Talk:Allegations of apartheid

Some of the discussion on this talk page is irrelevant to the article. It has been archived If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (08/01/05 to 11/30/05):

---

Article Discussion

Saudi Arabia

"Saudi Arabia denies citizenship not only to Jews and Christians but also to other non-Muslims and they are all not permitted to reside permanently in the country." The problem with this statement is that it is misleading. Saudi Arabia denies citizenship to everyone not originally from a Saudi Arabia, Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Arab, non-Arab. Secondly, the saudiinstitute link doesn't work. Saudi Arabia's discriminatory citizenship laws are comparable to many other countries in the region such as U.A.E. but all over the world. Japan for example. A more NPOV statement about discriminatory citizenship laws all over the world should replace the misleading statement above. "Saudi Arabia's discriminatory practices against women and non-Muslim minorities can also be described as forms of apartheid" Does apartheid include discrimination against women? If that is the case then that should be clearly stated somewhere defining what apartheid is. Discrimination against women is a world-wide problem. I don't think its relevant to this article. Yodakii 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Some people refer to Saudi Arabia's policies towards women as "Gender apartheid", and Saudi Arabia's restrictions on women are unique. Links describing the issue: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Saudi Arabia's repression of religious minorities has also been described as "apartheid". More links: [6] [7][8] Link using both: [9] Your other point doesn't deal with the residency issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I think "gender apartheid" or "sexual apartheid" should be explained in the article. About Saudi Arabia's discriminatory laws, they also include residency rights. Many non-Arab, non-Moslems live and work in Saudi Arabia. Their permits and their childrens' and spouses' have residency permits so long as they are working in the country. They are denied permanent residency just as Arab, Moslem immigrants are denied it. After the first Gulf war many non-Saudi families with children born and raised in that country were forced to leave when they lost their jobs.Yodakii 04:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Until recently, the official goverment website stated that Jews were forbidden from entering the country. Now, I suppose, the policy is unoffical. In any event, this seems relevant.[10] Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Time to fix this article

OK. I thoroughly supported removing this stuff from the apartheid article, but it's just been sitting here gathering dust pretty much ever since. Thanks, Yodakii, for bringing it to my attention.  :-) I've alphabetized the countries mentioned in the article, which, as much as I might dislike it, puts Israel prominently on the top of the list. I also reduced the prominence of the US, since having its own section as opposed to "the rest of the world" seemed like inappropriate emphasis. I would have used H2 style text, but that would have ended up making the individual sections sometimes ridiculously short, so I went with H3 (3 equal signs on each end of the subsection titles, for those who didn't catch the HTML speak there. :-p)

That said, I've slapped an {{accuracy}} tag on this article, and probably should have thrown on a {{expand}} for good measure, but these are my gripes, most of which are actually in the article as HTML comments as well.

1. Controversially, arguments are sometimes made that the past or present actions of other nations are analogous to apartheid in South Africa, or constitute apartheid under the definition adopted in international law.

   Where is apartheid defined in international law? Could we get a brief description of it, as well as a citation for this? It would be really helpful for our readers if we could present them with that description so that they can decide for themselves how accurate the allegations people are making of apartheid elsewhere really are.

2. Critics of Israel argue that its treatment of Palestinians is discriminatory and a form of apartheid, and refer to it as as a racist and/or an Apartheid state. Israel and its supporters argue that this comparison is ungrounded and unfair. The Israeli West Bank barrier is often referred to by critics as the "Apartheid wall".

   Who are these critics? Where do they say this? Why do they say this. What reasons do Israel and "its supporters" (which just sounds all wrong, but we can worry about style fixing after we get some facts together) have for saying these allegations are ungrounded? Any ... unfair? Who calls that stupid fence "the Apartheid wall", and why? Any citations to go with this?

3. The State of Jordan's Constitution denies Jews citizenship. (note: I keep correcting this and someone keeps putting it back. The Jordanian constitution doesn't define citizenship standards. The Law of Nationality of 1954 granted citizenship to everyone living in certain territories, but with regard to the West Bank, excluded Jews on the basis that they were all granted citizenship in the new Israeli state. There is no other exclusion of Jews from Jordanian nationality law.)

   This section has been commented out for far too long. If it's not true, it should be excised from the article, or clarification should be made that the allegation is simply untrue.

4. Saudi Arabia denies citizenship not only to Jews and Christians but also to other non-Muslims and they are all not permitted to reside permanently in the country. [11] Saudi Arabia's discriminatory practices against women and non-Muslim minorities can also be described as forms of apartheid (see also [12] for Human Rights Watch report).

   Yodakii makes a good point here about the inequality of women being "gender apartheid". As nonsensical as that qualification of the term sounds, it should be made clear, as well as why the allegations are made. In this respect, Saudi Arabia is not alone. Afghanistan under the Taliban was even more strict in its oppression of women (although that's not mentioned in this article at all). The thing about non-muslims being not permitted to reside permanently in the country should also be qualified and clarified.

5. Some Basques in Spain have argued that the Navarrese laws that do not grant official status to the Basque language are a form of apartheid. Supporters of Batasuna also call its illegalization "apartheid".

   Could we possibly get someone to do an article on the Navarrese laws so that the link can be sent there instead of to Navarre, which is just not the right place to be sending it. That's like having Jim Crow point to United States. Could we possibly get a citation for supporters of Batasuna calling its illegalization "apartheid"? I changed "outlaw" to "illegalization" there, since I assume that's what it was supposed to mean... OK... I'm going to just go ahead and change that link. It'll turn it the horrible RED, but at least it won't send people to Navarra anymore, and perhaps will induce someone to actually write an article for it.

6. The US section is such a mess I felt nauseous reading it. It discusses a not-so-incredibly-pretty part of US history, but it does so in a yellow journalistic style that just--has to go:
   Interracial sex and marriage were outlawed.

