, the terms themselves tend to be nebulous; they mean different things to different people in different situations, and sometimes even in the same situation.

3) Most of it, I'd imagine. Ideally it should be cleaned up to use the best possible sources, but that probably wouldn't change the size very much, just the choice of sources. I suspect the sections on other countries would grow a little; there's lots of information out there, and I've only started fleshing some of them out.

4) Good point. I've fixed that. Jayjg 01:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply have a disambiguation page that links to the various articles and sections of other articles?

Wouldn't the size of Israeli apartheid dwarf the rest of the page. Isn't it the usual practice on such pages to have a one paragraph synopsis and then a link to a larger article? As User:Gatoclass said on Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa: "I think the "Israel" section is too long in comparison to the rest of the article. It seems to me that the obvious thing to do is keep the Israeli apartheid page a separate one, with a precis of that article here and a link to the Israeli apartheid page as the main entry on this subject. Gatoclass 23:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)"

Thinking of users, is a reader not more likely to be looking for an article called "Global apartheid" or "Gender apartheid" or "Israeli apartheid" than a catchall article called "Allegations of apartheid"? Homey 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1) Disambiguation pages are for disambiguating; it wouldn't be necessary in this case, since the articles in question would be comprehensive and would provide much needed context.

2) If the Israeli apartheid section turns out to be much larger than the others, then decisions can be made about sub-pages at that time. That's the way editing is normally done, first you write the article, then, if it gets too large, you breakout sub-articles; you don't decide on a sub-article before you've even completed the main article. As well, the sections on other countries are likely to grow, as I said above; there's lots of material out there, and little of it has been incorporated into the article yet.

3) If that is the case, then those can easily be re-directs to the broader article, which will be much more informative; that's what re-directs are for. Jayjg 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As Gatoclass points out, the Israeli apartheid "sub-article" as you refer to it is already "too long" for your compilation article. As the article seems to be getting longer by the day at what point do you think it would be "too large" and require a "breakout sub-article"?Homey 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that Gatoclass holds that opinion, but others certainly differ. We'll have to see what happens; this shouldn't be a pre-decided thing, but rather a natural, organic process, as happens with all other articles. Also, I note that that all sorts of "apartheid" allegations are made, beyond the simplistic "global, sexual, and gender" ones, such as "urban apartheid", "social apartheid", "economic apartheid", "Muslim apartheid", "hidden apartheid", etc. - and this ignores the overlap between "gender" and "sexual" apartheid. "Apartheid", of whatever kind, tends to be a fuzzy epithet mostly indicating an alleged discrimination of some sort - artificial divisions into lots of stubby articles misinforms the reader. Jayjg 02:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Finally a sensible poposal. Relevant parts of pejoratively titled Israeli apartheid may be merged into Zionism and racism, Anti-Zionism, New anti-Semitism, Jewish state#Criticism, Hafrada, Israeli-occupied territories, Israeli West Bank barrier or other WP articles. ←Humus sapiens 09:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom and Humus. Zeq 09:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Clean and simple. SlimVirgin 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per SV. This is the most logical way out. Pecher 09:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Jayjg, SV, and Humus.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support ditto, although I feel that the Allegations of Apartheid article is not needed, the summary in Apartheid should be sufficient and should preferrably be called "Apartheid" in political rhetoric or suchlike. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - unworkable as the Israeli apartheid article is too long to justify being merged into another article. Would string together tangentially related articles on various different issues and create a dog's breakfast. Homey 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