This is true of many southern states of the US at the time, marriages between whites and 'negros' (and some other 'races') were prohibited...go to [13] 06:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

1. I added the citation request, because I have never heard of such a thing...and a lot of other people I'm sure wonder where the assertion comes from as well.

2. Blacks were systematically denied voting rights.

   As far as I'm aware, Jim Crow laws made it so that all illiterates were denied voting rights, were they not? whether or not it was done "systematically" to prevent blacks from voting is a legitimate point, but this bullet makes it sound like there was some sort of LEGAL obstacle specifically denying blacks the right to vote, which was not, AFAIK, the case. This seems to clash with a later statement, which I'll get to in a moment...

3. Jim Crow etiquette was similar to apartheid etiquette.

   What, pray tell, does this mean? what was "apartheid etiquette"?

4. In South Africa, voting rights were denied to blacks outright, by denying them citizenship. In the U.S., denial of voting rights was enforced by local custom, by lynching and other forms of terrorism, or by poll taxes and selective enforcement of literacy requirements.

   This seems to be what I was saying earlier...but also contradicts the assertion made above that there was a system in place--lynching is not a system, and from what I understand of those days, was done so willy-nilly that, as a voting deterrent, it would have hardly been effective. As for poll taxes, I'm quite certain that's illegal in the US, and always has been, so if that's the case, a citation would be nice. And no, Louis Farrakhan is not a reliable source. The "selective enforcement of literacy requirements" thing, was a real phenomenon, but a citation would be nice.

5. In a completely different analogy, based on the newly coined term "genocide" used to describe the Holocaust, the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) made a 1951 presentation on lynching in the United States to the United Nations entitled "We Charge Genocide," which argued that the federal government, by its failure to act to curb the lynchings, was guilty of genocide under Article II of the UN Genocide Convention.

   OK... What? Why is this in this article? Even with some expansion on this, which would be nice (e.g., what was the outcome of the presentation?, etc.), this has nothing to do with apartheid so far as I can tell... And what on God's green earth is "In a completely different analogy" doing in an encyclopedia article?!

6. The "The West" section needs some citations as well as some clarification.

Now, I've pissed and moaned a lot, but that's the reason for the tag on the article. Don't tell me "sofixit". I'll work on it whenever and in whatever ways I'm able to. I made the list as much for myself as for everyone else.  :-) Tomer ^TALK 19:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Serious articles??

--With the mention about apartheid in Navarre in the article i´ve realized that the pages related to nationalisms in Spain aren´t objective, nor accurate and surely they don´t try to, since probably written by nationalist people, or people who doesn´t care to inform themselves, so please stop pretending wikipedia is a serious, accurate project if you let people write those things, that´s just propaganda.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Tomer ^TALK 21:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Merge/Delete/Keep Discussions

don't merge with "racial segregation"

On the article page it says: "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Racial segregation." The problem with this suggestion is that in South Africa, segregation and apartheid refer to two different phenomena marked by different ideologies, policies, and historical contexts. Using the term "apartheid" as synonymous with "segregation" is historically inaccurate and smacks of agenda-pushing, which has no place in an ostensibly objective encyclopedia. smg (unsigned comment by User:71.0.88.219)

Actually, this statement is uninformed at best, dishonest at worst. The only difference between apartheid and segregation is that the former was official national governmental policy, and an rge tafrikaans word, whereas the latter was done sneakily in order to circumvent official national governmental policy that specifically prohibited it, and is an English word of Latin origin. Both refer to the practice of forceful separation of people based exclusively on the color of their skin (or that of their ancestors). Tomer^TALK 22:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

afd result

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2005. The result of the discussion was No Consensus 8 delete, 5 keep/merge. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

List of political epithets#Apartheid

I've suggested that this article be merged (in highly pruned form) back into List of political epithets#Apartheid, as that is all the term really means in this context. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. I'd favour deletion, but as a more agreeable solution (community consensus) this seems a viable option. How much more would it be expanded beyond it's current form on that page? Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 01:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that merging with any other article would not be good for wikipedia. The personal opinions of a few editors should not stop legit articles like this one from existing in their own right. I think that there should be a blurb over on that list about Apartheid existing outside the context of South Africa. Vote no merge. Vvuppala 18:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think merging this article's pieces with other appropriate articles actually is a good idea, and that this article should be a redirect to List of political epithets (since, outside South Africa, the only way the term is ever used is, specifically, as a political epithet)... Apartheid does not exist outside the context of South Africa, although some policies of various governments at various times are, in the logical fallacy called "appeal to emotion", referred to as such, in order to garner support for opposition to those policies.

The list of countries that have been accused of apartheid or analogues thereto, is nearly as long as the list of countries on the face of the planet. Canada (language laws, treatment of "first nations"), US (whose detractors latch onto any word they can use to bash the country), Mexico (for its treatment of Amerindians), Brazil (for the plight of the poor, and the general gov't disregard for the Amerindian peoples), Nigeria (for the treatment of non-Igbo/Yoruba/Fulani minorities), Zimbabwe (for as Rhodesia for the treatment first of its blacks, now under the lunatic Mugabe, for the treatment of its whites), Egypt (for the treatment of the Copts), most of the Muslim world, in fact (for the treatment of ethnic and religious minorities of all sorts), Turkey (for the treatment of the Kurds and Armenians), Greece (for the treatment of Macedonian, Albanian and A- and Meglenoromanian minorities), Cyprus (for the treatment of the Turks), Italy (for the treatment of Sards and other minorities), Spain (for the treatment of Gallegos, Asturianus, Basques, Cataluñans and Jews), France (for the treatment of basically everyone not white and francophone), Germany (for its treatment of Turks and other minorities, and more recently, even for its treatment of Germans from the former East Germany!!!), Poland (for its treatment of the Kashubians as well as basically any foreigners), Romania (for its treatment of the Hungarians), Serbia & Montenegro (for its treatment of the Bosniaks and Albanians), Makadoniya (for its treatment of the Albanians), Finnland/Sweden/Norway (for their treatment of the Sami), UK (for its treatment of Catholic Irish), Japan (for its treatment of the Ainu, Ryukyuans and Burakumin), Ukraine (for its treatment of Russians, Jews, Tatars, etc.), Moldova (for its treatment of Russians), Georgia (for its treatment of Abhkazians (sp?)), Armenia (for its treatment of Azeris), Azerbaijan (for its treatment of Kurds, Armenians, Tats, Jews, etc.), Iraq (for its treatment formerly of Shias and Kurds), Iran (for its treatment of Jews, Kurds, Lurs, Baluchis and Azeris), India (for its treatment of Muslims, Nagas, etc.), Bhutan/Nepal (for their treatment of religious minorities), Russia (for its treatment of basically every non-Russian-speaking ethnicity in the country), Sudan (for its treatment of non-Arabs generally and non-Muslims specifically), and of course

Israel, which is so often held up as the worst offender of all, for its treatment of...people living outside its borders. The Palestinian Authority, of course, is never mentioned, eventhough their policies have caused the exodus of over half the Christian population in the past 12 years, and they insist that Jews cannot own land (upon penalty of death to anyone who sells land to a Jew, even unwittingly), much less live in the areas they control. Believe it or not, this list is far from complete. The point I'm making with all of this is that there's no way this discussion belongs all in a single article which details the accusations against each individual country. If this article is going to remain, it should remain as a discussion of the fact that the term is used, and then links to the appropriate sections in the "Politics of Foo" articles where such controversy is discussed. These allegations, however, categorically, should not be discussed in this article, since doing so indicates an explicit acceptance of the "correctness" of the accusation by the WP community, which is a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Tomer^TALK 22:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You raised many good points. The Palestine/Israel issue is very complex, and I doubt this article would be able to cover it fairly and effectively. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 01:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If, as you say, this article should not imply the correctness about its accusations, then my edits about the United States need to be moved to a separate article. There can be no debate on the reality of the situation. Denying that the VA, the FHA, the HOLC, and the Eisenhower Highway system played an instrumental role in the Government-enforced segregation of the country (my definition of Apartheid) is like denying the Holocaust. Vvuppala 13:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I would characterize such a position as absurd, but this isn't the place to discuss comparing various historical evils. That said, what you're calling "government-enforced segregation" should be discussed in Racial segregation. Also, care must be taken to differentiate between allegations of segregation based on the outcome of government policies, and government policies designed to effect racial segregation as a specific outcome. It's possible that merging the information you've added to the article will, upon merging into Racial segregation#USA, unduly unbalance that article, which might require spinning that section off to Racial segregation in the USA, which could be linked to from this article, should we see fit to rewrite it according to my proposal. Tomer^talk 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about when you say absurd positions... Also, what I'm calling "government-enforced segregation" is government policies designed to effect racial segregation as a specific outcome. I think you're right, this all would best be put together as part of a Racial segregation in the USA article, which brings in the stub on Redlining. Vvuppala 22:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Absurd position" IMHO is "racial segregation denial" = "holocaust denial". TIA...like I said, not really relevant to the article discussion... Tomer^talk 22:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I would support a vote to move this article to the list of political epithets. When using the word in its original sense, namely to refer to a specific legal system in a specific time and place, it is rightfully capitalized. But when used as an adjective to effectively compare other things, places or people with the Apartheid, it is my understanding that it is de-capitalized or possibly used with an explanatory suffix, typically using "Apartheid-like" (or even "-oid" for those with a word-fetich). The same appears to be true when using other words referring to something named after a specific historical occurrence (compare Fascism and fascism; Boycott and boycott; Holocaust and holocaust; Vandal and vandal; see also [[Talk:Racial segregation|Proposal to merge Apartheid outside South Africa with Racial segregation). --Big Adamsky 00:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I support moving the definition to the List of political epithets with any sourced and relevant, and factual information from this article moved to Racial segregation. We should not forget, of course, that racial segregation is actually racial segregation, so ethnic discrimination and segregation issues do not belong there. Pecher^Talk 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

Has anyone thought about mentioning the anti-Protestant apartheid policies that have been enacted by succesive governments in the Republic of Ireland since 1922? - (Aidan Work 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

New Zealand

I see that no-one has mentioned about the Maori Nationalists' advocacy of apartheid in which Maoris would have more rights than any other New Zealanders had their subhuman policies ever been enacted. One extremely racist political party that still advocates an apartheid system in New Zealand is the openly Britanniphobic Maori Party, whose leader is the traitor, Tariana Turia. - (Aidan Work 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

Racial discrimination ≈ "Apartheid" laws outside South Africa

Currently Racial discrimination redirects to Racism which is a very long article that explains and illustrates the phenomenon at length and provides numerous examples. The article is written mainly from a US perspective and with the mental baggage of someone well aware of recent US history. Apartheid outside South Africa has an article of its own that deals specifically with legislation based on racial discrimination, even though the term "Apartheid" is a historical term used officially only in South Africa and Namibia during the Cold War years. "Apartheid" when applied elsewhere is merely a political epithet; it is not the proper official term in those regimes whose legal and political systems are currently based on racial divisions within their societies. In other words, these countries never refer to such laws as "Apartheid laws"; it is an anacgronistic misnomer used for the effect of drawing parallels and perhaps to draw on the negative connotations of the word "Apartheid" even before the reader has had a chance to reflect for him or herself on the effects of racially discriminatory laws. Therefore, I propose moving the content of the Apartheid outside South Africa article to the redirect page Racial discrimination. //Big Adamsky 16:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Archbishop on Israel