shoreting the article to it's reasoanble appropriate length could be a solution. Misplaced Pages NPOV policy clearly sais that minority view of minor groups should not be given space here at all. On that ground alone this article should not have existed. Zeq 12:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for revealing the hidden agenda in this proposal - ie to evade the unsuccessful AFD and try to truncate and ultimately destroy the Israeli aparatheid article. The way to deal with the issue if you think the article is not NPOV is to edit, not to use sleight of hand to try to make an article you don't like disappear.Homey 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no hidden agenda The article need to be both shorter and NPOV. Zeq 15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support per SV and Zeq's solution for the "article too long" objection. Isarig 14:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support having all of the allegation together the article can better compare and contrast where (if ever) the term is appropriate outside of South Africa. Jon513 16:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose at present, Israeli apartheid article is too long (and getting longer by the day), don't think global apartheid fits, but, as I think I mentioned at its AFD, I think it's potentially an interesting topic we haven't addressed. I'm probably still inclined towards my merge into discrimination etc arguments I made at the figurative apartheid AFDs too. I think this is not going to be a satisfactory solution of the Israeli apartheid problem (which is why we're all here), and probably just shifts the fight to a new page. If we could negotiate a sensible shortish Israeli apartheid article (which everyone appears to be trying their hardest to prevent) I might support its merger, but it currently doesn't look like that's going to happen. --Coroebus 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose this is the right-wing pro-Israel proposal (as evidenced by its proposal by Jayjg and its complete support by that faction -- if you are wondering who many in this faction are, see the first 7 support votes above) that attempts to bury the article, Israeli apartheid, that they disagree with. (It should be noted that this is only one of a few POV-pushing factions on Misplaced Pages that are tied to a religion -- there is also a well known Christianity-related group and a more recent Islam-related one. These special interest groups weild a lot of influence on Misplaced Pages via their coordination.) --Ben Houston 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Right-wing? Wow, people who actually know me would be pretty surprised to hear that. Pro-Israel I will admit to, but only when they're right. 6SJ7 20:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I struck the right-wing mention. My perspective is based on reading Haaretz on a fairly regular basis -- a newspaper that is fairly left-wing but also implicitly pro-Israel that I find myself in agreement with. I do not share the same views as this block, even though I am not pro-Arab nor anti-Israel -- thus I tried to find an additional differentiating descriptive term to add to pro-Israel. --Ben Houston 21:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - BH, could you find anything better than to allege some Zionist conspiracy? As if this whole issue is not politicized and polarized enough. ←Humus sapiens 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Humus sapiens, you can make any baseless deflamatory claims you want but I can't help but notice that you just recently featured prominently a link to this page on the Jewish history WikiProject (see here ) even though this page is not really about Jewish history but of modern Israeli politics. That same behavior, when done by someone of the Islam project was considered by Pecher as vote solicitation, see and similar behavior by the Muslim Guild was criticized by Timothy Usher, see . Thus in concrete terms, according to Pecher, you are soliciting votes. --Ben Houston 23:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who chose to radicalize and polarize this area of WP. Do not expect others to sit still while unjust defamatory accusations are being made against a community. AFAIK, there is no Jewish guild or Zionist cabal, but thank you for keeping a watchful eye on my clandestine activities. ←Humus sapiens 00:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support per all my past comments supporting basically the same thing. In fact somewhere on the article's talk page there is a comment entitled "Global Proposal" or something like that, that was mine from about 3 weeks ago and it is very similar to this. 6SJ7 20:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose At the end of the day the Palestinians will still be regarded as second-class citizens persons, they will still be subjected to unjust collective punishment, humiliated at checkpoints, refused much of the liberties the rest of us take for granted. At the end of the day The Guardian, Tutu, Meretz, etc, will still talk about Israeli apartheid. The Likudniks may be successful in their hasbara attempt to bury this article; the tragedy of it all is that they haven't realized what us Jewish Meretz liberals have - that their misguided efforts to protect the homeland is detrimental to the long-term security of Israel. The right of the state of Israel to exist is absolute, a right to be excluded from essential and valid criticisms is nonexistent. And it's not a 50-50 situation, it's entirely reasonably to expect more from the wealthy democracy Israel than from an unorganised Palestinian people. Article20 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Article20. The fact that Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaaza and has not given Palestinians equivalence in rights only suggests the Israeli situation is considerably worse than South Africa's aparthied. The dictionary definition of aparthied doens't mention that the separation has to be from groups within a single citizenry, so that's irrelevant. It's aparthied nonetheless. His Excellency... 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This harangue has nothing to do either with Misplaced Pages in general or with the apartheid articles in particular. Article20 is simply using this page to push a POV on particular issues. I can only remark that Palestinians cannot be second-class citizens by definition because they are not Israeli citizens. Pecher 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • • Funnily enough, the precise same argument was made in apartheid South Africa where the citizenship of Blacks was transferred form South Africa to the various Bantustans. Homey 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • But no such "transfer" of citizenship occured in Israel, demonstrating the paucity of your analogy. In fact, were you honestly interested in drawing parallels between South Africa and ths situation in the West Bank, vs. using it as an Israel-bashing stick, you'd be creating articles named "Jordanian Apartheid", as it was Jordan who "transferred" the citizenship of its West bank citizens to the Palestinian Authority. Isarig 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • (persons instead of citizens) Read my comment in the context of the essay Misplaced Pages:Notability. Article20 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - we are not negotiating the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict here. Article20, you just confirmed that this is being used as a propaganda weapon against Israel. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Certain government policies, not the country. And thank you for confirming that opposition to the phrase has nothing to do with it's encyclopaedic merits (or lack thereof), but with misguided attempts to "defend" Israel. A "defence" that Israel would be better off without as it is only concerned with appearances, and not with the underlying reality. Article20 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by User:Bhouston

• I favor a new main Apartheid article with sections on the origin with brief history of South Africa (with link to main article), a brief blurb on development of the crime of apartheid (with link to main article), and then it would briefly how the term has entered into public discourse in a non-scientific way with list of examples.
• Jayjg is against on principle the existence of the article Israeli apartheid - I see the article as legitimate since it discusses something that is talked about in various places, especially if it covers many different POVs in a neutral fashion.
• Apartheid (disambiguation) can stay in IMO -- it would be better to list in that the various sexual apartheid, gender apartheid, religious apartheid forms -- mostly because it would be scientificially improper to try to fit them into an apartheid article more than just a brief mention in the public discourse section -- it would be OR to link them unless reputable did, right now they only share the term apartheid -- also, normally such a page would not be contentious but it is because of the Israeli apartheid that the dab is now politically charged. Jayjg is emotional about the current topic and thus his suggestions are based more on trying to achieve a political end, not how best to cover a topic in Misplaced Pages -- which is unfortunate. --Ben Houston 00:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Bhouston, do you think you could make your proposal based on its merits alone, rather than being a proposal about your bad faith and uncivil assumptions about me? Claims such as "Jayjg is emotional about the current topic and thus his suggestions are based more on trying to achieve a political end, not how best to cover a topic in Misplaced Pages -- which is unfortunate." are both untrue and a violation of policy. They have no place anywhere on Misplaced Pages, and certainly not here, which is where we're supposed to be having a serious discussion. Jayjg 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Kettle, pot? You said just today that the Apartheid outside of South Africa "is the main article, the other is a stub which exists for political purposes only" () That comment of yours doesn't seem to be assuming good faith either does it? It seems like you hold others to standards you do not hold yourself too. --Ben Houston 02:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I haven't referred to any specific editors, I definitely haven't speculated about their emotional states, and I certainly haven't made that comment on this page. Please take this page (and policy) seriously. Jayjg 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We all know that there's a number of agendas here, so no need for self righteousness from any side. --Coroebus 17:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose due to proposed retention of "Israeli Apartheid" as separate article, per all my other comments. 6SJ7 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - "talked about in various places" is a euphemism for "fringe minority". ←Humus sapiens 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)