Many people hold different opinions about the arab-israeli conflict. Why is the opinion of Archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu of special importance? After all, the encyclopedia should concentrate on presentin facts, not opinions.-- Heptor _talk 14:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

ps: there are 569 archbishops in the catholic church. Should opinion of every one of them be included, or just those who go against Israel? -- Heptor _talk 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh?? Firstly, Desmond Tutu does not belong to the Catholic Church to my knowledge (hey, he´s married!) Secondly, how many people won the Nobel Peace Prize for their fight against Apartheid? (Answer: Tutu, Mandela, de Klerk (that is: laureates still alive)). Isn´t the views (on Apartheid) of these persons exactly of "special importance"? Regards, Huldra 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Desmond Tutu's opinions on this subject are any more relevant than those of, say, Britney Spears. Opinions from scholars who are experts on racial segregation are relevant, of course, but Desmond Tutu is certainly not one of such scholars. Pecher^Talk 21:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. That would also mean that the opinion of a Holocost survivor, say, Elie Wiesel, is no more relevant to an article on the Holocost that Britney Spears opinion is? Regards, Huldra 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That would mean that Elie Wiesel is no more relevant to an article on the Rwandan Genocide or the cultural revolution in China than Britney Spears' opinion is Heptor _talk 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

<moved left>Firstly: What I find facinating here is the difference in standards: look at the other countries and see the sources, and see how many are based on "scholars who are experts on racial segregation ".

Secondly: What is even more interesting is what is left in under "Israel": a ref. to Radio Islam,(!!!) which is, to put it very diplomatically, not exactly my definition of "scholars who are experts on racial segregation". In short: they are a totally disreputable bunch of loonies. While Desmond Tutu, while one can disagree with him, nobody (or very few) would not respect him. Sooooooo: WP-editors remove critizism of Israel IF it comes from decent people (like Tutu), and leave it in IF it comes from a completely insane & nasty & disreputable source, like Radio Islam......Hmmm......How very interesting.
Anyway, I will have to continue some other time, it´s very late (in Scandinavia) & I´m logging out, good-night for now, Huldra 00:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do find better sources. But it would have to be someone who actively upholds the accusation. Or would you prefer something like "Desmond Tutu once claimed once that situation in the occupied territories is a lot like the situation was under Apartheid. Israel dismissed charges upholding, among other things, that its Arab citizens were given equal rights, but Radio Islam disagrees with that?"

My impression is that the claim that Israel is an Apartheid state is mostly a populist one. I don't think you will find many respectable people actually involved in the conflict repeat it, but if you do, feel free to include it. Heptor _talk 08:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Finland

An anonymous editor (apparently pushing an agenda against Finland-Swedes and the Swedish language in Finland; see contribs at Special:Contributions/84.231.217.70), repeatedly re-inserts a section about Finland, claiming our country's constitutional bilingualism constitutes "Åpartheid". This is utter nonsense, and has been repeatedly removed by logged-in editors. This anon. also posts mock vandalism warnings on reverting logged-in users' talk pages. Please keep an eye on this, thank you. --Janke | Talk 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Cum discrimination regime

Okey, I've heard many weird accusations against Israel here on Wikipedia, but "Israel has established [...] a cum discrimination regime"? This SO takes the cake! [14]

Heptor _talk 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: In any case, this article is not a place for an in-depht discussion of those accusations, such discussions will grow exponentially if allowed. A brief mention with links is sufficient here. -- Heptor _talk 23:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

apartheid in France

Can someone give 1 source to the idea that what happens in France can be qualified as apartheid or even discrimination ? Christophe Greffe 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, these are actually Muslims, not the French government, who are accused of apartheid in The Times article. I will not remove the section for awhile, so that everyone could have fun. That's one more piece of evidence that the article is a biased uncleanable mess. Pecher ^Talk 10:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am removing it as it is one person's opinion piece, and no other sources are provided. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed it as it was completely POV and silly. Pecher, please Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Satyagit 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NOT

The article is now essentially a collection of quotes in which a political epithet "apartheid" was applied to countries other than South Africa. In this respect, the article violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which says Wikipedia articles are not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Pecher ^Talk 09:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is a typical political farse comparing something one wish to discredit with something known to be bad. This is very similar to Certificate_of_Hitlertude. Heptor _talk 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed this article should be merged into existing artiicles, I have started to do that. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Insofar all the content from the article was merged into other articles, I have left only a redirect to List of political epithets#Apartheid. Pecher ^Talk 16:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it does not redirect directly to the intended section, I changed the redirect to Racial segregation. Pecher ^Talk 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the redirect. I've found this article to be fascinating and don't get the very recent feverish editing pace and, well, extreme eagerness to redirect this article. This article could be kept with brief descriptions of the alleged "apartheid" in each country followed by a link to the relevant articles with more details. I submit that the word apartheid, insofar as it means apartness and segregation, needn't and isn't always purely based on race. SWalter 19:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Switched to Segregation. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes the segregation article you've redirected to indeed covers more than race. But it can be argued that apartheid can also include separation and discrimination by other factors, such as class or language. Earlier edits of this article have indicated this as well. Those factors aren't listed in the segregation article and therefore I don't think it's an appropriate redirect. SWalter 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Can be argued" doesn't sound particularly convincing. Apartheid is a term used in a very specific context, i.e. racial segregation in South Africa. Modern politicians occasionally stretch it too far, emptying it of any meaning, and that is why the term is on the List of political epithets. Please refrain from trying to impose your tastes, not backed by sources, on the rest of the community. Igniting a revert war is not a good way to start your work at Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As someone mentioned elsewhere the Israeli aprartheid article survived its AFD and there was no consensus for merger to any article, let alone this one. One shouldn't try to circumvent the AFD with an after the fact merger. Homey 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We could have done with the existence of this article being mentioned during the AFD! Why wasn't it linked from the disambig? --Coroebus 18:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One shouldn't try to use WP for political activism, Homey. The AFD completed with no consensus. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli Apartheid article is fine where it is. I don't see any compelling reason to move it. Obhaso 21:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger

There was a consensus last February to merge this article with racial segregation and, indeed, most of the text in the recreated article is also in that article. Given that consensus, what is the justification for now recreating the article?Homey 23:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is clearly retaliation for your Israeli apartheid (phrase) article. --Ben Houston 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And how is this claim of motivation helping? The bottom line is that other people's motivations are impossible to know, as such it is improper to make your suspicions public. Even if it was possible to accurately discern, it would still be irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Really Moshe, it's a shame you didn't have this position when you were attacking my motivation in creating the article. Homey 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Recommendation: ArbCom - I think things have progressed so far that maybe this whole set of related articles, AfD, merge proposals and moves be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and be settled properly. --Ben Houston 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be a need for a "higher authority" to resolve all of this, but it was my understanding that the ArbCom does not involve itself in "content disputes," only in transgressions of rules and policies and the consequences of those transgressions. Is that incorrect? Obviously there have been accusations of bad behavior and the ArbCom could deal with that, but is the ArbCom really going to specify the articles that should remain or be merged, the titles of the remaining articles, and what the contents of each should be? Or if not the complete contents, at least what the introductions should say? Because without a comprehensive, authoritative ruling on "content," I see no resolution to this. 6SJ7 17:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an edit dispute and need to be resolved. ArbCom does not solve edit disputes. If the dispute can not be solvd because the behaviour of several users that now edit these articles this should be brought to ArbCom so that the editors who disruppted wikipedia and turned it into a political tools will be removed and this will enable the dispute to be resolved. Zeq 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that might be shooting yourself in the foot somewhat Zeq. --Coroebus 09:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Global renaming/merger proposal

A meag has been placed here and on "Israeli apartheid," both of which direct to this talk page. So, I would like to make a proposal in response to this tag. In light of the existence of this article, "Israeli apartheid," the apartheid-disambiguation page and the global/gender/sexual apartheid articles (I think that's all of them), here is what I propose: Rename this article to something like "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa," then merge all of the above-mentioned articles into it. (I realize that in effect this would result in deletion of the "disambiguation" page, but in light of this article it is really duplicative anyway.) This would greatly streamline the whole ridiculous mess that has been created in the last week, and still allow some small, lonely corner of Wikipedia for the allegation of apartheid by Israel -- but clearly labeled as "epithets" in an article about "allegations." 6SJ7 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsensical. Global apartheid, Gender apartheid and Israeli apartheid have little in common except a shared word. Again, this looks like an attempt to "disappear" the phrase Israeli apartheid, a phrase that has more than enough content to merit its own article. Creating a "miscelleneous" catch-all is bad organization and will lead to a bad article. The article survived an AFD, you should have some respect for that rather than trying to circumvent the AFD and kill the article in another way. Homey 05:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there might be some sense in 6SJ7's proposal, although I agree with Homey that perhaps the truly figurative uses of 'apartheid' mightn't fit. But the allegations article (which would have a redirect from 'Israeli apartheid' of course) would need to be well enough sourced, and deal with the issue at hand, rather than be a grab-bag of commentary about segregation in various countries. And finally, and probably unlikely, we'd need to get people (you know who you are) to agree not to immediately try and merge or redirect the new article. --Coroebus 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal by 6SJ7: Hafrada -> Apartheid outside South Africa

Discussion here. Article20 06:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries, etc.

I know you all know this, but as a reminder: Please use edit summaries and discuss major changes on this Talk page. In particular, this article redirected to "Segregation" as of Feb 8, and according to Homey there was "a consensus last February to merge this article with racial segregation." If I understand the History page correctly, Homey changed the redirect on May 28 to make this article redirect to "Aparthied (disambiguation)". I cannot find an edit summary or discussion associated with Homey's re-redirect. If a discussion of that change happened on another page, could someone please provide a link to it? Thanks, Su-Laine Su-laine.yeo 02:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find anything discussion here (or anywhere) on unmerging the article and reverting to a version that existed prior to the consensus to merge with racial segregation. Can you, Su-laine?Homey 02:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No consensus for merger

Jay has attempted to unilaterally merge Israeli apartheid into this article despite the fact that there is clearly no consensus for the merger. Homey 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no consensus to single out Israel. Why should it be treated differently? This article addresses Apartheid outside of South Africa. Is Israel outside of South Africa? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not acceptable practice to copy one article in its entirety and post it in another. There is an article on Israeli apartheid thus this article has a "see" notice under Israel. That, too, is typical for articles that cover an international issues or another question in which there exist separate articles. Israel is being treated differently because there are over 300,000 google hits for "Israeli apartheid" and an article on the topic. Homey 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Small articles are merged into larger ones all the time. There's no policy against it; on the contrary, it's encouraged in order to provide better context, and avoid stubbiness. It's done with small school articles all the time, which are merged into school district articles. The Israeli apartheid article is bigger, but it also uses a lot of dodgy sources, and it's been worked on a lot more. I'm sure, given time, the other sections will be of similar size. Anyway, there hasn't even been a unilateral merge; the Israeli Apartheid article is still there, not re-directed. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

MPerel, since when has it been acceptable to have the entire contents of an article appear twice?

"Small articles are merged into larger ones all the time"

Where is the consensus for a merger in this article?Homey 03:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you want Israel to be treated no differently than the other countries in this article how do you rationalise giving it several times more space than other countries? Your reasoning for reverting to Jay's version isn't borne out by your actual action. Homey 03:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, to interpret fair treatment as "the same amount of space in encyclopedia" is totally wrongheaded approach. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Epithet" claim is original research

Where is the source for your claim that the term apartheid is an epithet? This seems to just be original research. Homey 03:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is "Apartheid" defined in international law? Can you back up your original research on this? General Assembly resolutions have nothing to do with International law, since they are non-binding, and this is an article about the use of the term "Apartheid" as a political epithet, not under international law. If you want to write an article about that, you're welcome to. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Where is "Apartheid" defined in international law? Can you back up your "

Yes, read the article. Homey 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The UNGA is not a lawmaking body. Also, when it comes to Israel, the UNGA cannot be considered neutral. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

According to United Nations General Assembly the "Assembly serves as a forum for members to discuss issues of international law" so it does have a role. The ICC does as well, as you know.

Humus, you've not given me a source for the claim that "apartheid" is an epithet. Homey 03:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Both ICC & UNGA are not lawmaking bodies and both are not neutral. For definition, see a dictionary. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing NPOV with neutral sources. Why have you removed sourced information from the article? And again, what is your source for apartheid being an epithet? Homey 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Look up epithet in the dictionary, that is our source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That approach is original research. What is your source for apartheid being an epithet? Provide a source where the term is so described. Homey 06:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone should create an article about the history and emergence of the concept of the crime of Apartheid in international law. It would be interesting who spearheaded the drive first in the USGA and then later in the ICC. And whether any cases have even mentioned it or whether it is still an untested law. I think such an article would be interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia, especially if it didn't mention Israel (which should be unnecessary) and contained only verifiable law-oriented sources. --Ben Houston 05:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

People are forgetting that "Apartheid" isn;t the name of a crime per se, it is just the name of the controversial policies of the white south African regime.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment Moshe, which is frankly wrong and shows lack of knowledge of ICC (the Rome statute in particular mentions the crime of apartheid, see Crime_against_humanity) and UNGA statues, shows the need for such an article on international development of apartheid law in order to add clarity to this situation. I am also personally interested in how and why it came about and the exact time line and the arguments against it that are probably documented in the legal literature at the time. --Ben Houston 07:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research. The ICC considers apartheid a crime. It's POV and OR to say "they're wrong". Homey 06:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover the treaty that created the ICC defines apartheid as a crime. the UNGA reference is to explain the origins of apartheid as an inernational crime (treaties are part of international law, Moshe)Homey 07:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (emphasis added)

Article 7: Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Homey 07:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "apartheid" as used in this article is an epithet for the simple reason that the article does not cite a single case of charges of the crime of apartheid, only the usage of the term as a rhetorical device. Pecher ^Talk 08:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research. What source do you have that states the use of the term apartheid is an epithet?Homey 12:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR applies only to the content of articles, not to their titles. Pecher ^Talk 12:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking this is Apartheid outside of South Africa so the epithet claim is part of the article --Coroebus 12:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

a) it is the content of the article we are discussing, epithet does not exist in the title of this article

b) I don't think you are correct, a title like 9-11 never happened would be in violation of OR.Homey 12:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How so? Not everything on Wikipedia is about policy. 9-11 never happened is an obviously unencyclopedic title for an article. No policy is needed against that. -- Heptor _talk 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

More epithets

It doesn't make any sense to say that 'apartheid' is an epithet and then to go on and define it under international law (no that is not an invitation to remove the international law section). Therefore the intro must allude to 'apartheid' being more than just an epithet, surely we can come to some kind of compromise here. --Coroebus 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point. If Apartheid is a crime, then "Israeli Apartheid" is an accusation, not an epithet - more or less like "Coroebus's Raping Spree" -- Heptor _talk 19:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq

Be careful about editing this article Zeq - if Israeli apartheid (forgotten whether it's (epithet) or (phrase) at the moment) is merged into this article then you're editing the definitive version, and you've been banned from editing the original version already.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeontherange (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coroebus (talk • contribs)

Do you mean a "derivative version"? You may want to inquire the ArbCom for clarification about that. Pecher ^Talk 08:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No I meant definitive, because if the merge is undertaken the original will be deleted and the one here will be the only (and thus definitive) version. There's no need to go grass up Zeq, I was just cautioning him not to get carried away. --Coroebus 08:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all worried. Any ban is to prevent disruiption (not to exclude a specific content by a specific individual editor) so if my edits go into that article this in not at all a violation of the ban. In any case, the ban on me editing is completly unfounded but for now it does not bother me. My edits are reasonable and if there is any conculsion that should be concluded here is that the probation need to end. It is impossible to create a situation in which reasonable edits by one person are not allowed while similar (or even more unreasoanable) edits by another are allowed. The idea behind WP:probation was not to to go all the way to ArbCom if there is a good cause (like disruption, edit war etc) but since I did not edited any of the articles I was banned from in a way that is different from any other editor the ban is unjustified. Zeq 08:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"International law" section

The "International law" section was just a copy of History of South Africa in the apartheid era#International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, and General Assembly resolutions have nothing to do with International law. I've cut the section down the the part that actually discusses International law, and provided a reference to the relevant section in the other article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

and the Israel section in your version was just a copy of Israeli apartheid and the whole article was taken out of racial segregation. Your point?Homey 01:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I must say, it's not particularly relevant to this article, since none of the references are using the legal definition, nor are any of the examples about International court cases. This article is about the common use of the epithet "apartheid". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit dispute

I'm not familiar with the full context of this dispute, but if somebody could provide a neutral summary of the matter, I'd recommend that this be listed for an RFC so as to solicit outside opinions. Note that I'm not asking for a summary of any editor's behaviour in this dispute; please keep it to a basic summary of the actual issue under dispute. I will shut down any attempt to turn this process into a personal attack on another Wikipedian. Bearcat 23:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bearcat,

The dispute on this page is an extension of the controversy at Talk:Israeli apartheid. I'd recommend looking over the recent posts on that page. CJCurrie 23:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving to Apartheid (political Epithet)

I am moving the article to a name that has relevence to the article. There is no proof that anything described in this article is actual apartheid and the introduction already mentions that it is alleged. Guy Montag 05:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't -- there is emphatically no consensus on parenthetical references to "epithets". CJCurrie 06:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't really about the word "epithet" per se; it's about the use of any parenthetical term in an article title where the parenthetical is intended as a political comment on the title rather than a straight disambiguator. I still, personally, believe that the term apartheid has a very specific political and temporal context (namely, South Africa in the 20th century), and that while the term is obviously used in English to draw analogies to other human rights conflicts, it isn't the proper NPOV name of those conflicts and we really shouldn't be pretending that it is. To me, it comes across as the same kind of cringeworthy cultural appropriation as inappropriate Shoah, Khmer Rouge or Tonton Macoutes analogies: if it's not that time in that place, then that is not the right word for it. (And don't even get me started on applying a Nazi analogy to a guy who won't sell you soup. It doesn't even begin to occupy the correct ethical space to validate the analogy.)

I genuinely don't see why Israeli apartheid needs to be a separate article from Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I genuinely don't see why sexual apartheid needs to be a separate article from homophobia (and I'm saying that as an openly gay man, so it's not that I somehow lack understanding of the LGBT civil rights struggle). In a nutshell, I really don't see why any of this needs to exist apart from one brief disambiguation page that lists the pseudoapartheid terms in unwikified bold text, and then wikilinks to the actual more typical, normal and NPOV terms for the phenomena. I really, truly can't see why anything more than that is necessary. I'm a politically active radical-left gay man, for gawd's sake, and even I think describing the LGBT rights struggle as "apartheid" is vastly too far over the top to belong in an encyclopedia.

I have no objection to using "epithet" as a disambiguator if disambiguation is necessary and epithet is the most appropriate disambiguation term; the issue in the other situation is the fact that there's nothing to disambiguate it from, not so much the word "epithet" itself. The parenthetical "epithet" is actually less problematic in this case than the existing title, because apartheid only exists outside of South Africa as inappropriate analogies made by people who need to get a grip on reality. But I'd still ultimately prefer that we handle this whole pile of hot potatoes very differently than this in the first place. Bearcat 07:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ONe could just as easily say that there is: "emphatically no consensus on no parenthetical references to 'epithets'".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Or, most accurately, "there is emphatically a policy absolutely forbidding the use of any parenthetical references in an article whose title does not need to be disambiguated from another thing with the same name." Bearcat 09:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Move

User:Guy Montag has suggested that the page Apartheid outside of South Africa be moved to Apartheid (political epithet). Do other editors agree? CJCurrie 06:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

this is a very good dierction the real issue here is "using".

So haw abou:t use of the term apartheid as political epithet ? Zeq 09:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like that suggestion. That's an appropriate use of disambiguating parens. IronDuke 17:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's factually incorrect to label all references to Apartheid outside of South Africa as an epithet - particuarly given international law. Homey 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

They are all alleged references, references that are impossible to prove given that there are no legal ways to determine what constitutes apartheid or who has the authority to determine apartheid. It is all hearsay and anectdotal evidence. Guy Montag 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion (as I made elsewhere) would be to move this to Apartheid and include a small secion on South africa, so that there is a good general starting page. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim,

There are really two distict subjects:

1. apartheid
2. use of the word apartheid outside the context of south africa

The 2nd one is aclear attempt (maybe justified maybe not) to use a "marketing ploy" and associate the negative image of that word with something that propegannists want to create a negative image to. Zeq 19:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, your position is unsustainable given the recognition of apartheid as a crime under international law - a crime not specific to South Africa. Homey 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you are right, based on what I have seen untill now, it is used very different. However, I come from the user, who hears the term apartheid mentioned in a specific context and decides to go to wikipedia and type it in (without qualifyers). Where do they end up? Currently at the wrong place, get forwarded to the disambig page, which does not explain anything as well, and have to click on again. So, my proposal would be to have a good general page about the term, and it derived usages, because that is what the user expects, not the extensive political manouvering that admins and editors are doing at the moment violating many of the basic policies and guidelines of wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would support a pagemove to simply Apartheid, as it's the simpler and less counter-intuitive title, but I must strongly oppose a pagemove to Apartheid (epithet) (or any variant thereof, like Apartheid (political epithet) or Apartheid (term)), as it flies in the face of Wikipedia policies regarding the use of parentheses in articles. I strongly recommend reading my argument at Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(epithet)#Original_research, where I explained the numerous problems in such a biased (so why isn't homosexual agenda moved to homosexual agenda (epithet)? etc.) and redundant (if X redirects to X (epithet), we're just being unnecessarily circuitous; simpler is better) page-name. -Silence 19:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is unreasonable to argue that apartheid in the broaders sense that fit an enecyclopedia exist anywhere outside south africa. Clearly any user typing the word in wikipedia search should be direct to the apartheid regimn in south africa. period. Zeq 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I think that your objectives to minimise the effect of Israeli apartheid are actually better served by having a single apartheid page, than to continue the current situation. Search engines and various oher websites just repeat the pages, and having a page name under that (in whatever form) is actually the best way to ensure that everybody will find it really easy, without the nessecary context that a apartheid page could provide ny solidly underpinning the original and current usgae of the term. In general, seperate pages increase the visibility of the term, with or without qualifiers. As an illustration, I deleted the redirect Apartthide which as far as I can tell was not a valid spelling, nor a common misspelling. A quick search at google provided many links, all directed to one source, this redirect. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kim that it is nutty for us *not* to have an article called Apartheid. Perhaps what we can do is move Apartheid (disambiguation) to Apartheid and then merge Apartheid outside of South Africa into it while expanding the section on South Africa in what is now the disambig page so it provides a one page lead into the separate South African article just as the *this* page currently has a one paragraph lead in to the separate Israeli article? Homey 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

removed comment based on request. Zeq 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not "arguing" that apartheid exists outside of South Africa by not redirecting all Apartheid searches to that page. It is merely noting the fact (which even you explicitly agree upon, even if you consider such uses illegitimate) that the word apartheid is not-uncommonly used in many contexts other than the history of South Africa. As such, a general Wikipedia article on the topic, even if only to explain that the usage is only ever correct with respect to South Africa (which you'd need a reputable cite to support, of course), is relevant and useful.
• I see no pressing reason not to simply have a top-level "Apartheid" article for the concept in general (particularly for its applicability in international law, as noted above), which should mention in the very first paragraph something like: "The term apartheid is most commonly used in reference to the official policy of political, legal, and economic racial discrimination against nonwhites formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa. However, it has also come into general usage as a term for any policy or practice involving the separation of different groups, especially where racial segregation is involved."
• Just because it's a controversial and potentially inflammatory term doesn't mean we can't have a cogent, neutral article discussing it; we have articles on dozens of terms that are many times more loaded than this. If anything, it's more important to have articles on controversial topics like this, as it's all the more necessary for Wikipedia to provide a neutral, factually-accurate, and well-referenced account of the controversies involved in order to properly inform readers who might otherwise unwittingly step into a minefield of controversy. -Silence 20:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, content disputes are outside of ArbComm's purview.Homey

Good night everyone. Zeq 20:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

Ok, everyone, especially silence seems to have good points.

How about having a subsection within the apartheid article about Allegations of Apartheid outside South Africa. Here is what the opening paragraph would look like:

"The term apartheid is most commonly used in reference to the official policy of political, legal, and economic racial discrimination against nonwhites formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa. However, it has also come into general usage as a term for any policy or practice involving the separation of different groups, especially where racial segregation is involved." Allegations of apartheid compare the actions of various nations to those of South Africa under apartheid, especially in relation to their treatment of groups who are perceived to be discriminated against. Because there is little international agreement on how to establish standards for what constitutes officially sanctioned apartheid, the use of the term 'apartheid' outside of the South African context is considered by many as purely a political epithet to advance a political agenda against the country or society the allegation is aimed against. This section describes the various uses for the term apartheid throughout the world.

Then we can have everything on one page. Comments? Guy Montag 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please work this out. Way way too much discussion through edit summaries here. Calm down a bit and work this out. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why this article repeats itself at the end? --J.

Funcky. With permission, I will remove the second copy tonight. If someone objects, let me know. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It does occasionally happen that a simple edit causes the entire page to reduplicate itself. I haven't figured out exactly what causes it, but I have seen it happen before. Bearcat 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with an admin doing a housekeeping edit like that. Homey 15:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I will do it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Because the page is protected, I can't contribute anything there to try and resolve this mess, so I've attempted to salvage the contents with a revised version User:Silence/Apartheid. Still a lot of improvements to be made there, but I think it'd be a useful starting point for when we move this page to apartheid (and delete apartheid (disambiguation), of course). -Silence 16:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Centralised discussion

I have made a subpage at my userspace to centralise the wider discussion on the apartheid articles. I have made a proposal at User:KimvdLinde/Apartheid, and I invite others to come with thei proposals, and discuss those at the talk page User_talk:KimvdLinde/Apartheid. This fragmented discussion is not going to help us, so I invite everybody to come over and try to resolve this basic issue of which page with what content first. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research categorizations

For some strange reason the various Apartheid accusations have been sorted into various original research categories that are both unhelpful and inaccurate. For example, Saudi Arabia is classified under "gender apartheid", but half the references are to repression of religious minorities. Brazil is listed under "racial apartheid", but the article is quite clear that it is about "social apartheid" not "racial", and that this is more about social class than anything else. These POV titles and categories have to go. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I was just trying to get some better organization that a flat list. Please help out where you can. Best. --Ben Houston 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is with it being organized by country, as before; there aren't that many of them, about a dozen. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there are patterns. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran are very similar in that they are gender. Ireland is clearly religious. Maybe the problem is I tried to fully classify all of them -- there should be a mixed cat. --Ben Houston 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is also about religion, as pointed out above. In any event, the categories are original research, and they don't help. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a table would be useful at the start of the article since tables can handle easily one-to-many mapping? --Ben Houston 01:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Australia

The section on Australia begins by saying that "there is no existing Australian government policy that segregates Aborigines", but then goes on to claim that some have "characterize[d] the situation as apartheid". But a review of the associated links demonstrates no such thing. One of them is about supposed disability apartheid, and doesn't refer to aborigines at all. The other two only talk about the prospect of an apartheid system perhaps taking hold in Australia at some future time.

The basic premise then, that some folks have characterized Australia as an apartheid system is completely unsupported, and therefore the whole section should go. Gatoclass 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Structure and Terminology Guidelines, with new poll

I invite all concerned editors to User_talk:KimvdLinde/Apartheid where I've put a proposal for structure and terminology guidelines. Now with a thrilling set of questions too! Su-Laine Yeo 08:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

As it looks like things have cooled down somewhat. -- Samir धर्म 05:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that it's unprotected, proposing reorganization to clean up the many messy apartheid articles: eliminate apartheid (disambiguation) as unnecessary, move Apartheid outside of South Africa to Apartheid, and use the newly-moved article's lead section to explain and link to the word's major usages (including Apartheid in South Africa). -Silence 08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Zeq 13:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. fullsome prison 13:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the article to Apartheid according to Silence's suggestion.Sonofzion 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the original research re-organization which went on just before it was protected. The categories where wholly unsourced, and often inaccurate, as mentioned above. For example, Saudi Arabi has been accused of both religious and sexual apartheid. Accusations of Apartheid against Brazil can't really be classified as any of the titles used. Israeli has been accused of apartheid on any number of grounds. The artificial categories weren't working. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)